Preservation vs Restoration

[HalcyonDays]

I am interested in hearing thoughts on preservation vs restoration. Consider a rare model, Model A, in close to original unrestored condition. Some areas are, as would be expected, rough, ie. top and interior material; but it has all original parts and there is no rust. This particular car could very easily be brought back to original unrestored condition with a modest investment and searching for original materials. Conversely, it is such a solid car it could be restored to the highest level, no patch panels no fillers.



Even the rarer Model A's will come on the market occasionally, I have not seen one come on the market in this condition in the last few years since I have been search for this particular model.


I know the trend in the market is for unrestored originals. I have seen many beautifully restored examples of this model come on the market, and some very rough unrestored examples missing most, if not all of the hard to find components.



Ten or fifteen years ago, the prevailing thought would be to restore, even more so given the cars solid condition. But...they are only original once, just seems unfortunate to tamper with that.



Any thoughts?

[redmodelt]

It is only original once. Without seeing the car, my OP is, go thru it and make mechanically safe and enjoy. There are enough restored cars or cars that were started and never finished out there now. Depending on your age and income, to restore is going to take how long? A couple, 5, 10, 20, never?

[ronn]

you can see the car listed on Mafca= A400

[redmodelt]

Originally Posted by ronn

you can see the car listed on Mafca= A400

How about a link for us that do not go to that site.

[CHuDWah]

Originally Posted by redmodelt

How about a link for us that do not go to that site.

I think this is the one ronn means - scroll down to the A400 near the bottom:

https://www.mafca.com/cl/cl-v-sale.html

[Paul Bjarnason]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

I would definitely leave a decent unrestored car in original unrestored condition. I find fully restored older cars boring because they appear to have been cleansed of their history. I like some patina. I am currently working on the '29 Tudor which was my wife's grand father's car, bought new in 1929. Many people would say it badly needs a paint job and some fenders, but I am going to straighten out the bumps, clean off the rust and put on a coat of Johnson's paste wax. Full mechanical resto and some upgrades, like hydraulic brakes and Weber carb. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, however -- and, it's your car. Do what will make you like it the most.

[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?

[40 Deluxe]

My (admittedly extreme) take: Unless you can come up with the original air for the tires, it will never be factory original, nor ever be a 100% restoration to original! It will just have an original appearance!! And, what about the original fingerprints of the employee that first drove it out of the factory??

[ursus]

It seems that any time there is a gathering of Model A's it is the completely original cars that attract the most attention.

[ronn]

thanks Chud, yes that be it.


almost easier to take an old restoration car and give it the "look" of patina.
Then you at least already have a driving vehicle. Cost being about the same, easier to make a good car look worse then to bring this one up in condition.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by HalcyonDays

I am interested in hearing thoughts on preservation vs restoration. Consider a rare model, Model A, in close to original unrestored condition. Some areas are, as would be expected, rough, ie. top and interior material; but it has all original parts and there is no rust. This particular car could very easily be brought back to original unrestored condition with a modest investment and searching for original materials. Conversely, it is such a solid car it could be restored to the highest level, no patch panels no fillers.



Even the rarer Model A's will come on the market occasionally, I have not seen one come on the market in this condition in the last few years since I have been search for this particular model.


I know the trend in the market is for unrestored originals. I have seen many beautifully restored examples of this model come on the market, and some very rough unrestored examples missing most, if not all of the hard to find components.



Ten or fifteen years ago, the prevailing thought would be to restore, even more so given the cars solid condition. But...they are only original once, just seems unfortunate to tamper with that.



Any thoughts?

Steve, I know you and I have discussed this car some awhile ago, and my thoughts on your particular question(s) is, -it really not that cut & dried.


Great opinions above and I will add my 2 cents. The hobby from my perspective has blossomed over the past few decades where there is not one particular genre that is right or wrong any more. "Survivor" used to mean something totally different than what it does today. "Restored" used to mean something totally different than it does today. Included in that is restorations capabilities of car owners (i.e.: skills, resources, funds, etc.) used to be totally different than what they are today, ...so all those differences added up means there is a market for every types of Model-As in all types of conditions. Your vehicle will likely appeal to a buyer who wants to own it as-is, -or possibly someone who is a hobbyist restorer with possibly limited skills who is looking for an easier restoration. The biggest thing you need to do is find THAT person that loves the vehicle for the genre it represents as that person is the one that will spend the most money on it. Best wishes.

