triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Originality

To: triumphs@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Originality
From: don spence <dspence@oanet.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:53:10 -0600
Cc: jonmac@ndirect.co.uk
Couldn't have said it better.
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:41:20 +0100
> From: "jonmac" <jonmac@ndirect.co.uk>
> Subject: Originality
>
> I take the view that as the remaining vehicle parc continues to 
> steadily age
> and diminish, there will come a time that the cars we currently 
> cherish will
> become such rarities that *departures* from original spec will become 
> less and
> less important. This is not based on looking into the future - but 
> seeing how
> it is now. Many run-of-the-mill cars built pre-WW2 are so rare that 
> while it's
> nice to see an example that is *probably* original, no-one worries too 
> much if
> it isn't. Triumphs are run-of-the-mill cars that typify an epoch. 
> There's
> nothing particularly special about them. The important thing is the 
> damned
> thing is still running, being used - and most important of all, being 
> enjoyed.
> If the fitting of certain more modern (unoriginal) components ensures 
> this can
> happen, is a slavish adherence to originality all that critical? As an
> example, our own Veteran Car London to Brighton Run each November sees 
> cars of
> amazing antiquity taking part - the youngest I believe not made after 
> 1905?
> I'd wager all of them are now using parts (or mods to keep them 
> running) that
> were never there when new.
> However, if you want your Triumph to appear as if encapsulated in 
> acrylic and
> stay in a hermetically sealed time warp, take it everywhere on a 
> trailer and
> never drive it in case something breaks or it gets dirty, originality 
> should
> be allowed to prevail.
>
> Jonmac




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>