Modifying older cars, what are the "moral" distinctions?

1. Coachbuilders/carrozzeria in the 50s-70s did many one-off Ferraris. These now often fetch higher prices and from what I read are considered "original."

2. One-off cars done in the last 30 years - on vintage cars and new models - don't seem to get the same reverential treatment of the special one-off Ferraris done more than 30 years ago. They are considered imitations, recreations, replicas, etc. There seems to be a certain glee in catching someone saying, "Oh, that's only a rebodied 250/330/365... not a real ______." Now, I'm not talking about people who are trying to pawn a car off as another VIN, but those who change the shape or features of the car.

My question then is, "what is the difference?" Why are some shunned or derided for changing an older car now, even when others changed them before? If someone wants to cut a 250GTE, what moral right do they now assert to reject it? If Count Volpi did it 30 years ago, or it was done bespoke for European Royalty no one would care.

Makes me want to buy a vintage Ferrari and rebody it, just to do it.

 

At the time that Count Volpi did it the cars were still in production / didn't have any historical significance.

Are you that desperate for atention ?

 

Ryan.

It's a complicated question. I've seen a few of the period rebodies, some were great, some were awful, but they were done in period to production cars, much like Jim G's Enzo/P car.

To do the same thing now to a 50's Ferrari, to a car considered a classic, would diminish the value of the car, not only from a monetary standpoint, but from a historical one. There are fewer and fewer examples of these available, to take one and rebody it NOW, would be a crime. One less car to look at that shows what Enzo meant the car to be.

If you want to do a rebody, buy a 599, send it to Zagato, and let them have at it. Plenty of the 599s will be built, and it will NEVER be a collectable along the lines of a 330 or 250. Just gonna be too dang many of them.

If you must wreck a classic, then buy one that's beyond reasonable repair. That way you can have the vin# and the Ferrari name, without laying waste to a great, or even good, period car.

I have to add I'm a Johnny come lately to this point of view. 5 years ago, when I was just getting started with my Ferrari obsession, I didn't see anything wrong with making a Testa Rossa "homage" from a 250GT. Then I saw one. UGH. Then, I spent some serious time around a real 250TR, and the rest is history. Even a "great" knock off is still lame in comparison to an original.

Dave
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

For me its all about original designs. Some of my favourite cars are one-off from the well known and less well known designers and styling houses. Older one-offs give us a glimse back to what was then considered modern or cutting edge. They are important parts of a manufacturers history and developement.

The GTO has already been done, 45 years ago.
Why try and do it again today? Badly.

 

Interesting Thread. I think it's important to keep in mind that Ferrari cut/hacked/and modified cars when it suited them as well.
P3's were turned into 412P's and one P 3/4. One P 3 was crudely hacked by Ferrari/NART into a 330 Can Am and 2 P 4's were converted/cut into 350 Can Am's. There are no longer any original P3's existent. There is only 1 original P4 still existent.

Ferrari removed and discarded 250 Series I GTO's original bodies and put on new Series II bodies.

206S Dino 034's original body was discarded when 034 was sent to PF to build Dino Competizone. Officially Dino Competizone is Dino Competizone it's no longer 206S 034. Officially Ferrari P 4/5 by Pininfarina is Ferrari P 4/5 by Pininfarina it's no longer an Enzo. Officially 412P 0844 is 412P 0844 it is no longer P3 0844. Now an interesting question is if you sent 350 Can Am 0858, Rebodied (Not by Ferrari) 350 Can Am 0860, and 412P 0844 back to Ferrari Classiche and asked them to return them to P4 0858,
P4 0860 and P3 0844 what would you think about that? What would the market think about that? Now? In 10 Years? In 50 years?

IMO the market would value these two higher than the cars they once were.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

One wonders if Ferrari could have foreseen what the values of the cars would be today they might have been less inclined to slice and dice! At the time I assume it was financial expediancy as they wanted to get the maximum use out of each car and obsolete racing cars were no use to anyone.

 

I don't think Enzo gave a happy crap about the value of his cars, past, present (at the time) or future. I think he wanted to win races, and the cars were just tools to be used toward that end. If it had made sense to continue to evolve the cars piece-meal instead of starting from scratch now and then, I don't think you would have any of the old racers intact.

 

Jim,

What is the yellow car? Is that new to you? Best, Yale

 

That is Dino Competizone. Still with Pininfarina simply used to illustrate point.

 

When I was a wee wax, from age 5 on up, every summer day at Gramps' place, my Uncles and I would be at the back door of Grocery Store #1 (of 3) at 6:30 AM, trimming that day's arrival of lettuce, carrots and so forth, along with bringing in crates, boxes or cwt bags of items such as bananas, tomatoes, beans, rice and so forth.

Oh, the smell of fresh produce.

Then.

Now, one does not enjoy such aromas and flavors which once sang in perfect harmony, as the essence has been genetically modified out, a sad trade for for appearance's sake.

That said, 'Napolis got it right to have Pinifarina rebuild a car called Enzo into a proper Enzo, even though it's not called an Enzo anymore.

As for Vintage Ferrari, to modify now to a state of being they never existed in would be heresy.

 

Very. Very True. Race cars were very primitive and natural. Over the years restorers have smoothed them out. Note 0854's nose. We removed 50 lbs of Bondo from 0854. Note how over the years bondo was added above the original paint to smooth out the surface.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I think goes to part of my thinking: these were considered adjustable, modifiable chassis that were changed to suit the will of the owners. Ferrari and many others participated. To analogize they were malleable clay, canvas that could be repainted, Legos that could be taken apart and reassembled.

