Consensus or views on over-restoration

[Guest imported_JPIndusi]

In doing restoration work on my 1948 Buick Special Sedanet I came across 2 NOS parts in the trunk of the car from the previous owner.

I installed NOS rear bumper guards on the newly rechromed rear bumper. While they look nice, it is obvious that the bumper is finished to a higher quality. My general impression is that NOS or original parts were not finished to the level of todays average restoration.

Another case involves an air cleaner part that is NOS and is finished in essentially a small step above flat black. I see photos of high point restored cars with very glossy black air cleaners and radiator tanks.

While I may never enter this car in a Buick 400 point judged meet, what is the consensus regarding these issues?

Do the judges really care if the engine compartment, for example, is clearly over-restored? After all, these cars were production line products.

Does the over-restored vehicle get more points than a more nearly correct but less attractive car?

Hope I don't start an argument here.

Joe, BCA 33493

[Aaron65]

I'll chime in because I'll never own a really nice car--I treat the too much like common drivers. I like the look of an overrestored car, but I'm just as excited to see a faded original. Personally, I'd rather see factory restored vehicles because they don't make mine look as bad!

[Reatta Man]

If your goal is to win competitions, then building a trailer queen is the way to go.

If you want to enjoy your car (and your work and money) then building a very nice driver is the way to go.

Of course, some (I think most) members are somewhere in between. They don't drive their VERY nice Buicks in bad weather, unless they roll the dice and drive to the national meet or a large regional. Then, once there, they detail the living daylights out of their car, take their chances in the competition, and enjoy catching up with old friends.

In other words, there's room for everyone.

[Ron Green]

Unless you have all your parts chromed together say like a front bumper typically a part will stick out that isn't in the same batch of chroming or was in decent shape and was reused. A NOS piece generally has some slight shelf wear and will also be noticeable depending on where it is located.

The key for the correct shade of black is doing the research ahead of the restoration. Find out what parts were factory flat black, 60% gloss and gloss so all is and looks correct when you are finished. It will always look somewhat over restored even if all is the correct shade as everything is fresh.

Go ahead and do it right and get your awards if that is what you like and want. A show car restoration will start to deteriorate fast enough. You can always make a trailer queen a driver, but never make a driver a trailer queen.

[NTX5467]

As time progresses, overly restored vehicles are deemed to be "correct" when they are not (including "show chrome" rather than "OEM chrome" finishes). In one respect, this is highly unfortunate. People just want them to look nicer than they originally did, which is understandable, but not fully researching what is really correct rather than what is correctly correct leads to these indiscretions. Not to forget that some are not fully aware of where to get the correct items, too (for various reasons). One common indiscretion is glossy black paint where GM (or whoever else) NEVER put glossy black paint. Current GM Glossy Black Engine Enamel (which matches air cleaner black paint on GM and Chrysler models perfectly, meaning not fully glossy black) works well for underhood and some chassis items, from my experience.

Just some quick thoughts . . .

NTX5467

[Smartin]

Also keep in mind that "NOS" part finishes aren't always what they looked like when the car rolled off the assembly line. Changes in procedure or vendors will make a huge difference when referring to how parts are finished.

[Guest John Chapman]

As an old hand once said to me. If you put a factory fresh 1965 car on the lot today, you wouldn't be able to give it away due to the sorry fit and finish. We're taking cars originally built to Tonka Toy quality and restoring them to Lexus standards.

JMC

[imported_buick5563]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As time progresses, overly restored vehicles are deemed to be "correct" when they are not (including "show chrome" rather than "OEM chrome" finishes). In one respect, this is highly unfortunate. People just want them to look nicer than they originally did, which is understandable, but not fully researching what is really correct rather than what is correctly correct leads to these indiscretions. </div></div>

The following is my opinion only, and I will stand by it.

As the owner of a car which could definitely be considered over restored, i.e. glossy paint instead of flat, show chrome, etc., let me at least explain my particular thinking.