[Mike the Grump]

Not really a direct answer to the question asked but....


One of my favorite cars is a 65 fuel injected corvette an acquaintance owns. He bought it in 68 and has driven it once a week to work and occasionally on weekends ever since. The lacquer is checked, it's never been painted. The carpet and seats are worn. Motor/trans have never been apart. While the FI unit has been serviced, its never been restored just maintained. What an awesome car. It would be a crime to tear it all apart to make it look pretty and new.



Others, unless its a truely unique model, that have been used and abused. Restore em. modify em. It's the owners car to do with as they want.

[shark 81]

Find them fix them drive them. have fun!

[mhsprecher]

I wish there were more photos. It looks pretty good, but that price seems quite reasonable. I vote for preservation, but it really depends on what you are starting with. You are in the same state, so you have probably seen it in person. You can also buy it and decide exactly what to do later.

[JoeCB]

I'm new to this forum, but have be with my Model A for 60 years. I do enjoy reading the widely varied opinions on the subject of original vs restored. My other "hobby" is Antique Outboard Motors, trust me in our club (aomci.org) we have exactly the same discussion and varied opinions on the subject. The best advice seems to be the same... it's your car/ outboard do with it what gives you satisfaction. My personal opinion, I appreciate an un-molested original. All it takes to make a "100 point" car/ outboard is a fat checkbook, it took 80 years to make an original.
Joe B

[michael a]

I am with Shark 81. My car is a mutt but I love it and it's mine

Sent from my SM-J701M using Tapatalk

[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.

[Tinbasher]

My thoughts are that if you find a low mile original car then I would work on preserving it just for the details in the car. In the future it would be a great reference when someone is restoring there car. Sometimes you just have to look at something to get it right. Picture, articles, etc just don't give you the right info. JP

[BILL WILLIAMSON]

Much "PATINA" is attributed to some LAZY BUM, that won't clean his car!!!----NLOL
Most of the rhetoric I've read is the SAME Old B.S. that has been REPEATED & REPEATED!!!
Get a LIFE, & start a fresh train of thought, on the subject!!!
Bill Bored

[77Birdman]

That is a nice looking car. IF it were mine, I would go the 'preservation' route if that's what youre into. I like to see a nice original car. Although this is on the higher end of the 'A' scale, its not a Delahaye or Duesenburg. It wouldn't hurt the value if a few upgrades were done. New top and interior for one thing, and upgraded/rebuilt mechanicals for drivability. The wood would have to be near perfect as well. From the outside it looks pretty nice, but if the wood is rotted that would change the equation.

[deuce5wndw]

Go the preservation route then if doesn't suit you restore it. You can always restore but you can never go back!

[Licensed to kill]

If you are buying it as an investment expecting to make money on it, leave it as is. The more money you put in, the less likely you will get it back out in most cases. However, if you are buying it because you want it, then do whatever will make you enjoy it the most.

[Railcarmover]

"Restored"? just what does that mean? a 3 color car with wide whites and turn signals?.Modifications 'for touring' allowed?.There was a time when 'restoring' model a's and racing Hubley cars was in fashion,nowadays the clubs are geriatric,cant tell you how many younger owners come to one meeting and never return..Look no further than the hotrod pages on facebook,the guys needed to keep the hobby alive..30 to 50 somethings with money..are buying older restorations and hotrodding them.The new blood didn't have a father regale them with stories of 5 dollar A's run on drain oil..nope,they see sexy,and a 3 color model a with wide whites driven by a guy with velcro sneakers aint sexy..Get hip,the patina cars and modifieds are the way of the future.Bangers,FAST and TROG are where the future lies,the only hope for a dying tradition..model A's with stock components need to evolve,or they all will fall to the saw..

[jhowes]

Post 6, Paul; I am doing a CCPU the same as what you are doing except I can't bring myself to change to a Weber or Hydraulic brakes. The brake question has been addressed here many times but the wheels can only slide just so hard regardless of how you accomplish it. I would suggest that you look into using tongue oil and turpentine with four ought steel wool over the rusty finish. Patina 101. Good luck, Jack

[Brian in Wheeling]

The unrestored cars ALWAYS get more attention when you take them out, IMHO.
Brian W.

