Well said.
I can remember when I was younger seeing 30s-vintage cars at car shows, with
a beautiful "rubbed-in" patina to the lacquer. It wasn't flawless, just
deep, and it looked nothing like the finish on modern cars. The nickel trim
might have a haze of fine scratches from years of polishing, but it still
looked more appealing than new chrome, somehow.
I know Phil Hill has the family Pierce-Arrow that has never been restored,
even though he is in the car restoration business.
But then, many older cars have been more abused than used, and there really
isn't any possibility of maintaining a "patina". As if you found a Louis XV
chair that had been painted in the white and gold "antique" treatment
popular in 60s boudoirs...
on 5/13/03 4:39 PM, Dean T. Lake at dtlake@erols.com wrote:
> I won't weigh in on every aspect of the debate (points on both sides have
> been well expressed already), but I can't resist adding my two cents.
>
> I feel the very best car is the example that has been driven AND well cared
> for. The result is usually a patina that only miles can give. Consider the
> world of old furniture: Ever heard the experts on the Antiques Road Show?
> They go on and on about the affects of age on the wood and how, despite the
> impulse to clean and re-finish, to remove its beauty would be ill advised.
> This concept is not always reflected in the world of car restoration, but it
> reflects my personal preference. Then again, just like with old furniture,
> sometimes an overhaul is the best - or only - course of action.
>
> Dean
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|