Many people THINK my 55 is a trailer queen due to it's current existence. It has a cover in a garage, not under trees or exposed to the elements, birds, cats, rats, what have you. As most of you know from threads regarding Nationals trips the past two years, I drive my car...hard, really hard. I expect it to perform like any new car. I KNEW before I restored it that there were aspects that were not original. I painted my inner fenders, engine compartment grill parts semi gloss. Air cleaner- hi gloss. My personal thinking behind this was (and is) that it is easier to keep clean. This is absolutely true.

Show chrome is minimally more expensive, when you are talking the difference between five and six thousand dollars. It's off, pay the extra dough. NTX's point regarding lack of research is well taken. I, however did the research and decided to do it "my way". I have heard that points should not be taken from cars that were over restored, and Pete Phillips in last years judging meeting said to take points for wrong gloss. I totally admit my car is over restored and should not be the end all- be all for judging standards. I would feel bad if someone did not do well at a show because mine was judged first and the INEXPERIENCED judge decided to dock points for "incorrect gloss" on a "competitors" car. I actually totally agree with Willis on this point.

I did duplicate many inspection and assembly marks during my restoration that SHOULD be respected and noted for historical accuracy.

Like I said, just my opinion,

Mike

[Guest imported_Thriller]

Having signed up for judging for Bellevue, I've spent some time recently in the Judging Manual (also to try to get the best bang for the buck for the Wildcat in terms of minimizing deductions). I'm pretty sure it is stated there that points are not to be deducted for over-restoration - that is, we are judging against how the car came off the assembly line.

I'm a bit unsure / ambivalent as to where I stand on this. Try telling a body shop that you are going to have them do thousands of dollars of work, but you don't want today's quality of paints, nor the benefit of having some clear coat over the colour so that small scratches aren't as obvious. As for things like level of gloss under the hood, I'm really at a loss, since quite frankly, I don't normally focus on that. If it is clean and original-appearing, I like it. If it is too flashy with chrome, I can appreciate the time/effort/money to get it to look like that, but it isn't so much in my tastes.

If you want to win at BCA events, you'll want to adhere to correctness. If you want to win at ordinary local shows, go for shiny.

[NTX5467]

Adam makes a good point! From what I know, the first batch of replacement parts were generally run with those parts that went to the assembly line (in whatever estimated quantity). This ensured that while the vehicle is still new, any collision-related parts will be "as the original". When that particular part's quantities were being close to being depleted, a decision would be made as to how many (and from where) the next batch of the particular part would come from. It could be from the same vendor or a different one, with the prevailing GM Parts Quality levels being maintained in all cases.

In some cases, the suppliers for the accessory items (even if they were assembly line available accessories) might be different from the OEM production/replacement parts suppliers. Although they might meet the same quality standards, they could have a little different look about them.

As the vehicle's age progresses, it has seemed that some then-currently-available parts were allowed to be accepted that might not have been accepted when the vehicle was newer. For example, at one time the front bumper for a '70 Corvette was what I'd consider "rough" for a new part. The chrome underlay operations left finishing scratches that were not filled in with the progressive layers of metal, for example. I did not blame customers if they did not want it rather than a rechromed item, but the color of the chrome was OEM and that mattered. "Color of the chrome", you ask?? Yes. Different shades of chrome--some white, some blue, some brighter than others--not to mention surface smoothness.

Another example was the quarter panel Chevrolet emblem for '55 Chevy BelAir models. The basic casting was not fully finished (casting flash and such were still there) prior to the top coats of "gold" and paint. As with the Corvette front bumper, I didn't blame people if they didn't want that on their freshly restored car--even if the part was "new GM". This was before that particular item was in repro--by a decade plus.