[[email protected]]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

IMHO, an original car is only original once-despite its flaws versus of what it was when new, it shows age and normal wear "patina" which gives it a unique persona of yesteryear. The car you are referring to, if the MAFCA ad, has been repainted many years ago and has an aftermarket engine in it as I understand...so its not a candidate for a patina as we may view it. However, if you want to restore a car, the very best original condition, without rust out, is always best IMHO.

[WHN]

I would think that what really matters is making you happy. No matter what you do there will be people agreeing and disagreeing. That’s just life.

A very well cared for Model A, that is priced right, will be able to find a new home.

There are a lot of Model A’s and there is a lot of junk out there. I would get all the mechanicals in good order and go from there.

I always tell people that’s it’s a hobby. Something like owning a boat. The reason we have them is for enjoyment. If your looking at it as an investment? I would recommend you look someplace else. Enjoy.

[[email protected]]

Yes, do what makes you happy and don't worry about anyone else

[Paul Bjarnason]

Hey Jack -


I will try it. What ratio tongue oil to terps would be good?


Thanks.



Bj

[CHuDWah]

Originally Posted by vern hodgson

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.

As has been pointed out in this thread, "original" means different things to different people. I agree it means what came out of the factory but my definition ends there. Seat upholstery with a hole worn in it may have been originally installed in the car but it is no longer as it left the factory.

[CHuDWah]

Originally Posted by BILL WILLIAMSON

Much "PATINA" is attributed to some LAZY BUM, that won't clean his car!!!----NLOL
Most of the rhetoric I've read is the SAME Old B.S. that has been REPEATED & REPEATED!!!
Get a LIFE, & start a fresh train of thought, on the subject!!!
Bill Bored

Well, nobody twisted your arm to make you read it but feel free to add that fresh train of thought.

[rrich1]

I think its all subjective. To me restoration can be preservation. To replace worn out pieces with new pieces keeps the vehicle running and around for many more years.

With talk about history of the vehicle. I think if you take a decent car and restore it is making your own history and the next possible owner could feel the same way about preserving it.

With my grandfather's truck that I have now I plan to keep it the way it looks as long as possible. But that is because I have my own history with the vehicle. I will fix/repair what needs to be fixed. The one thing I plan to keep completely off limits is the writing on the side. Getting the cab repainted, redoing the engine, or any other updates wouldn't bother me. If I didn't have a connection to it I would want my own history to be made that I can enjoy. A vehicle's history may not be known to you and all you are left to do is wonder about it.

Fix it, change it, add to that history.

[jhowes]

Paul; I use half and half, but it is not very scientific. Jack

[Cool Hand Lurker]

Originally Posted by Paul Bjarnason

Hey Jack -


I will try it. What ratio tongue oil to terps would be good?


Thanks.



Bj

The hardware store will know tongue oil as "tung" oil.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Paul Bjarnason

I would definitely leave a decent unrestored car in original unrestored condition. I find fully restored older cars boring because they appear to have been cleansed of their history. I like some patina. I am currently working on the '29 Tudor which was my wife's grand father's car, bought new in 1929. Many people would say it badly needs a paint job and some fenders, but I am going to straighten out the bumps, clean off the rust and put on a coat of Johnson's paste wax. Full mechanical resto and some upgrades, like hydraulic brakes and Weber carb. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, however -- and, it's your car. Do what will make you like it the most.

Interesting how we all sit. I agree with you keeping the patina and that over restored cars can sometimes appear cleansed of their history . But is installing hydraulic brakes and a Weber carb not also messing with the cars history ? And the next question is why? As someone who has owned, restored (and not restored ) as well as driven multiple A's I can tell you that properly set up original brakes are as good as Hydraulics and there is nothing wrong with the original carb if put together and set up properly.

But as you say beauty is the eye of the beholder and it is your car.

Karl

[30 Closed Cab PU]

Do not know why, but am usually drawn to the "imperfect" A's. Guess I like seeing the bumps/bruises, imperfect paint, etc. and wonder how they got that way. And also marvel at how 90 year old, rusty, leaky parts are still somewhat functional.


