How much restoration before a car is no longer "original"?
Discussion
I was watching an episode of Bangers & Cash on Freeview recently. There was a Mini Cooper S which was auctioned for £18k - a staggering amount to me, considering the state of it. It was so rusty I'd be surprised if more than 10% of the original car could be retained. The buyer said they'd probably have to source a new shell. To what extent can you rebuild a classic car from replacement and newly fabricated parts before it can be no longer considered "original"?
They can only be original once IMO.
Definitely would need to have original ,matching numbers engine and gearbox and maybe 80% plus original paint/ panels.
Consumables, suspension and wear and tear items can be sympathetically replaced/ restored whilst trying to retain a modicum of patina.
Definitely would need to have original ,matching numbers engine and gearbox and maybe 80% plus original paint/ panels.
Consumables, suspension and wear and tear items can be sympathetically replaced/ restored whilst trying to retain a modicum of patina.
hmg said:
They can only be original once IMO.
Definitely would need to have original ,matching numbers engine and gearbox and maybe 80% plus original paint/ panels.
Consumables, suspension and wear and tear items can be sympathetically replaced/ restored whilst trying to retain a modicum of patina.
Don't agree - for me it's more important to keep the car on the road - if originality is defined buy "as new or minimum new parts" all you can have is cars that are never driven museum pieces and they were built for so much more than that Definitely would need to have original ,matching numbers engine and gearbox and maybe 80% plus original paint/ panels.
Consumables, suspension and wear and tear items can be sympathetically replaced/ restored whilst trying to retain a modicum of patina.
Been tested in court over famous Bentleys a couple of times:
https://www.sportscarmarket.com/columns/legal-file...
And the 1990 Old Number One test case:
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/05/26/the-astou...
https://www.sportscarmarket.com/columns/legal-file...
And the 1990 Old Number One test case:
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/05/26/the-astou...
B'stard Child said:
hmg said:
They can only be original once IMO.
Definitely would need to have original ,matching numbers engine and gearbox and maybe 80% plus original paint/ panels.
Consumables, suspension and wear and tear items can be sympathetically replaced/ restored whilst trying to retain a modicum of patina.
Don't agree - for me it's more important to keep the car on the road - if originality is defined buy "as new or minimum new parts" all you can have is cars that are never driven museum pieces and they were built for so much more than that Definitely would need to have original ,matching numbers engine and gearbox and maybe 80% plus original paint/ panels.
Consumables, suspension and wear and tear items can be sympathetically replaced/ restored whilst trying to retain a modicum of patina.
Triggers broom anyone ?
B'stard Child said:
hmg said:
They can only be original once IMO.
Definitely would need to have original ,matching numbers engine and gearbox and maybe 80% plus original paint/ panels.
Consumables, suspension and wear and tear items can be sympathetically replaced/ restored whilst trying to retain a modicum of patina.
Don't agree - for me it's more important to keep the car on the road - if originality is defined buy "as new or minimum new parts" all you can have is cars that are never driven museum pieces and they were built for so much more than that Definitely would need to have original ,matching numbers engine and gearbox and maybe 80% plus original paint/ panels.
Consumables, suspension and wear and tear items can be sympathetically replaced/ restored whilst trying to retain a modicum of patina.
Agreed if they need it to keep them useable on the road then why not..
However classic cars have usually been over used, modified and abused,,repaired and restored, to be classed as original.
There are plenty of original museum cars that are no more than pieces of art.
I guess the OP question relates to originality vs restored and I still maintain a car can only be original once..You can nut and bolt a car with incredible attention to details with regard to maintaining factory originality……but it’s still a restored car.
But a reshell with a factory equivalent shell is OK. No different to when it was newish. A major accident, especially of a competition car would see it reshelled. In the old days it was why japanese cars had more expensive insurance because the japanese didn't make shells available, only panels.
TarquinMX5 said:
The matching-numbers 'ideal' is, or can be, bit of a joke as well when new/replacement engines (a Jaguar in the case I'm thinking of) are stamped with the original engine's number, thus retaining the 'matching-numbers holy grail.
Caveat emptor.
I know, I was watching that Hoovies Garage where he is at pains to keep a matching numbers E type when as you say it’s probably a renumbered block.Caveat emptor.
I know the lad who restored that Cooper S shell, he's a genius with a welder and sheet metal and did some work on my old Mk1 Mini.
He build this Minisprint a few years ago - sectioned over the entire body at mid height and, also, the roof. His work is stunning. Does it as a hobby rather than his fulltime job.
