Original VS Unrestored??

[28pontiac]

Is the car Original, Unrestored or Restored?  This is a real question which comes up during many car events we all attend.  What do you call a car which is all original with low, low miles...beautiful original interior, chrome, trim, moldings, and glass, but has had a complete repaint somewhere in it's life due to dull paint?  

 

We know minor touch-ups and small repairs are allowed on original cars, but would a full repaint with everything else stock and original (except maintenance items) be referred to as perhaps Unrestored (since the car is not actually restored, but not completely original).

 

We see alot of these cars, especially '60's and '70's cars.  What are your thoughts, and the AACA's stance, on these type of cars??  Always a question at many car events!

[John_S_in_Penna]

2 minutes ago, 28pontiac said:

What do you call a car which is all original with low, low miles...beautiful original interior, chrome, trim, moldings, and glass, but has had a complete repaint...

There are not just those specific categories.

I constructively say, you already know the answer.

It would be the way you would describe it in an ad

if you were selling it:

"All original except for repainting."

[West Peterson]

A car that has had a paint job and even a new interior is not a restored car. I save "restored" for a car that has been taken apart, with all details made to look like new. I also refer to a shoddy "restoration" as an un-restored car.

[TAKerry]

A car that is as it left the factory/dealer complete with all original finishes save for replacement tires, battery, normal wear and tear stuff is 'original'. If it has all but a new paint job, it is 'original with a repaint'.  If it has been taken apart to any degree with new or refurbished components you are getting into the restored territory.

I see a lot of cars that will say completely original, with new interior and 1 repaint. In my world that would be a restored car.

[CChinn]

If the car was repainted, from my understanding of the category it would not qualify for the AACA Historic Preservation of Original Features (HPOF) class, so from an AACA perspective it is not considered original. Is it restored?  We already have 2 different viewpoints on that question

Edited June 19 by CChinn (see edit history)

[mrspeedyt]

my 41 cad sedan is a hodge podge of at least two cars. i refer to it as a 'surviving project' car. runs and drives but really needs everything. especially paint.  45 years ago it donated almost all its origional bolt on body parts to restore a rough drop top. and the rough conv parts are bolted onto the sedan. still fun to drive 'as is'. but no way is it origional or restored. and not preserved. it just survives.

Edited June 19 by mrspeedyt (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

1 hour ago, West Peterson said:

A car that has had a paint job and even a new interior is not a restored car. I save "restored" for a car that has been taken apart, with all details made to look like new. I also refer to a shoddy "restoration" as an un-restored car.

I trust that means engine, trans, rear end, radiator, heater, electrical harnesses, suspension wearable parts and bushings, brakes and brake parts etc. all restored to original new condition. Anything else is like putting on your best suit and having dirty/torn underwear.

[West Peterson]

2 minutes ago, Pfeil said:

I trust that means engine, trans, rear end, radiator, heater, electrical harnesses, suspension wearable parts and bushings, brakes and brake parts etc. all restored to original new condition. Anything else is like putting on your best suit and having dirty/torn underwear.

 

Indeed. Precisely. That's why I call a car with a paint job and a new interior as merely an unrestored car. A paint job does not mean a car is restored.

[28pontiac]

West, I am compelled to agree with you.  The specific car I am thinking of is an original car with a mint untouched original interior, mint chrome and trim, no motor or drivetrain work (brakes, tires, shocks and belts changed), and mint glass.  Everything that is considered an original car....except one repaint on a rust free body some 40+ years ago that still looks pretty nice.

 

Based on this, my feelings would lead me to calling it Unrestored.   It is not 100% untouched, but there is really only the repaint factor stopping it from being original.  I often see cars like this at events.  People often ask what to refer to them as.  So, does anyone else feel Unrestored would be correct term for cars like this?

[Paul Dobbin]

My 1935 Ford Pickup is a unrestored survivor that runs and drives as designed.   It failed to have the P in HPOF,

but it sure draws attention when we take it someplace.   The flathead V8 is peppy to drive but with 4:11 differential,

it's not a highway car.  It spent it's first 35 years as a Wisconsin farm truck before being brush painted and used a

small town parade truck.   The last 49 years a utility vehicle, 34 of which as my  utility truck.

Could it be restored?  Yes, but why?   You could buy a restored one for less than the cost of restoring this one.  

