|
Author |
Message |
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014 Posts: 6312 Location: Derby
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:30 pm Post subject: Restored or Original. |
|
|
I have always been conflicted between a good original old car or a a fully restored one. I could never really decide. That was until I looked at these photos. This old Bentley may be a little dog eared but it is a car which has been in one ownership from new until recently. The patina is charming. I could love this car if it came into my ownership.
If I had been able to sell the Dodge I would be picking up the phone.
I don't suppose there would be any chance of a swap?
https://www.classiccarsforsale.co.uk/bentley/mark+vi/279104 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ukdave2002
Joined: 23 Nov 2007 Posts: 4104 Location: South Cheshire
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Many restored vehicles look a bit plasticy, too much shine etc and I'd include my own restored MGA in this bracket. In 5 years time it may however have a desired / used look when things get a tad worn.
Dave |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014 Posts: 6312 Location: Derby
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your MG may settle down like you say but when I restored my Triumph GT6 I hated any little scratch or dent that I picked up. In 38 years I restored it twice; each time I returned it to "as new" condition but eventually I could only get pattern parts which were not very good so I sold it before it deteriorated again.
My Austin Swallow is panelled in aluminium and although it has been restored and re painted several times over the years (same colour) it inevitably has developed a gentle patina that only coach built cars can acquire. That is why the Mark V1 Bentley with it's standard steel body came as such a surprise.
In reality, I would probably not be the best person to own such a car knowing that it would not stand up well against other such cars. A friend of mine has a beautiful Mulliner bodied Mark V1 which makes the factory offering appear somewhat "dumpy'; add in the tired look and I might regret not going for a restored car... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peter scott
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 7118 Location: Edinburgh
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would go for a genuine unrestored good running but scruffy car over its concours equivalent any day.
(But people on this forum are probably tired of hearing me express this sentiment.)
Peter _________________ http://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rootes75
Joined: 30 Apr 2013 Posts: 3814 Location: The Somerset Levels
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I love the original look, something with some history and character. A lot of vintage commercials are restored so well these days they almost look out of place cause they are so far from their working life.
Each to their own though and you can't fault someone from saving a vehicle. _________________ Various Rootes Vehicles. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014 Posts: 6312 Location: Derby
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I appreciate there is a risk of going over old ground with this subject as we have discussed it before so I hope we can explore it again and maybe open a new chapter.
One of the most surprising things to come out of America recently is a backlash against all the over restored (and over priced) trailer queens. As seen on T.V. what some people are doing is returning extremely dilapidated vehicles to the road (not in the commonly seen 'rat rod' form) but in stock form with added decay.
I am not saying this is my preference but I do wonder if it will catch on here. For someone just getting into classic cars it could be a low cost option - and vehicles that many will have passed over might get saved.
I suppose the risk is that with the historic vehicle exemption from MoT inspection the image of the old car hobby could be damaged by people running around in old heaps that would probably have failed the test.
When I was a boy most people tended to look down on old cars and thought that people who ran them were "scruffy oiks" . I wouldn't want to go back to that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rootes75
Joined: 30 Apr 2013 Posts: 3814 Location: The Somerset Levels
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is funny how the trend has changed over time. When I started out with classics 20 odd years ago everyone wanted a restored car, now many search for the oily rag or barn find. _________________ Various Rootes Vehicles. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 Posts: 1953 Location: East Yorkshire
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | I suppose the risk is that with the historic vehicle exemption from MoT inspection the image of the old car hobby could be damaged by people running around in old heaps that would probably have failed the test. |
That does make me wonder......why is it that 'scruffy' [which is all subjective]..cars are 'assumed' to be unroadworthy?
My recent experiment..whereby I deliberately took my Dellow into a DVSA roadside check, proved my point..at least, to me, anyway. When a Police Sergeant mentioned tha around 80% or so of all the vehicles pulled over for checking, were found to be 'unroadworthy' in some respect or other. That's not 'old' vehicles, or scruffy vehicles...but vehicles even considered to be 'new'....vans lorries, and especially cars. We really are at more risk from unroadworthy vehicles made this century, than ever we are from unroadworthy vehicles over 40 years old.
Also, why is there an automatic assumption that, because as vehicle has an MoT, it is 'roadworthy?'
