Patina or just rough

[crankedup]

A classic in restored condition is perhaps discribed as immaculate. An classic not restored has patina, so where do'es patina end and just rough start I wonder. Discuss.

[alsaautomotive]

IMO as cars become older the description (quite rightly) changes.
My good friend MWW has his unbelievably rough Austin 20 (Arthur), but the car being some 80years old is surely allowed to display some battle scars & deterioration? (My God, we do ) particularly as an unrestored car.
But, if that was a car of the late 60's or 70's, then really it just becomes a shed!
Again, with an historically important car (such as Ferrari 0117S, modified in period, but virtually untouched since the early 60's, or NUB 120 etc) then the value of leaving it alone is massively increased - particularly when one considers how sanitised the poor cars in, for arguments sake, the Laurent collection are.
Verged on this discussion with a very well known Jag writer over a pretty important E, unfortunately I didn't get the job of recomissioning & the car was subsequently (& IMO unecessarily) very over-restored.
Just one man's rambling, uninformed, opinion

[eccles]

I love the Patina of 'Arthur', i'm not sure if it's intended or whether MWW is just a bit tight with the money!
Another friend (MG) in the same part of the world had a lovely big late 30's Austin 16 for a few years. He found it as layed up for WWII and all it needed was tyres, oil, petrol and eventually plug leads.
This car was far in far better condition than Arthur, but still had a lovely patina and was far too nice to restore.
IMHO there is nothing worse than seeing a car over restored and under used. If a vintage car doesn't have greased up king pins and springs then it just doesn't look right.

[Coco H]

I concur with the view of notliking over restored under used cars. In fact my cars all have performance and handing as more important than bodywork.

I'll be the first to admit my MG is rough. It is used for speed hillclimbs and so I am not fussed as long as it doesn't resemble a complete shed.

Cars are for being driven - they are not static art.

[52classic]

Arthur is a 'national treasure' of the classic car scene in Wales and a brilliant showpiece.

Although I love and admire concours cars, patina is priceless and it is all too easy to take the soul out of a car when it is restored.

There's no doubt that a basket case had just as well be restored to new condition but I think the showmanship of displaying a classic car involves embracing the lifestyle that the car represented in its heyday.

Well used and used well just about sums up what I mean. Certainly not a licence to justify a shed!

It starts with having scrutineers tags on the gearstick of your 'C' type and some handbeaten aluminium from your last 'off' but it is a principle that works all down the line.

A MK3 Cortina for example looks best IMHO as it would have done at about 5 years old. Repping days over so a bit of wear on the carpet and drivers seat, an aftermarket stereo and a rack of period cassettes is spot on.

I took pride in my old Checker Cab looking as if it had just dropped off its last fare. Uneven panel gaps, dents and yellow overspray here and there with some bumper stickers for good measure. Now that's a car just made to look hammered!

[a8hex]

At XK60, JD Classics had a stand full of XKs. They looked so clean and shiny, the leather all looked perfect, far better than they would ever have left the factory, I'm sure. They were all being wrapped up in plastic film to stop them getting dirty.

Sorry they just didn't do anything for me. They'd had the sole ripped out.
There are other vendors that also do this sort of thing, I know there is a market for it, but it ain't my scene.

Arthur, I don't know but give me


or


any day.

[lowdrag]

Aubrey Finburgh's C type (top above) is definitely looking its age but I am not sure I agree with taking the tin snips to it and making the two openings in the bodywork like that. The other C type though had just come back from the USA and was really "patinated" If anyone takes Octane there was the Jim Clark D type in it which I saw a year back and which completely fooled me though. It had been repainted but a few weeks before and even had brown marks airbrushed in behind the exhausts and a lot of matte added to the paint so it was more satin finish than shiny. Absolutely top work that and she really looked a treat. Now there is a point; if you repaint a car should it look shiny or like this? Is this cheating or good taste?

[a8hex]

They certainly did an outstanding job on making the car look like it had been being used as it should. I took these shots shortly after the Octane article was published.





I guess it takes all sorts to make the world, some people want shiny and new, other want it to look aged.


this one was shiny and new

this one had had tennis balls thrown at it till it looked right.

[lowdrag]

Well it would be shiny and new because it IS new! That's the David Duffy car he sold last May for about £325,000. A lovely FIA papered replica though.

[a8hex]

I know it's brand spanking new.
The other one, or at least most of it, isn't as old as it looks either. Sadly it was too noisy (by a country mile) to go play on the track.

[alsaautomotive]

eccles said:

I love the Patina of 'Arthur', i'm not sure if it's intended or whether MWW is just a bit tight with the money!
.

PMSL Nick You could well be on to something there!

eccles said:

Another friend (MG) in the same part of the world had a lovely big late 30's Austin 16 for a few years. He found it as layed up for WWII and all it needed was tyres, oil, petrol and eventually plug leads.
This car was far in far better condition than Arthur, but still had a lovely patina and was far too nice to restore.
IMHO there is nothing worse than seeing a car over restored and under used. If a vintage car doesn't have greased up king pins and springs then it just doesn't look right.

How is MG?????????? Haven't heard from him in years. Still got the Gloria?
Ted did an article on client's car a few years ago, but otherwise been totally divorced from that gang for a helluva long time
Any thoughts on the Hotchkiss I can cogitate?
You MUST call in when you're over mate(always a warm kettle!)
Daytona, (several) 3x8's, 512BBI & a very interesting Caterham in at present.
Best wishes, Al.