It won't win any restoration trophies, but it's enjoyed at most shows it attends, and it sure is fun to drive.  It even has 

a dummy in the back with a name tag, "Original Owner".   She rides back there with fake chickens, fake produce and 

real antique farm tools.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 19 by Paul Dobbin
Added Photo (see edit history)

[TAKerry]

2 hours ago, 28pontiac said:

West, I am compelled to agree with you.  The specific car I am thinking of is an original car with a mint untouched original interior, mint chrome and trim, no motor or drivetrain work (brakes, tires, shocks and belts changed), and mint glass.  Everything that is considered an original car....except one repaint on a rust free body some 40+ years ago that still looks pretty nice.

 

Based on this, my feelings would lead me to calling it Unrestored.   It is not 100% untouched, but there is really only the repaint factor stopping it from being original.  I often see cars like this at events.  People often ask what to refer to them as.  So, does anyone else feel Unrestored would be correct term for cars like this?

No drivetrain and a repaint does not make the car original IMO. Unrestored is ok, but I would have to call it unrestored modified. The paint has been modified and the motor is gone. At one time I classified cars into a 'survivor' category as well and still would consider this example as a 'survivor'. But as someone pointed out to me at on point, whether or not a car is a rust bucket or Pebble beach, they have 'survived', so that kinda throws a wrench in the works.

 

I think a HPOF car can have some repaint work, but the car needs to be mostly 'original'. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

[West Peterson]

1 minute ago, TAKerry said:

No drivetrain and a repaint does not make the car original IMO.

 

He didn't say no drivetrain... He said no drivetrain Work. In other words, it has not been worked on.

[TAKerry]

1 minute ago, West Peterson said:

He didn't say no drivetrain... He said no drivetrain Work. In other words, it has not been worked on.

I stand corrected, THANK YOU.  I was just explaining to my grandson RIF. Reading Is Fundamental, LOL.

 

If it were my car I would classify it as original with a repaint.

[J.H.Boland]

My '40 Packard coupe is original except for a vintage amateur paint job. Chrome and interior are original and presentable. I had the wheels restored before mounting new tires. Running boards are restored. I call this a rejuvenated survivor !

 

[Joe in Canada]

My 1912 I have been playing with the past few years i have done some work on. Rebuilt the drive line. It had a repaint in the 50s?  Bottom seat cushions in the 70s. I also left the trailer hitch on the rear axle it came with along with the dirt and grease underneath. Oh and a new radiator.  So is it restored? 

Second thought now is it classed as a second owner seeing I bought it from an 85 year old fellow that his grandfather bought the car new. His adult daughter wanted the money not the car and he was not happy.   

[West Peterson]

1 hour ago, Joe in Canada said:

My 1912 I have been playing with the past few years i have done some work on. Rebuilt the drive line. It had a repaint in the 50s?  Bottom seat cushions in the 70s. I also left the trailer hitch on the rear axle it came with along with the dirt and grease underneath. Oh and a new radiator.  So is it restored? 

  

No, not in my opinion. And not original, either. Just many years of maintenance that slowly transformed it from "original" to "unrestored." No restoration involved whatsoever. Some may have considered the paint job in the 1950s a restoration, but in today's terms, I'd say not.

[MCHinson]

I have a similar problem with my most recent purchase. It is a 1979 Buick Riviera with just over 10,000 miles on the odometer. It shows signs of a significant repaint (not quite sure if it was a total repaint or a partial repaint, but I think the repaint takes it out of HPOF entry, which is sort of sad.) I think I might be able to do some major chassis cleaning and perhaps enter it and compete for a First Junior, but HPOF would really be a better place for it, except for the paint work. My other current cars are clearly DPC cars, although they have never been restored, they both have older repaints. 

[Restorer32]

Then there is "restored to original".

[John_S_in_Penna]

Friends, I don't see much point in debating the terms.

"Unrestored" or "restored" are opposites, but those 2 words

can't possibly describe all cars and what has happened

to their conditions over many decades.

It would be like having 0% or 100% with no choices in between

 

7 hours ago, MCHinson said:

[my] 1979 Buick Riviera with just over 10,000 miles...significant repaint...takes it out of HPOF entry...might be able to do some major chassis cleaning and perhaps enter it and compete for a First Junior, but HPOF would really be a better place for it, except for the paint work. 

For Matt's Riviera, I would choose the judged classes,

where the car can be with others of its age.   Check

the box for "Do Not Judge" unless he wants an award.

Everyone will enjoy seeing a beautiful car, whether the

paint is new or old and whether or not it has a trophy.

The AACA system is set to handle all sorts of situations.

