[vern hodgson]

Originally Posted by CHuDWah

From a dollars and cents viewpoint, the car you describe likely would bring more money restored, although it might not make a profit or even recover investment. I understand the "it's only original once" argument. But the second it left the assembly line, it was no longer original. The first time someone slid into the seat, started the engine, shifted gears, applied the brakes, etc, it started incurring wear. It may have had all its original parts but it was no longer factory original. Yes, that’s an extreme definition but it’s nonetheless true.

Seems to me the question is whether to keep the car as is, with the 90 or so years of history it has accumulated, or restore it as closely as possible to how it left the factory (given that some original materials may be “unobtainium”). Both have merit. In the case of the car you describe, there are restored examples. So my preference is to do only enough to make the car safely and reliably operable and minimize further deterioration.

But that brings up a couple more questions. If the goal is to preserve the car as is, should it become a “trailer queen" to prevent (impossible) or at least minimize further deterioration? Or should it be driven as it was intended to be? The latter will eventually require replacement of some of the car's parts, making it less original. And there’s an even thornier question: assume the car is the ONLY surviving example…preserve or restore?

I would define original as what came off the factory floor and out the door. Wear and tear are what happens to “original” equipment during its service life until the factory part is no longer functioning. Worn original seat fabric is still original, off the factory floor, not a replacement. In my humble opinion.