On the issue of the bumper guards not matching the rechromed bumper . . . When a part is chromed for a production vehicle, it receives (from what I've seen) a highly calibrated amount of the base metals and then the top coat we call "chrome". As the base part is new, it's base smoothness is pretty good. This allows thinner layers of the various metals under the shiney top metal coat, for example. From what I've seen, with a production door handle on something like a '55 GM car, when you look at the handle itself under flourescent lights, looking closely, you'll probably see some of the lighter finish sanding marks under the base metal--not deep, but just a hint. Then, you can also see the swirl marks from the final buffing wheel action, just like you'd see after a wax job on shiney paint (in some cases). When you look at the item from a distance and even quite closely, you'll see a nice and shiney item, but when you look much more closely, you see the things I've mentioned. I have also seen these things on Chrysler products too and suspect others are similar. These would be things that you might not notice at first glance, but when you know to "key" on them, they are easy to see. But when you find the same part in repro or rechrome, everything's glass smooooth, possibly with some of the finer details dulled with the thicker underlayment layers under the top coat or too much polishing near the sharper edges.

As for "show chrome", it will be the brightest and shinest variation. In some cases, if there are some embossed designs in the base metal, they can disappear with the higher build thickness. If you know what the OEM part is supposed to look like, you can tell how much more build thickness the show chrome item has. Some shops do a better job of staying true to the original but I've also seen examples of some shops that just did too much with the underlayment metal layers.

Back when all vehicles had real chrome bumpers (as in the middle 1980s), every metro area had at least one bumper rechroming shop (sometimes with multiple outlets). The chrome they did was basically OEM-style/level work. If you wanted something "extra", that cost a little more (as if you had a "show car"). There were also more specialized shops that rechromed pot metal and such too, at great peril of the part "exploding" or breaking during the process. So you had to find the shop that best fit your needs and quality of work desires. Some of these smaller shops did chrome work, but some were definitely better than others--yet they all did "good" work.

So, although "shelf wear" on NOS-boxed chrome parts is a definite possibility, I would suspect such would be readily apparent to anybody that knew what they were looking at. That the color of the NOS-boxed chrome items might not match a rechromed bumper is not really surprising either, with all due respect, as the NOS items would have better matched the OEM original bumper when it was new than the rechromed item.

As for the over-restoration issue . . . I believe that is not a "deduct" point in the BCA 400 Point System judging. Still, as the level of execution of restorations continues to progress upward, over-restoration is becoming more accepted as "as it came" rather than "how we want to THINK it came". Many are restoring vehicles built prior to their birth (which is neat!), so research operations generally lead to over-restored vehicles for patterns of how things should be (including trophy winners at BCA National Meets).

A few things to consider . . . From what I've seen, GM has used (from, say, the middle '50s or so) different colors and finishes of black paint. There is "primer black", which parts were dipped in (yes, dipped . . . into a vat with paint floating in a layer on top of water), which explains the "runs" in the primer on replacement parts. In the GM Parts "Standard Parts" listings, it's also called "Reconditioning Black", available in gallons and aerosol--or used to be. When sprayed, though, it does not match how the parts looked after they were dipped. This paint was somewhat porous as it'd show EVERY oily fingerprint on it--which would be good to know before you put paint on it. This is also the paint that was on the inner fender skirts too, when they were not body color.

Then, there's also the GM Glossy Black Engine Paint. The title says "glossy", but it's not a hard gloss. It perfectly matches the "air cleaner black" of the '70s and later, plus black engine brackets (even on Chryslers!). It does not show finger prints nearly as bad as the Recond Black does, being a "harder" finish. Not being a hard glossy black, it would also match '70s (and probably earlier) chassis black paint for anything under the car (or be close enough to not really matter as it's not "glossy" as we'd consider "glossy" nor as glossy as the "chassis black" sold by some restoration vendors). It can be used as normal aerosol or it can be sprayed into a small glass jar (carefully!) and then brushed onto smaller parts (with a high quality art brush--been there, done that, with good results).

As the sprayed Recond Black does not look as it should, I highly suspect the engine black can be substituted where appearances are concerned--especially if the final top coat is sprayed from a longer distance (and therefore, basically, a little "dry"). Things like core supports and even radiators on later model vehicles.