He build this Minisprint a few years ago - sectioned over the entire body at mid height and, also, the roof. His work is stunning. Does it as a hobby rather than his fulltime job.
tr7v8 said:
But a reshell with a factory equivalent shell is OK. No different to when it was newish. A major accident, especially of a competition car would see it reshelled. In the old days it was why japanese cars had more expensive insurance because the japanese didn't make shells available, only panels.
Most cars (talking from new) become non original very quickly, paintwork or accident work dictates this?MitchT said:
I was watching an episode of Bangers & Cash on Freeview recently. There was a Mini Cooper S which was auctioned for £18k - a staggering amount to me, considering the state of it. It was so rusty I'd be surprised if more than 10% of the original car could be retained. The buyer said they'd probably have to source a new shell. To what extent can you rebuild a classic car from replacement and newly fabricated parts before it can be no longer considered "original"?
Define "original" and then "classic car" and you have your answer. 
Shezbo said:
Most cars (talking from new) become non original very quickly, paintwork or accident work dictates this?
I agree. There’s two or three sorts of orginal IMO:1 Zero or near zero miles, basically as they left the factory.
2 Unrestored, maintained exactly per factory spec.
3 Bashed about, patched up, repaired, restored, upgraded appropriately, and in continuous use for its whole life. Bit of a grey area maybe.
As opposed to continuation cars, Ferraris modified from something else into a ‘GTO’, Quattros cut and shut to make shorties, and so on.
Chromegrill said:
Been tested in court over famous Bentleys a couple of times:
https://www.sportscarmarket.com/columns/legal-file...
And the 1990 Old Number One test case:
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/05/26/the-astou...
I was about to post the same Old No.1 casehttps://www.sportscarmarket.com/columns/legal-file...
And the 1990 Old Number One test case:
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/05/26/the-astou...
For those who don't want to read it all, even though there was probably nothing of the original car left because it had constantly evolved rather than been changed all at once it was held that it was still the original car
The DVLA have a points system which AFAIK operates a similar way if you change the lot at once it becomes a "new" car but if you change it gradually it doesn't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Also, there is apparently a 100% turnover of atoms in your body every 5 years - are you the same person that you were 5 years ago?
Probably not relevant to the car question, but it interested me anyway
Also, there is apparently a 100% turnover of atoms in your body every 5 years - are you the same person that you were 5 years ago?
Probably not relevant to the car question, but it interested me anyway
There is a story in Octane this month about the second pre production Mini Cooper S, reg no 732 HOP.
It’s a wonderful car, but I got to the end of the article and pondered whether any part of that car was original, it had enjoyed various engine swaps, new shells, you name it, it seemed to have been replaced in its entirety
It’s a wonderful car, but I got to the end of the article and pondered whether any part of that car was original, it had enjoyed various engine swaps, new shells, you name it, it seemed to have been replaced in its entirety
It's an interesting question, and one that I have pondered with regard to my 1960 Mk1 Austin 'Seven' Mini.
It has never been restored and in terms of its specification (rather than condition) it is exactly as it was when it rolled out of Longbridge 63 years ago. It had a single owner for the first 39 years of its life - the stereotypical 'one lady owner' who lived in the same address, kept it in her garage, only used it for pottering around town and only ever had it serviced, MoT'd and repaired at garage that originally supplied it.
It does not have its original gearbox - it had at least one, possible two, replacement units put in under recall/warranty early in its life as BMC worked all the teething troubles out of the Mini. Same goes for its driveshafts. The rear subframe is a later Mk1 Mini part, put on when it was repaired following a rear-end shunt in the late 1960s. Those repairs also involved fitting a new bootlid (again, subtly different to one from June 1960) and a respray in not-quite the right colour. The outer sills have also both been replaced by later Mk1 items. In the engine bay it picked up a 16-blade cooling fan, later HT leads and spark plug covers, later-style brake and clutch master cylinders and so on. It has had one front wing replaced (again, not sprayed in the wholly correct shade of grey) and the other patched on its inner side. Who knows what other replaceable/consumable parts are on it now that aren't technically correct for a car of its month/year of build and, in any case, aren't the parts that were on it when it left the factory.
So it's not a literally original time-capsule. But by the standards of most other early Mk1 Minis it is remarkably original, and it retains loads of features, details and parts which usually go missing even from other well-preserved examples (I've never seen another Mk1 Mini still with the rubber cover over the floor-mounted starter button, for instance - if the one on mine is not the original one then it's a BMC genuine replacement part from the 1960s or 1970s). When I take it shows it always generates a crowd of admirers for how 'original' it is. And nearly everything that makes it 'not original' was done to it using official manufacturer-supplied parts, fitted by a manufacturer-backed dealer and often done in accordance with the manufacturer's recall or warranty. That is, in itself, a form of 'originality', reflecting the car's life in regular service before it became a collector's item.