I like the restored ones too, but not trained to notice the intricacies of what is a high point restoration, or notice different methods used to restore or make them look new. They are still beautiful though.

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by Karl

Interesting how we all sit. I agree with you keeping the patina and that over restored cars can sometimes appear cleansed of their history . But is installing hydraulic brakes and a Weber carb not also messing with the cars history ? And the next question is why? As someone who has owned, restored (and not restored ) as well as driven multiple A's I can tell you that properly set up original brakes are as good as Hydraulics and there is nothing wrong with the original carb if put together and set up properly.

But as you say beauty is the eye of the beholder and it is your car.

Karl

Properly adjusted mechanical brakes will slide all four wheels. Properly adjusted hydraulic brakes will slide all four wheels. Seems to be just a matter of personal preference!
I will add that a hydraulic conversion with a dual master cylinder that is not properly set up will lose all its brakes with just a small leak in either front OR rear.

[Synchro909]

Originally Posted by 40 Deluxe

Properly adjusted mechanical brakes will slide all four wheels. Properly adjusted hydraulic brakes will slide all four wheels. Seems to be just a matter of personal preference!
I will add that a hydraulic conversion with a dual master cylinder that is not properly set up will lose all its brakes with just a small leak in either front OR rear.

Isn't the point of a dual master cylinder to make sure that can't happen. Did you mean to say "without" a dual naster cylinder?

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by Synchro909

Isn't the point of a dual master cylinder to make sure that can't happen. Did you mean to say "without" a dual naster cylinder?

I did mean a dual master cylinder. The problem is that total pedal travel has to be the same as original or the pedal will hit the floor before the brakes are applied in case of a leak. If you've ever blown a hose, you noticed that the pedal went to about an inch off the floor before you had any brakes! That is normal.
If a dual master is mounted in an early car and has less pedal travel than OEM or pedal ratio is different, the pedal will likely hit the floor before you have any brakes!

[Bob-A]

Enclosed is a pic of my '31 deluxe roadster: Virginia. From what I know of her history. She was "refurbished" in the early 50's. A "B" block was added,
also paint, top/side curtains and maybe the interior. On the driver's side door post is an oil change sticker from 1957, showing about 90,000 some miles.
The odometer still works and now shows around 110,000. I've completely
rebuild the brakes and done some other needed mechanics. To keep the car

save to drive. Unfortunately, the interior was completely shot. A friend of mine redid it for me. Not authentic, but it looks right. I'm thinking of selling her. I want a nice older restored "A". One I can put a lot of miles on and

not worry about losing its originality.



Bob-A

[77Birdman]

Bob-A, that is a beautiful car. While im not crazy about rat rods, or rust waxed cars, that is my idea of a nice preserved car. Though it may have been repainted in 1950 and not original, it still looks really nice. Its too bad im a year or so away from actually thinking about a purchase!

[Hyfire]

Originally Posted by Bob-A

Enclosed is a pic of my '31 deluxe roadster: Virginia. From what I know of her history. She was "refurbished" in the early 50's. A "B" block was added,
also paint, top/side curtains and maybe the interior.


Bob-A

That thing is just perfect Bob! Beautiful.

[Steve Plucker]

So I bought this very early 1929 (Feb) Tudor about 10 years ago or there abouts...It was either me or a hot rodder.

Things that were noted when I bought it...

1. It was repainted at some time in its life BUT it was repainted the same color as it was originally;

2. The fabric top was replaced at some time in it's life BUT with the same type of material that it was originally;

3. Shocks were reproductions BUT replaced with originals that were restored;

4. Cast Iron sediment bowl was cracked so I replaced it with a original that was not cracked;

5. The chassis was so covered with crud of dirty hard grease in most spots you could not see the grease zerks in lots of places or anything else as that goes;

6. Upholstery is in its original condition as most other things still on the car.

I decided to remove the body, take everything off the frame and come back with it by cleaning it up taking great care as not to remove most of the original paint that was originally put on the chassis parts, replacing parts, as bearings and bushings, with good unrestored parts that still retained the original finish except as noted above if need be, and just tried to keep it in it's original shape/condition the best I could except for the nice shinny restored items (shocks and sediment bowl).

So...did I restore the car or did I preserve the car? I would estimate that overall it is about 85% still in its original condition but what do I know???