By obsevation, one of the most common indiscretions in restoration or refurbishing is "shiney paint where GM (or Ford or Chrysler or whoever) never put it". The shiney paint "shows" better at vehicle shows (extending the perception to the general public that it is "correct" when it is NOT), so people like to do it that way. Over-restoration? Yes. Correct? NO. Part of the orientation can come from wanting to "make it better than stock" with another part being from what paint was available at the local paint supplier or parts store--even some of the restoration paint vendors--rather than considering if it's really what should be there or not. In some cases, it might be possible to have a correctly-restored vehicle sitting next to an over-restored vehicle . . . the viewing public might comment how the over-restored vehicle was "as they used to be" and the other one is "not right" or didn't look as good or "didn't do as good of a job". With contributing factors being outer paint, chromed items, body sheet metal fit, correct bolts in the correct places. In some cases, a correctly restored vehicle will not "show" as well as an incorrectly-restored vehicle (including over-restoration). Unfortunately, we can't educate the complete veiwing public on these issues as that would be impossible and they might not believe us anyway. And life goes on . . .

Lots of different orientations and lots of different side issues!

Happy Trails!

NTX5467

[NTX5467]

On Derek's comment about paint . . . I don't know that modern basecoat/clearcoat paint is really better than the old Dupont Centauri Acrylic enamel or the similar acrylic lacquers of the 1960s and 1970s. One thing, it was "all paint" back then, with "clearcoats" being mainly for show cars--with clear on top of normal paint, build thickness (and related crazing with time and sun exposure) was an issue. In modern basecoat/clearcoat systems, there is less base color and the total build thickness with the added clearcoat is about what the normal paint job of prior years would have been. The clear is also there for UV ray absorption so the base color can last longer--at least that's what I remember from back then. So, the paint is a little thinner with the current OEM systems--and it's easier to hit primer with a shallow scratch (by observation).

With the earlier paint systems (lacquer and enamel), all you typically needed was a simple respirator or filter mask--to filter out the overspray from what you breathed. With the newer two-part paint systems, the full respirator is necessary to keep nasty chemicals out of your lungs (isocyanates?).

Even back then, there were different orientations about whether acrylic enamel was easier to work or if acrylic lacquer was easier to work. End result was that it all depended upon where the paint was being shot and what kind of paint was already on the vehicle from the factory. Personally, I like the durability of acrylic enamel (which also requires a much more dust-free environment to shoot). Now, everybody's typically got a good spray booth to paint in at the body shops. And, as in some of the things mentioned above, if you know what you're looking at, you could tell if the paint that was shot on the vehicle was lacquer or enamel.

As 5563 mentioned above, if you know how to selectively take some minor liberties in the restoration process, you can end up with something better than it should be and not be out of whack too much. To me, the fact that he went the extra mile to duplicate the INSPECTION MARKS/DAUBS outweighs the admited indiscretions he made in underhood paint gloss. In reality, it's the total package that matters PLUS intent (which is easily determined with a careful inspection).

Just as with building or remodeling a home, everybody has a little different orientation on some things/aspects of the whole situation. Just depends upon which "game" you want to play, so to speak. Sometimes you can play many games (BCA, AACA, local shows) with some well-planned and carefully disguised indiscretions/alterations/enhancements in several areas. Some will make the vehicle easier to maintain and care for in the long run, which can ultimately make it more valuable--even if it's not totally OEM-production-correct.

Happy Trails!

NTX5467

[Matt Harwood]

As far as colors and gloss levels go, if the car is older, like a pre-war car, there aren't many people around who saw them when they were new. And those guys probably can't say with any certainty. I'm always puzzled by the gloss issue--it could have been different day to day at the factory depending on who was supplying the paint.

I'm not talking about the difference between flat and high gloss, but the subtleties in between. If my 60% gloss is a little too glossy or my flat isn't completely flat, how do they know? My thought has been that if it is close, it should be considered correct. I have three grades of black that I use: 30% gloss (flat), 60% gloss (semi), and high gloss. Who is to say that there's too much or too little gloss? To what do we compare it?