[Church of Noise]

alsaautomotive said:

Verged on this discussion with a very well known Jag writer over a pretty important E, unfortunately I didn't get the job of recomissioning & the car was subsequently (& IMO unecessarily) very over-restored.
Just one man's rambling, uninformed, opinion

Are you referring to the most famous car in the world? (owner's initials are PP)

[alsaautomotive]

Church of Noise said:

alsaautomotive said:

Verged on this discussion with a very well known Jag writer over a pretty important E, unfortunately I didn't get the job of recomissioning & the car was subsequently (& IMO unecessarily) very over-restored.
Just one man's rambling, uninformed, opinion

Are you referring to the most famous car in the world? (owner's initials are PP)

Hardly the 'Most famous car in the world'!!!!!!!!!!!!
9600 was certainly a well publicised car at launch, but I always found that title most displeasing!
Can't really be drawn on further details if that's ok?
Best wishes, Al.

[lowdrag]

If it is "that car" then I for one find it a pastiche. I interviewed said owner at Prescott some years back and asked, for example, why he had had the headlight buckets painted silver and not body colour. He couldn't answer. There are so many faults with that car that a self expressed expert should know, and frankly I find it shameful that the whole thing was partially a publicity venture between the restorers and the owner and secondly that it was serialised in a national paper for financial and publicty reasons. it is sad that such an important car was so abysmally restored. I haven't had the chance to examine 77RW since it was sold and restored (I last saw it at Donington on 1,000 E type day) but I hope that is more sympathetically restored.

[RW774]

Hi all. It seems the market place is driven by a public who want everything better than new. The product must be ` so much better than the guys next door` attitude has changed everything in the restoration business. There are so few cars that exhibit general patina these days that it is very, very sad. The Jaguar factory are as guilty as anyone with the restoration, sorry ruination of NUB 120 for example.
To start with a completly rusted body and build a car to the customers spec is fine. Enabling work, employment and funds for the treasury can only be good for the economy and for the company doing the job. But in many instances it is easy to remove the heart and soul of a car forever.
I hope there is enough sense amongst the general public to maintain the few original eamples left as original as possible.If you want an as new product,start with a really poor example.
I personally would much prefer an original unrestored example warts an all. Far more desirable . Long live Patina and preservation .

[Gaspode]

lowdrag said:

I interviewed said owner at Prescott some years back and asked, for example, why he had had the headlight buckets painted silver and not body colour.

Would the answer "because I wanted it that way" have been inadequate in some way?

[lowdrag]

Gaspode said:

lowdrag said:

I interviewed said owner at Prescott some years back and asked, for example, why he had had the headlight buckets painted silver and not body colour.

Would the answer "because I wanted it that way" have been inadequate in some way?

I'm sorry, but that is to me a facile and somewhat, not to say the least, dumb response. Here we are talking about one of the world's supposedly greatest Jaguar historians who is restoring a car to "original specification" in conjunction with a high class restorer. If you talk to Guy Broad about the early alloy bodied XK120 roadsters he can spend hours talking about the difference between them and the steel cars. Similarly I've seen enough of the early E types to know what is and what is not correct. I refer here not to just the first 500 outside lock cars but the very early ones, the pre-production of which this is one. If the owner had replied to my question "because I wanted it that way" so be it, but his response was to go and ask his restorer. Not a committed nor informative answer at all. If a person wished to add power steering, negative earth, fabulous stereo with boom box, 8 inch wheels with fat arches, 6 speed gearbox et al, fine, but please don't tell me you have restored one of the most significant Jaguars to original specification and fork it up in this fashion.

[Gaspode]

lowdrag said:

Gaspode said:

lowdrag said:

I interviewed said owner at Prescott some years back and asked, for example, why he had had the headlight buckets painted silver and not body colour.

Would the answer "because I wanted it that way" have been inadequate in some way?

I'm sorry, but that is to me a facile and somewhat, not to say the least, dumb response. Here we are talking about one of the world's supposedly greatest Jaguar historians who is restoring a car to "original specification" in conjunction with a high class restorer. If you talk to Guy Broad about the early alloy bodied XK120 roadsters he can spend hours talking about the difference between them and the steel cars. Similarly I've seen enough of the early E types to know what is and what is not correct. I refer here not to just the first 500 outside lock cars but the very early ones, the pre-production of which this is one. If the owner had replied to my question "because I wanted it that way" so be it, but his response was to go and ask his restorer. Not a committed nor informative answer at all. If a person wished to add power steering, negative earth, fabulous stereo with boom box, 8 inch wheels with fat arches, 6 speed gearbox et al, fine, but please don't tell me you have restored one of the most significant Jaguars to original specification and fork it up in this fashion.

Calm down mate, keep your wool on! I seem to have inadvertently touched a nerve here. So what you're saying is that the guy was claiming to have restored it to original condition, but had left the details to the bloke doing the work, and wasn't aware that a mistake had been made.

It seems to me that your main gripe is that he claimed to know what he was talkign about but didn't - Which is fair enough, especially when dealing with a historically important car.

As a Morgan owner, the whole idea of originality is fortunately a moot point - No self-respecting Morgan owner would ever be so slapdash and amateurish to restore a Mog to the original condition as it left the factory

[_TC]

for those who haven't seen 'Arthur' here is a pic.

I love it and i think its patina. rough for me is when a car looks like this but also sounds/runs like it looks. My 2ps worth.
I am selling my Caterham for probably an Austin seven and have seen some great examples with good wear and tear on the body, just my thing.

[a8hex]

yepp that looks like patina.
The thing behind it looks rough