Pluck

[DHZIEMAN]

Originally Posted by HalcyonDays

I am interested in hearing thoughts on preservation vs restoration. Consider a rare model, Model A, in close to original unrestored condition. Some areas are, as would be expected, rough, ie. top and interior material; but it has all original parts and there is no rust. This particular car could very easily be brought back to original unrestored condition with a modest investment and searching for original materials. Conversely, it is such a solid car it could be restored to the highest level, no patch panels no fillers.




Even the rarer Model A's will come on the market occasionally, I have not seen one come on the market in this condition in the last few years since I have been search for this particular model.


I know the trend in the market is for unrestored originals. I have seen many beautifully restored examples of this model come on the market, and some very rough unrestored examples missing most, if not all of the hard to find components.



Ten or fifteen years ago, the prevailing thought would be to restore, even more so given the cars solid condition. But...they are only original once, just seems unfortunate to tamper with that.

Any thoughts?

I can only speak from my model A ownership! I call my car, a "20 footer!" (looks great from 20ft) I am not into what others do, and I just do enough to my car to make it safe, with good seats and interior, and I drive it around town and just have fun with it. Others would find my view of keeping the car as close to original, as, not the thing to do. The point is, all us that love these Vintage Model A's have their own views, and I can tell ya regardless of full restoration or just great preservation, When I drive the old girl thru town, I draw a small crowd! Do what makes you happy and does not empty your bank account!

[77Birdman]

Originally Posted by Steve Plucker

So I bought this very early 1929 (Feb) Tudor about 10 years ago or there abouts...It was either me or a hot rodder.

Things that were noted when I bought it...

1. It was repainted at some time in its life BUT it was repainted the same color as it was originally;

2. The fabric top was replaced at some time in it's life BUT with the same type of material that it was originally;

3. Shocks were reproductions BUT replaced with originals that were restored;

4. Cast Iron sediment bowl was cracked so I replaced it with a original that was not cracked;

5. The chassis was so covered with crud of dirty hard grease in most spots you could not see the grease zerks in lots of places or anything else as that goes;

6. Upholstery is in its original condition as most other things still on the car.

I decided to remove the body, take everything off the frame and come back with it by cleaning it up taking great care as not to remove most of the original paint that was originally put on the chassis parts, replacing parts, as bearings and bushings, with good unrestored parts that still retained the original finish except as noted above if need be, and just tried to keep it in it's original shape/condition the best I could except for the nice shinny restored items (shocks and sediment bowl).

So...did I restore the car or did I preserve the car? I would estimate that overall it is about 85% still in its original condition but what do I know???

Pluck

Not an expert but I would call this car maintained. Its not preserved because there are too many replacements, and it hardly sounds restored. I think the best thing to call it is......YOURS, and you love it. Doesn't really matter what others think.

[77Birdman]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Kinda related, but I am a general contractor specializing in restoration work. I did a public house/living history museum quite a few years ago. House was built in early 1800's. Everything was being reproduced and replaced period correct including using hand tools to show work marks. There were several doors that had settled and were WAY out of square and would not work properly. Arch. just wanted to make them work and leave as is. His idea was to show how the house had changed over its life. I thought (and still do) that this was a ridiculous idea. I likened it to restoring a Model A and leaving dents in the fender. I guess it turns out he was ahead of the curve.

[Purdy Swoft]

It looks good , Bob !!!

[Bob-A]

To all who have complemented my "A", Virginia. Thank you very much!
She is such a nice car and runs super sweet. I just can't make up my mine
as to whether to sale her or not. The 'ol lady and I are thinking about moving into a smaller place and are starting to down-size. What to do,
what to do.....


Bob-A

[Cool Hand Lurker]

Originally Posted by Bob-A

To all who have complemented my "A", Virginia. Thank you very much!
She is such a nice car and runs super sweet. I just can't make up my mine
as to whether to sale her or not. The 'ol lady and I are thinking about moving into a smaller place and are starting to down-size. What to do,
what to do.....


Bob-A

Bob, keep it until you can't drive it anymore. "Downsizing" doesn't include the things you enjoy and will miss. That is called "dying" and since you can still remember all the words and where they go in a sentence it doesn't look like you are near the Pearly Gates yet.