I also like the look of contrasting gloss levels in an engine compartment--it gives it a more highly-detailed look than just shiny black everywhere. It certainly LOOKS more authentic to most observers.

And don't get me started about nit-picking the exterior shades of paint--unless you have an unmolested car with original paint tucked under trim that has never been off, it's pretty hard to tell what the original color <span style="font-style: italic">really</span> looked like. I've known guys to agonize over three very similar shades of a color, unsure of which one was most authentic. There's just no way to know in most cases.

[64BuickCat]

Engine-wise, I for one would not restore an engine to factory specs. By this, I mean that I wouldn't have over spray on the fuel filter, for example. Doing a job on a one off basis will result in a better job in most cases as opposed to a production line. Take a look at this 64 Wildcat rolling chassis. It's too pretty for the assembly line. http://forums.aaca.org/showflat.php?Cat=...ge=0#Post292486

[TxBuicks]

Page 4 of the BCA Judges Manual (found elsewhere on this website) clearly states that no deductions should be taken for over-restoration. The point is to compare the car to factory standards. If the item exceeds factory standards, it's alright, and no deductions should be taken. It gives an example of two identical cars, except one has a better paint job than the other. If the lessor of the two still meets or exceeds factory specifications, than it should not be pentalized just because it is not as nice as the one with the better paint.

[Guest brh]

I know over-restoration is one of those gray areas. Having an original car that needs detailing has posed more than one problem I have yet to get to. I too enjoy a faded original, just as much as the fellow that takes a complete basket and turns it into a show piece. I would take issue with someone nicking a member over too much gloss, too much metal flake (yes I heard of this one) etc. As long as something was not chromed that was not supposed to be or some such thing, what is the problem? Yeah I will put clear coat on my alternator once its cleaned along with the carb, cause I don't want to spend time cleaning these things. Did the factory do this--no. But it is presented in its original form. This can go all ways but I just never want to be the person that puts so much in the car I am afraid to fire her up and take it for a spin for the heck of it. If a trailer queen makes ya happy go for it. Just my 2 cents---well maybe 3 or 4.

[NTX5467]

Matt makes a good point about variations in paint (especially underbody/underhood body areas) with regard to when the vehicle was built and in what factory. While there are specs which are laid out in the assembly manuals, how things really worked out was the the result of who was holding the spray gun or assembly inspection marking fixture at the particular time the vehicle went past them. Although the gloss would typically not change (as the paint would be bought in massive bulk to particular specs), the amount of paint or undercoat coverage would. In a few cases, due to what local paint vendors would supply (still meeting the GM carline's purchase specs) can and has varied from plant to plant, even in outer finish coats (in a very few cases)--by observation. End result, to be totally correct, match (as best you can, with certain benchmarks) what was on your car when you disassembled it (with picture documentation).

Happy Trails!

NTX5467

[imported_buick5563]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I also like the look of contrasting gloss levels in an engine compartment--it gives it a more highly-detailed look than just shiny black everywhere. It certainly LOOKS more authentic to most observers.

</div></div>

I agree with Matt completely on this one. The contrast makes an engine compartment pop. That Wildcat chassis is gorgeous, although on my car I did try to overspray on the distributor (since it was mounted when the engine was painted at the factory ( as was the fuel pump)). I like the subtleties with any car at any show. The chrome issue as far as engine accessories goes, can be overdone too. Again...contrast, even with customized rides.

Remember, when I was restoring my 55, I had two Senior cars and an original to compare mine to. I was instructed where flat paint was supposed to be and, well, kinda ignored it <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />. I listened to Willie when I really needed to. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mike

[Bill Stoneberg]

I sure wish I would have read this post BEFORE we judged your car in Batavia. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

[imported_buick5563]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I sure wish I would have read this post BEFORE we judged your car in Batavia. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>

Bill,

I'm glad you didn't know anything before you judged my car in Batavia.

Thanks for the Senior. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Mike

p.s. either way the belts still would have lined up

[Dandy Dave]

While redoing my 15 Buick Engine last year I completely striped all the paint from a definet wrong color to detailing it the way I thought it would look best as no one seemed to know what was correct from so many years ago.