[31 LaSalle]

12 hours ago, J.H.Boland said:

My '40 Packard coupe is original except for a vintage amateur paint job. Chrome and interior are original and presentable. I had the wheels restored before mounting new tires. Running boards are restored. I call this a rejuvenated survivor !

 

I CALL IT A NICE CAR

[drhach]

Doesn't the term "original" depend on whether you're buying or selling?  Technically wouldn't changing the oil and putting air in the tires make the car "unoriginal"? If you can excuse that and call them wear items, then it seems you could go down that slope all the way to calling everything on the car a wear item if you use the car as intended. I think I get the spirit of what's being said, but the reality of it seems to be a very subjective target. 

[West Peterson]

27 minutes ago, drhach said:

Doesn't the term "original" depend on whether you're buying or selling?  Technically wouldn't changing the oil and putting air in the tires make the car "unoriginal"? If you can excuse that and call them wear items, then it seems you could go down that slope all the way to calling everything on the car a wear item if you use the car as intended. I think I get the spirit of what's being said, but the reality of it seems to be a very subjective target. 

If it wasn't subjective, we wouldn't be having this conversation. 😃

[drhach]

1 hour ago, West Peterson said:

If it wasn't subjective, we wouldn't be having this conversation. 😃

So true. I always enjoy reading other peoples' perspectives on these things. 

[GrumpyJim]

Look at my two pics in signature. The wagon is what I call a " Cosmetic Restoration ". I stripped the original paint and refinished the exterior and bumpers re-chromed. The original drive line and interior have been detailed. The Chrysler is what I refer to as a "Survivor". Even though the rear fenders have been painted at some point. The car retains at lease 90 percent of its original finish.

[V16]

Here is an untouched original car that has been lovingly maintained for the last 92 years, all original paint, interior and drive train. Only the tires have been updated.

[V16]

[28pontiac]

That's a beautiful Packard.  After all the input here,  this car brings up a great example for the Original vs Unrestored topic.

 

So take this exact car, all original with only a few wearable maintenance items replaced.  We can all agree it is considered an 'Original' car.   Now take this exact original car and lets say it was repainted once in it's life.  So, now what would the car be referred to as?   Not Original, not Restored. 

 

I have been told the term 'Unrestored' would still apply because the car is still so original, and has not been completely restored.  Would anyone agree with this thought process?  This is a description many of us are unsure how to best describe cars like this.

[GrumpyJim]

I think it like art. It's subjective. Everyone is going to have a different view. Not everyone is going to be wrong with their assessment.

 

[TAKerry]

1 hour ago, 28pontiac said:

That's a beautiful Packard.  After all the input here,  this car brings up a great example for the Original vs Unrestored topic.

 

So take this exact car, all original with only a few wearable maintenance items replaced.  We can all agree it is considered an 'Original' car.   Now take this exact original car and lets say it was repainted once in it's life.  So, now what would the car be referred to as?   Not Original, not Restored. 

 

I have been told the term 'Unrestored' would still apply because the car is still so original, and has not been completely restored.  Would anyone agree with this thought process?  This is a description many of us are unsure how to best describe cars like this.

Yes, indeed a beautiful automobile. Hypothetically its completely original but has had 1 repaint. I would not consider it restored but original with a repaint. I think stating the 'repaint' is important to the history of the car. Paint is the first line of defense that someone sees on a car. Not whether or not the motor has been rebuilt or even if it runs. The first thing that catches the eye (other than overall design of the car) is the paint/colour.  In another perspective, the car is completely original with only 1 repaint but that repaint was in a horrible colour that does not match the style/era of the auto. Would you still call it original at that point?

 

I agree that this is a subject to disagree on. Very objective. No really wrong answers and everyone should be happy with the car they have regardless of its condition.

[Chry54]

i judge survivor cars. my criteria is loose, but it all depends on whether you want to give as much recognition as possible to make the most car owners happy at the show. the story of the car can make a difference, as well as who the current owner is and what they plan on doing with the car. i want them to come back to our show, so i am a little generous.however, you do not want to anger people who have very original cars versus those that are on the cusp,      so far i am doing alright.       dennis

[TTR]

6 hours ago, 28pontiac said:

a few wearable maintenance items* replaced.    

* I consider all "wearable maintenance items" and alike, i.e. belts, fluids, tires, etc as "consumables".

 

6 hours ago, 28pontiac said:

Now take this exact original car and lets say it was repainted once in it's life.  So, now what would the car be referred to as?. 

IMO, "Repainted".