On the other hand, you look at something like the Monte Carlo Coopers or 621 AOK (the first production Mini-Minor). AOK has been refurbished and restored several times in its life, and as it is now isn't even in the correct spec for an early 1959 car, with visible differences from how it would have been when new. So how much of that car with the identity of 621 AOK is actually from May 1959?
It has never been restored and in terms of its specification (rather than condition) it is exactly as it was when it rolled out of Longbridge 63 years ago. It had a single owner for the first 39 years of its life - the stereotypical 'one lady owner' who lived in the same address, kept it in her garage, only used it for pottering around town and only ever had it serviced, MoT'd and repaired at garage that originally supplied it.
It does not have its original gearbox - it had at least one, possible two, replacement units put in under recall/warranty early in its life as BMC worked all the teething troubles out of the Mini. Same goes for its driveshafts. The rear subframe is a later Mk1 Mini part, put on when it was repaired following a rear-end shunt in the late 1960s. Those repairs also involved fitting a new bootlid (again, subtly different to one from June 1960) and a respray in not-quite the right colour. The outer sills have also both been replaced by later Mk1 items. In the engine bay it picked up a 16-blade cooling fan, later HT leads and spark plug covers, later-style brake and clutch master cylinders and so on. It has had one front wing replaced (again, not sprayed in the wholly correct shade of grey) and the other patched on its inner side. Who knows what other replaceable/consumable parts are on it now that aren't technically correct for a car of its month/year of build and, in any case, aren't the parts that were on it when it left the factory.
So it's not a literally original time-capsule. But by the standards of most other early Mk1 Minis it is remarkably original, and it retains loads of features, details and parts which usually go missing even from other well-preserved examples (I've never seen another Mk1 Mini still with the rubber cover over the floor-mounted starter button, for instance - if the one on mine is not the original one then it's a BMC genuine replacement part from the 1960s or 1970s). When I take it shows it always generates a crowd of admirers for how 'original' it is. And nearly everything that makes it 'not original' was done to it using official manufacturer-supplied parts, fitted by a manufacturer-backed dealer and often done in accordance with the manufacturer's recall or warranty. That is, in itself, a form of 'originality', reflecting the car's life in regular service before it became a collector's item.
On the other hand, you look at something like the Monte Carlo Coopers or 621 AOK (the first production Mini-Minor). AOK has been refurbished and restored several times in its life, and as it is now isn't even in the correct spec for an early 1959 car, with visible differences from how it would have been when new. So how much of that car with the identity of 621 AOK is actually from May 1959?
Edited by 2xChevrons on Saturday 26th November 13:54
sociopath said:
As it happens that Cooper S was revisited on the Restoring Classics spin off, and he didn't reshell it, and has finished the restoration, with the original chassis and engine. With catching up with if you're interested
I think about 50% of the shell was retained IIRC from the program, plus a lot of the trim.There's probably more of the original car in that restoration than many others, as a result of it being taken off the road in 1978.
As others have said, define original?
Original can mean many things, including original factory specification, even if many of the parts used are repro OEM spec etc.
I think that's why you now see the term survivor car, and even seeing survivor classes appearing in concours events.
Race cars are even less likely to be "original" as the teams swapped parts around left, right and centre to get things onto the track in time.
Swapped around parts sometimes don't come to light for years.
As to claiming "its original" then aiming for matching numbers should be the ideal for those who care. In the Jaguar world that's the body, chassis, gearbox, block and head. As others have said above in period replacements, particularly heads were supplied unnumbered and stamped by the garage. It's still often possible to tell as there are various other numbers which are much harder to fake which while they don't uniquely identify the car they do provide possible date ranges which can be matched back against the known date of construction. I understand this sometimes to some very upset owners when these are pointed out.
I guess while there is a difference in sale price it is bound to lead to people doing what is needed to achieve the best price.
Swapped around parts sometimes don't come to light for years.
As to claiming "its original" then aiming for matching numbers should be the ideal for those who care. In the Jaguar world that's the body, chassis, gearbox, block and head. As others have said above in period replacements, particularly heads were supplied unnumbered and stamped by the garage. It's still often possible to tell as there are various other numbers which are much harder to fake which while they don't uniquely identify the car they do provide possible date ranges which can be matched back against the known date of construction. I understand this sometimes to some very upset owners when these are pointed out.
I guess while there is a difference in sale price it is bound to lead to people doing what is needed to achieve the best price.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff