VCCA Home Forums GENERAL DISCUSSION General Discussions Definition: Restored and Original

This right here bugs the he-- out of me: What does Original mean when speaking of our old Chevrolets. By the same token, what does restored mean?

That indefensible and poorly thought out thing about it is only original once is what breaks the camel's back for me. When exactly was the "once"?

Try these on for size:

a. Original means that the car has GM/Chevrolet parts that are the exact same as the parts that came on the year car as it left the assembly line. It matters not when any part was installed on the car in lieu of a worn-out part.

b. Restored means the the car has mostly GM/Chevrolet parts and SOME that are RNOS parts that are LIKE the original but from a different manufacture. All are like the original. Too, that the engine and parts may not be from the same year as the original but have the same number of cylinders, same transmission, same clutch, rear end and gears, same starter, water pump, generator, carburetor, etc.

c. Art Car. Anything that doesn't fit into "a" or "b" above fits into the modified, hot-rod, street-rod, Trick rod, and Rat-rod. These can all be grouped in to one category called: Art-Car. Except for the Rat-rod most of these are highly technical and extremely well built, and for some, beautiful machines. Even a nicely done Rat-rod takes some thought and art know-how to make it a piece of art. Note the gas pump spout and hoses on the rear of some of them.

It takes time and money to replace items on my 41 coupe with the right 41 GM/Chevrolet parts and it bugs me a bit when someone tells others that their car is original when they (the cars) are obviously not even close.

When my 41 project is done, I will tell folks that it has been restored and not original. If they inquire further, I tell then the stinkin floor pans and rocker panels have been replaced with gold. (cost that much) That's just being honest.

We can split hairs here: Is the engine original if it has been bored for larger pistons? I don't know.

Is it original if the tires have been replaced with new ones of the same size and manufacture.

Is the Generator original if it has a new armature, or brushes, etc? Ditto.

Is the Carburetor original is not a Carter on a 216 before 1950? Would think not.

I don't believe we have to split hairs if we try to keep a reasonable definition in play.

What do we do with those who sort of...well, cheat and don't fess up? I think they should be given a blindfold and an offer of a last cigarette. I don't think the federal gvmt will allow us to offer the cigarette anymore. Oh, well.

Charlie

When I'm talking to VCCA folk, my car is restored. When I'm talking to non-old car people, it's maintained original. Non-old car people don't give a crap if thats an original, NOS, or reproduction mirror… they just want to hear that that is how it was to look in 1951. VCCA folk are a different matter entirely...

"All are like the original"

Like the original, but not.

Like implants ..... like the original, but not.

Like a copy of a Picasso painting .... like the original, but not.

Reason I began my thread is this.

I own two 1951 Chevy Styleline Deluxe cars.

Both look original on the outside.

One is original condition. It has all the body parts that were on it when it left Janesville. It has the Janesville interior. It has the Janesville color, but the same color was reapplied in 1995. The factory 216 died at 88,000 miles, it now has a 1955 235" with dual exhaust. The inside smells like a 1951 Chevy.

The other looks original on the outside, but it has a modified 1961 235". Body panels were replaced with aftermarket panels. It has an open drive line, it has a NCA interior which looks like a cloth image of a DelRay interior.
The inside does not smell like a 1951 Chev.

Being that both have the same clean, pristine look on the outside, knowing what you know now, which one has more cash value ?

Bob
No disrespect meant but you can ask whatprice you want but you will only get the price the buyer is prepared to pay.
Tony

I agree with Tony as only the buyer can determine what each is worth to him. We have had so many discussions on original vs restored it's simply something that everyone will decide for themselves and no amount of discussion will change anyones mind.

Steve and Tony,

I understand and appreciate each of your comments. No disrespect taken.

Actually, neither of my cars are original, instead, one is much more original than the other.

No matter how original a car may be, maintenance replacement parts, tires may not be "factory issue", but that is to be expected.