 

As far as I know "restored" is probably the most commonly misused term in the old car hobby.

"Completely/fully restored" is probably the second most ...

 

[West Peterson]

13 hours ago, TTR said:

 

As far as I know "restored" is probably the most commonly misused term in the old car hobby.

"Completely/fully restored" is probably the second most ...

 

 

... and "Restored to Original."

[playswithbrass]

Back when, they repainted cars on any whim and any excuse. I don’t think everyone realizes that. 

[TTR]

38 minutes ago, West Peterson said:

 

... and "Restored to Original."

While probably not "the third most ...", still a perfect example of a misnomer. 😉

Edited Saturday at 03:10 PM by TTR (see edit history)

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

15 hours ago, TTR said:

* I consider all "wearable maintenance items" and alike, i.e. belts, fluids, tires, etc as "consumables".

 

IMO, "Repainted".

 

As far as I know "restored" is probably the most commonly misused term in the old car hobby.

"Completely/fully restored" is probably the second most ...

 

 

 The very reason I referred to mine as " refurbished".

 

  Ben

 

 

[JV Puleo]

I think this is a largely pointless discussion simply because the terms are so subjective. Personally, I don't think a repaint makes a car restored...the same with a new interior but that is extent of many high end restorations. Were it so, many of the highly "restored" cars, including some prominent prize winners would hardly qualify. As for original paint...how do you tell if a 1922 car was repainted in 1926 or a brass car, from an era when it was commonplace to paint expensive cars every year, is in "original" paint? You can't...

[West Peterson]

Yup. Pretty much what I said in the third post.

[TTR]

1 hour ago, JV Puleo said:

I think this is a largely pointless discussion simply because the terms are so subjective. Personally, I don't think a repaint makes a car restored...the same with a new interior but that is extent of many high end restorations. Were it so, many of the highly "restored" cars, including some prominent prize winners would hardly qualify. As for original paint...how do you tell if a 1922 car was repainted in 1926 or a brass car, from an era when it was commonplace to paint expensive cars every year, is in "original" paint? You can't...

I believe it relatively easy to tell whether a car has its original, i.e. “born with” (for lack of better expression), paint, as it is quite rare to see a color change or update that equals to OEM methods.

I think it’s quite unlikely any repainted cars +/-100 years ago were completely disassembled and stripped of all original paint materials, especially if done for the fashion or refreshment update.

One just have to be able to tell the difference and/or willing to dig into deeper forensics by removing some exterior or interior paneling/trim/etc. Just like verifying the extent or quality of a “complete/full restoration”.

 

I’ve done both on numerous occasions.

Edited Saturday at 06:50 PM by TTR (see edit history)

[JV Puleo]

Here's a real life example.

I had a 1911 REO tourer in what looked to be original paint. It was black and the REO advertising material does not mention that color.  I take that with a grain of salt though because at that point all cars were brush painted individually. Also, changes made during production very often don't show up in the advertising material which, give the complexity of producing it at the time, often doesn't reflect production changes. There was absolutely no indication it had been any other color but by a very odd set of circumstances I was able to find and speak to a man who had owned it before WWII. He told me that he'd had it painted in 1937. This was in the late 70s...so this car had been painted when it was 26 years old and I was looking at it 50 years later. In theory, a chemical analysis of the paint may have given it away since the 1937 paint was almost certainly a lacquer. However, the brush paint used when it was new was also a lacquer so you'd need some fairly sophisticated knowledge of the evolution of paint formulas to be certain. All this is far beyond anything we can expect in automotive work

[kfle]

This is an interesting topic and let's bring it back to the AACA a minute.  I have the only 1911 Cole Toy Tonneau that is known to survive.  It has original interior, original linoleum, original etching on presto lite tank under the presto lite cover, original top, and even the original spark plugs still in the engine.  An early spare tire is even flat and hard as a rock on the running board.   Here is the thing, the body itself was repainted/overpainted in the 1947 with the pinstriping redone, however it was only the body and hood that was repainted as well as the front of the frame.  The rest of the frame after the top of the front springs is actually the original paint and pin striping.  

 

So if I was going to bring this to Hershey in the fall for the AACA show, what class would I put this in?  Technically, I think it has had too much repaint to be in the HPOF class and most of the other classes would encourage me to restore the thing which would be a huge travesty as this is truly a time capsule of a car.  When we consider preservation of many of these cars, paint was considered maintenance just like changing tires, hoses, etc. so I think there needs to be much more thought put into this topic.