The way it was....Notice that the lub tags were painted over (On top of the timeing cover.) and also the Starter generator was completely painted including the information plates. At any rate I do not think it was that way when new. And this was done by a supposed restorer???. They did a nice job on the body and upolstery but the car was a total mechanical mess. You should have seen the rust in the fuel tank! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> This was once a museum car! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Presto... changeo..... The way it is. It may not be one hundered pecent right??? but who knows???? It is a lot better than the shotty job that it was. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Dave!

So..... For such an early car do you fellows think it is over restored? I do consider it a driver and do drive it to shows that are not to far away.

[Guest my3buicks]

I think we are all guilty of over-restoration to some point, let me rephrase that, I KNOW we are all guilty of over-restoration to some point. But it has always been my thinking that if something is way over-restored or wrong finish used such as GLOSS BLACK on a part that should be satin or flat, then a deduction should be taken, that part that is painted an obvious gloss black is no more correct finished than a car that is painted a totally non -authentic color for the year. The continual over-looking of incorrect or non-authentic finishes is slowly but surely eraising what's correct and authentic in car-restorers and car-owners minds. To keep up with the Jones, you almost have to over-restore to remain competitive. While the over-restored car is not supposed to do any better in a judged show than a correct finished restoration, let's face it it does. It's human nature. If you have to identical cars, and restore one correctly under the hood, and do the other in "Bling" sit and listen at a show, and see which one get's all the WOW comments, and see which one ends up victorious. I guess in summary, some deduction needs to be taken for obvious non-authentic type finish (AKA GLOSS) at the national level on parts that should not be finished that way. You can also keep an engine compartment looking fresh even if you drive them, my engine was last done in 1992, and has been driven MANY miles and it is still fresh, and still scores high at shows.(pic attached from last summer after 15 years of driving to shows)

[Guest BJM]

I can say this: This thread points out the need to know the cars in the BCA family that are low mileage archival quality originals and photograph the heck out of them with high quality film, digital and otherwise, and keep an official judges "scrapbook" - for lack of a better word of as many originals as possible.

This pertains mostly to this topic, interior fabric and style, not so much to body paint and chrome.

[old-tank]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Remember, when I was restoring my 55, I had two Senior cars and an original to compare mine to. I was instructed where flat paint was supposed to be and, well, kinda ignored it . I listened to Willie when I really needed to. </div></div>

Since I knew that Mike was going to drive his car all over the country to shows, I actually encouraged a glossier finish under the hood since it cleans up better than semi-gloss or flat and does not stain or water-spot as easily. It is also easier to match when touched up and any paint with flattener is less durable. I also knew for what the judges would and would not deduct points.

Willie

[JohnD1956]

PArt of the restoration decision has to include the relative rarity of the vehicle. Take Pete's 63 Wildcat with the 4 speed. Co'mon! That car should be restored correctly because it is so extremely rare. But something like my 56? If you've been to most any BCA show there are dozens of them. If I ever get the $ and get started, it will wind up modified. Meanwhile my GS, which is supposed to be one of 1200 + cars is also supposed to be rare, but everytime I turn around there's another one just like it. That car , if I keep it, will never be more than a driver and I only plan to refurbish the car. Forget about the Electra. That one is just practice and while I plan to use stock parts, it will be a modified assemblage built so it can be driven and enjoyed. Hopefully it will come out looking nice. Thats all I really want to do with any of them.

JD

[Ron Green]

I totally agree with your thoughts regarding the incorrect shades of black and a deduction should occur to those that want to show their vehicles at the national level. Only my opinion.

My brother is currently in the middle of a 6 year restoration of a highly desirable car and is painting things wrong black shade wise. He has all the books and phone numbers to verify what is correct however he is just to lazy to do the research. Spending big $$$ and loads of time for many things to be noticeably incorrect. It is his car and sometimes learning from your mistakes is the only way to learn, unfortunately.