I recently attended a presentation titled “Restoration vs. Preservation” as part of the Crawford Auto Museum’s lecture series, which focused on the value of preserving an original car compared to restoring it as well as how "original" is defined. The topic is rather controversial in the collector car industry, as there are many factors to consider. For example, some people believe that “original” is defined as the car being un-restored and only maintained since it left the factor. Others believe that if the car has been restored using period-correct parts and looks like it would have from the factory then it is still an original car. There is also the aspect of whether or not adding safety features such as seat belts and safety glass makes a difference in determining originality.
As a car gal intrigued with original cars that have survived the grueling world of transportation with just “maintenance”—such as the pictured 1928 Minerva—there is nothing more aggravating to me then seeing a so-called “all original” car at a show with gleaming paint, new upholstery, and freshly plated trim. I do, however, completely respect the addition of safety features and believe that the car is still original as long as the additions are done tastefully and with regards to the era that the car was built.
What is your view on originality? Do you think a car qualifies as “original” even if it has been restored using era correct parts or has added safety features?
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
I have a 73 plymouth none restored none painted car everything is as it came from dealer the only thing that I have done is change the air to r 134 I have sean other cars that call then original but as far as I'am conceared they are not