[Synchro909]

Originally Posted by 40 Deluxe

I did mean a dual master cylinder. The problem is that total pedal travel has to be the same as original or the pedal will hit the floor before the brakes are applied in case of a leak. If you've ever blown a hose, you noticed that the pedal went to about an inch off the floor before you had any brakes! That is normal.
If a dual master is mounted in an early car and has less pedal travel than OEM or pedal ratio is different, the pedal will likely hit the floor before you have any brakes!

By dual master cylinder, I understand two separate hydraulic systems completely independant of each other so that if one does fail, the other is unaffected. I'd take that any day over a single master cylinder which, as you say would result in no brakes at all. BTW, single master cyinders have been prohibited here for decades. Any imported car that had them fitted had to be converted before they were allowed on the road.

[Licensed to kill]

Originally Posted by Steve Plucker

So I bought this very early 1929 (Feb) Tudor about 10 years ago or there abouts...It was either me or a hot rodder.

Things that were noted when I bought it...

1. It was repainted at some time in its life BUT it was repainted the same color as it was originally;

2. The fabric top was replaced at some time in it's life BUT with the same type of material that it was originally;

3. Shocks were reproductions BUT replaced with originals that were restored;

4. Cast Iron sediment bowl was cracked so I replaced it with a original that was not cracked;

5. The chassis was so covered with crud of dirty hard grease in most spots you could not see the grease zerks in lots of places or anything else as that goes;

6. Upholstery is in its original condition as most other things still on the car.

I decided to remove the body, take everything off the frame and come back with it by cleaning it up taking great care as not to remove most of the original paint that was originally put on the chassis parts, replacing parts, as bearings and bushings, with good unrestored parts that still retained the original finish except as noted above if need be, and just tried to keep it in it's original shape/condition the best I could except for the nice shinny restored items (shocks and sediment bowl).

So...did I restore the car or did I preserve the car? I would estimate that overall it is about 85% still in its original condition but what do I know???

Pluck

It's just semantics. Reminds me of the line in the Nitty Gritty dirt bands song "Partners brother and friends".....
The critics all like our records just fine
But they seem a bit confused
Is it folk or rock or country
Whoa, seems like everybody cares but us........
However, in your case I would just go with "unmodified" if anyone asked.

[Licensed to kill]

Another thing that all this "restored vs preserved" reminds me of is an old saying regarding originality about the guy selling Daniel Boone's personal tomahawk. "It's the actual tomahawk that Dan'l himself carried but has been restored over the years. The head's been replaced twice and the handle's been replaced 4 times".

[30ccpickup]

Originally Posted by Steve Plucker

So I bought this very early 1929 (Feb) Tudor about 10 years ago or there abouts...It was either me or a hot rodder.

Things that were noted when I bought it...

1. It was repainted at some time in its life BUT it was repainted the same color as it was originally;

2. The fabric top was replaced at some time in it's life BUT with the same type of material that it was originally;

3. Shocks were reproductions BUT replaced with originals that were restored;

4. Cast Iron sediment bowl was cracked so I replaced it with a original that was not cracked;

5. The chassis was so covered with crud of dirty hard grease in most spots you could not see the grease zerks in lots of places or anything else as that goes;

6. Upholstery is in its original condition as most other things still on the car.

I decided to remove the body, take everything off the frame and come back with it by cleaning it up taking great care as not to remove most of the original paint that was originally put on the chassis parts, replacing parts, as bearings and bushings, with good unrestored parts that still retained the original finish except as noted above if need be, and just tried to keep it in it's original shape/condition the best I could except for the nice shinny restored items (shocks and sediment bowl).

So...did I restore the car or did I preserve the car? I would estimate that overall it is about 85% still in its original condition but what do I know???

Pluck

You did it right! A little restoration, with a little preservation, as needed. I bet it drives nice.

[Purdy Swoft]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand Lurker

Bob, keep it until you can't drive it anymore. "Downsizing" doesn't include the things you enjoy and will miss. That is called "dying" and since you can still remember all the words and where they go in a sentence it doesn't look like you are near the Pearly Gates yet.

I've got to agree with Dennis . I would keep it !!!!!!!

[flan30]

bottom line do what makes YOU happy!!!!