I thought of this thread, as to what car can be considered "original".

In my thinking, an "original car" is one that has all of its original body panels, covered with the factory applied paint.
The car must have its "factory issued driveline", its "factory issued interior" (upholstery), with its "factory issued" instruments. Glass is "factory issued", as well.

The "factory issued" serial number tag and "factory issued" cowl tag are a must.

That's my perception of an original car.

The frosting on the cake is the level of appearance and operation of those above items, on the original car.

Again, my thinking tells me anything done to DUPLICATE the above criteria is a "restored unit".

Because the "original" car is a physical, actual, factual "touch it, feel it" symbol of days gone by, I see more dollar value in that timepiece, compared to a vehicle that was rebuilt with parts, which were manufactured last week or last year.

Just my perspective, as I view the differences in "restored vs original".

yeah this is a tough one...

guess it all has to do with the owners perspective.

I am restoring my car and trying to keep it as close to original or shall we say authentic as possible. want parts that were originally supplied on it, granted most of them are replacement parts, either rebuilt, or modernized. No way will my car be ALL ORIGINAL, granted many parts will be ORIGINAL. the rest will be authentic to the vintage !!

I think most would agree that an original car in the same condition as a restored car would probably have a higher value. However simply being original does not necessarily mean increased value as condition of either to me is the most important factor.

I think brewster made an excellent point. This discussion about terminology is for VCCA use.

We can explain our definitions to non-VCCA folks, but chances are they aren't knowledgeable enough to understand or care. So, for the sake of our sanity, let's leave the outside world's opinions out of this conversation.

For my '27 and '28 trucks, I say they are 'mostly original and are survivors'. I think my description fits in between Charlie's 'original' and 'restored'. They have had parts replaced, but I would never call my old and ugly trucks 'restored'.

The word 'restored' implies (to me) that it has been refurbished and looks good, using correct parts, correct paint, etc.

My 2 cents,
Dean

Cheers, Dean

I'm sure that the line of how many parts can changed before a car is restored varies with every member. There's always the story about my Grandpas old axe to think about. It goes like this... "Behold, my Grandfathers axe... He clear cut 100 acres himself with this beauty back in 1911. We had to put a new handle on it in the 1970's, and a replacement head on it in the 1990's... But it's still my Grandfather's axe!

Now take the terms original un-restored and original restored and it seems to explain itself. Original un-restored in my opinion is the car is presented with parts and appearence put on at the factory and still remain on the car now. This included paint,upholstery,chrome,etc. Naturally wearable items have been replaced i.e. belts,tires hoses.
Original restored means that the car was taken apart and rebuilt to factory specs and finishes using NOS or repro parts.It basically looks like it did when the first owner took the keys at the dealers.
I'm trying for a HPOCF in April with my original un-restored 1960 Corvair. I do know its complete history back to and including talking to the original owner.
In the world of Corvairs I've met and seen many cars being sold as un-restored with the next words being "re-painted five years ago." Ed Bittman Dade City,Fl VCCA 47508,TA 99

What's so hard to understand? They're only original once, that's it. If you repaint it, change the engine, upholstery) or do anything except maintain it (points , plugs, oil, tires) it's not original. Doesn't seem that complicated.

If a vehicle only had the normal wear and tear items replaced but everything else is what was on it when it left the factory I would still consider it original,would also consider a vehicle like that but with a original color repaint original too since you really could not consider it modified since its the way its supposed to be. As for restored there are many possibilities on that one but to me for one to be called restored it would had to been completely apart and everything touched.

JJ,

I think you have a pretty good grasp of what most of us believe would qualify the term "original" and restored.

My suggestion of "Art" for the others doesn't have a very nice ring to it.
Maybe "Modified" or "Personalized" would would fit better.

This is a can of worms and will never be settled. I commend the club for trying to put the best face on it, but the inclusiveness factor and quest for more and more members has skewed what I think was the original intent, beyond recognition.