Don't forget, even one brake light out makes a vehicle 'unroadworthy'....never mind worn or damaged tyres, or worn out brake components....or structural corrosion.
On modern cars, that corrosion is very often hidden behind nice neat plastic coverings.....a neighbour's X-type Jaguar recently had to undergo entire sill replacement because of rust....yet nothing of the sort was 'visible.'
We are all guilty of assumption, when it comes to these things...and if our assumptions are proven, then why not say something pertinent to the owner? _________________ Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014 Posts: 6312 Location: Derby
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
At the risk of trawling over the old M.O.T. chestnut, I can only suggest that if modern cars are regularly failing the M.O.T. there is nothing to indicate that as a car gets older it becomes less likely to fail the Test. Some people look after their cars; others do not. The inspection by a qualified tester at least pulls up those who don't keep up with car maintenance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 Posts: 1953 Location: East Yorkshire
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ray White wrote: | At the risk of trawling over the old M.O.T. chestnut, I can only suggest that if modern cars are regularly failing the M.O.T. there is nothing to indicate that as a car gets older it becomes less likely to fail the Test. Some people look after their cars; others do not. The inspection by a qualified tester at least pulls up those who don't keep up with car maintenance. |
That's not quite the point I was making. There is quite a gulf between a vehicle passing an Mot...and vehicles being 'unroadworthy'.
The major gulf being, the vehicle only has to meet the [minimum] standards laid down by DVSA for the MoT test [and they are 'minimum']......at the hour, on the day.
Hence, the MoT test certificate is but a snapshot of vehicle condition, the possession of which too many road users pay over-much reliance.
Many other aspects of vehicle usage are covered by a lack of 'roadworthiness' too.
For example, the stability and security of a load?
It is interesting [to me] that incredibly few road incidents involving vehicles, are actually down the the lack of roadworthiness of those concerned.
I do wonder whether insurers should be brought more into the game?
Not by insisting on bits of electronic paper for a vehicle...but, in the event of a claim, a thorough, immediate examination of vehicles concerned for the maintenance-of-roadworthiness all policies insist on. _________________ Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ashley
Joined: 02 Jan 2008 Posts: 1426 Location: Near Stroud, Glos
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem is that regardless of whether they are patinated or perfectly restored, cars deteriorate. Therefore it’s nice to see either a well preserved or a really well restored car knowing the only way they’ll stay that way is if they’re preserved in a climate controlled garage and used little.
You also have to consider the problems of patinated cars. It’s easy enough to make them mechanically sound, but rust and rotting wood frames are another matter, unless of course, you are an admirer of deliberately aged examples as are finding their way into the VMCC at the moment. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rootes75
Joined: 30 Apr 2013 Posts: 3814 Location: The Somerset Levels
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not an advocate of deliberately ageing a vehicle. _________________ Various Rootes Vehicles. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014 Posts: 6312 Location: Derby
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I once thought I had "discovered" a hitherto unknown veteran car and contacted Mike Worthington Williams to see what he thought about it. For a while many people were taken in but eventually Mike worked out that someone had taken a 1906 model and aged it with replica parts in a deliberate attempt to pass it off as a potential London to Brighton runner; substantially increasing it's desirability and value as with all pre 1905 cars. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
colwyn500
Joined: 21 Oct 2012 Posts: 1745 Location: Nairn, Scotland
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rootes75 wrote: | I am not an advocate of deliberately ageing a vehicle. |
I agree...it completely misses the point.
As Ray and others have said, even the best restored cars will acquire a patination if they are used regularly and even an unused car kept in a controlled climate is likely to deteriorate in some respects.
I always prefer cars with that first-time patina over even most most authentic and meticulous restorations. But the contradiction is that when you have such a perfect "time-warp" vehicle there must be a pressure on you not to allow the condition of the vehicle to deteriorate.
So I'm happiest seeing and owning cars which have had essential maintenance and restoration carried out as required but where the owner has known just where to "draw the line". After fours years of continuous use since restoration, styling apart, my 50 year old car is now starting to look like one which is about ten years old; that feels good to me and it is one of many thing which encourage me to drive it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014 Posts: 6312 Location: Derby
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So does the 1948 Bentley Mark V1 that I linked to meet the "time warp" criteria or is it just a bit too tired? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|