If there comes a time when like minded owners of old Chevrolets formed a club returning to the pure "Preservation and Restoration" way of thinking to the exclusion of modified, personalized, rods, and rats then I would join it and, perhaps, leave this one.

As I have said before, the very best old Chevrolet for me to look at is one as original as it can get or one that has been restored to appear as original. Isn't hat Preservation and Restoration means? It doesn't take me long to look at a highly modified, et al, no matter how much I appreciate the workmanship and its ability to do tricks. And, notwithstanding, the fact that it may look, from an undetermined distance, like a Chevrolet a-coming down the road. (See Toolman in another subject and post.)

Charlie

If it's been repainted it's not "original", period. If it's been reupholstered it's not "original".

As they say, only original once.

By that definition there is nothing "original" after it leaves the dealer's showroom. The original gas in the carburetor has been burned and some eel has seeped out.

We might as well drop that term. It serves no useful purpose if that old tried and worn out phrase "It is only original once" is to remain around to debunk any notion of original status. For our purposes in the Club of "preservation and restoration" the phrase has no place. Accordingly, the phrase doesn't make any sense to me.

Charlie

Don't get mad about it. No one said anything about "gas", "eel" or anything else. If the car has been repainted it's simply not an original car. You can't set your repainted car next to an original unrestored vehicle and call it "original". You can say what you want but it wont change the definition, sorry about that. I have a couple original cars from the twenty's and thirties and although thye might need a new paint job it would be a crime to change them. An unrestored original car will always command much more attention than one with new cometics. Much easier to restore an old car than find one that has survived.

I'm not mad. I just don't see how painting an original car makes not original anymore. Look at it this way for some examples of things that would really render the car restored instead of original. I hope you will agree with me that these are ridiculous :

a. If a water pump was replaced at 50K with one from the the same dealership that sold the car and it is a right year and parts and casting numbers.

b. If the spark plugs were replaced with AC ones just like the ones that come in it.

c. If the upper radiator hose was replaced with a Harrison one from the same dealer as above and the same temperature.

e. If the U-joint was replaced or repaired with genuine parts from the dealer.

f. If the coil was replaced, same as above.

g. If the points and condenser were replaced, same as above.

h. If the starter or generator were replaced. Same as above and with the right same numbers on the tag.

I. A fender was bent in an accident. A new fender was installed and painted by the dealer. The fender had the correct number stamped on the underside. Just how much of the car needs to be repainted to disqualify for it to still be considered original in you book? Ten percent? Twenty-five percent? Anything over fifty percent? Or is it one hundred percent?

Or is it merely the paint and the upholstery that qualify for a downgrade to not being original anymore? Where do we draw a reasonable line?

All the lettered items above would disqualify any car from being original if one followed the "Can only be original once" rule.

I rest my case. Your turn.

Charlie

BTW: The eel was supposed to be an misspelling of oil. Sorry.

I give up.

"Can only be original once"
Maybe, but it can be "as" original forever.
Until everyone agrees on the definitions of the terms restored and original there won't be an agreement.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the term, but we all the right to disagree with one another.

No need to "give up". I agree with your evaluation. The same words that I have been saying.

The problem comes in when argumentative examples displayed are nonsensical.

Thanks. I didn't think it made any more sense to discuss the issue. We both know, and I think most people know what the the term means. You can repaint your car and call it "original" if you want but it doesn't change anything; it's still not an unmolested example, it's been changed, it doesn't show the years it has survived without someone changing it's appearance. Maintaining the car, repairing broken or worn parts, even rebuilding the engine I think would still allow it to be called original but when you change the paint or interior then you've hidden the history of it. Kind of like an open casket; the dead body looks so alive and natural but it's still dead. There must be thousands of Model A Fords running around but when is the last time you saw an Original? These restored car just don't represent the character of a survivor.

Thank you Google

Ron