But then at some point the enthusiast world stops and tries to decide that they cannot be changed any more. The clay is fired, the paint is dry, the Legos can't be touched! When does this happen? Why does it change in value? I saw in the Drogo thread that Marcel says that customization should be done within 10 years of production. I know there is controversy in the collector/exhibitor world because of certain cars being excluded from judging because of they forsook originality.

I suppose there are subissues here on perception of such cars: Do you own it like a tool or machine, or do you own it as art? It is a functional machine that looks and sounds nice. Some people buy custom crafted guns and fire them, some put them in cases on the wall never to be handled again.

There are obviously no definitive answers, but I think it is good to mark the boundaries of the theories of property and art at play here. I'd like to work these ideas out a bit, it would make a good article for a magazine. I've been fascinated for a long time about the economic values placed on rare or luxury goods.

 

A slightly different topic of discussion, but a potent one. Earlier posts have referenced Enzo's own disregard for the aethsetic value of his machines (which I would not wholly buy into- one does not do business with Pininfarina et al if one lacks a certain value for such things) but his concept is much closer to the "drive vs. show" endless debate, or the "restore vs. maintain"

I believe the commonly expressed wisdom here is correct, the cars that were altered "in period" were not perceived to have any great or rare value, by the factory least of all- they were machines- blunt objects to be used for a purpose, and if they had to be altered to better suit it, then so be it.

But it also makes an assumption that everyone, including an owner, collectively agrees that something is perfect the way it is. Which is to say, maybe he has a Daytona, and he kind of likes it, but would like it better if it was a convertible? Can he chop the top off? Well, yeah, he can, but should he? We might all gasp in unison, but it's not really up to us. The world would then be minus one more Daytona, but plus one more happy owner (and plus one relatively devalued Daytona Spyder)

But it also begs the more abstract question that the above quote raises, which is at what point does an object transcend its original function or purpose to become art? And is that a personal choice? Some would see beauty in some pretty mundane things, but does that make them precious?

I have a good friend who collects very valuable English shotguns- I have a nice gun, but in the same atmosphere as nice as his. And when we go afield, he is constantly worried that a branch or a rock is going to scratch his 50K gun, and horrified that I seem to have found a way to scratch my (exceedingly less valuable) gun. And I guess there is the difference. To me: it's a tool. To him: Art.

But if our perception of them as art begins to obscure the original function, haven't we cheated ourselves? And is the reason some of these this are regarded as art directly related to how they function? The sound of a V-12, or the way they drive or feel? Isn't that a part of their art?

Damien Hirst put a cow in a tank of formaldehyde and called it art. Some might say it was a nicer piece of art when it was eating grass. Both are probably right. But no cow will ever sell for what a Hirst will.

 

Interesting Thoughts!

 

Great post, shwagger. I'll respond later after I mull your questions over.

But man, am I jealous of Damien Hirst. Freaking genius marketing and promotion. I presume you saw his newest creation http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/popup?id=3234825 , it's a human skull plated in platinum and coated with $14mm in diamonds. It sold for $100mm in cash from an investment group.

He just made $86,000,000 for being the most famous artist to coat a human head in metals and jewels. That is what fascinates me. Not only that, I understand Hirst has a production team that carries out his projects, he can sell and think of new zany art. That said, I think it is a good looking piece. But $100,000,000??!

 

Thanks, Ryan. Yes, I saw the Hirst Skull...it just goes to show what a scam modern art can be- it's ALL about promotion. Period.

But I think after re-reading my previous post I neglected to mention one very basic point/question....

Who gets to determine where the statute of limitations is in regards to these alterations? Where is this fuzzy line between the creation of new art and the destruction of old art? If I were the Daytona owner in question, and it was 1974, would it have been OK? (probably) What about 1980? 1996?

 

Here is an interesting one. A gentleman out on the Eastern shore found a Duesenburg chassis. He then located a Duesenberg motor found in a hot rod in California. He then put the 2 together, then commissioned a boat craftsman to create the attached car. My understanding is that the car won some award at Pebble but I'm not sure in what class.

In this case, something unique was created from components. I think the work was done in the 60's and has won significant awards. I guess one question is how should it be judged? Its not original by any means nor is it being represented as such.

regards

ken
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Its now all been said.

 

IN regards to the Duesnberg previously mentioned. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I am aware there really are no "original" Duesenbergs. Duesenberg built chassis/engine ony- bodies were done after the fact by coach builders. I know some of my predisposistions regarding re-bodies are going to show here, so my apologies to all who are offended. It seems to me that a major alteration to a car seems to be okay depending on when and by whom it was done. No one questions all the series 1 GTOs rebodied as series II cars during their racing careers. Most of the 275 NART spyders (considered original) were cut by Scaglietti after the fact . Further more, it seems that period rebodies also give way to who did the rebody. I know of one major collector who has a Lancia-Ferrari D 50 replica (freely disclosed as a replica) frequently campaigned in major vintage Ferrari events and no one seems to blink. Just a few observarions.

Napolis- I greatly enjoy your position and insight on such matters. Have you gotten alot of negative feedback on your P 4/5 from the "purists"?

One more random thought. I remember the "GTO" convertible on the market several years ago. I also remember the venom on this forum that was directed towards the buyer. I also recall seeing the car on 684 in New York maybe 10 years ago and being stunned by it. I stirctly viewed it as a rebody, not a replica, no car existed originally. Yetr, many were greatly offended.

Further more, I keep hearing about the "slaughter of 250 GTE's and 330"s to make theser cars, but I've seen enough examples of absolute "rats" of these cars, which {even at todays stratospheric prices) no financially sane person could ever justify restoring to original.

Once again, thank you for letting me vent.

Pres

 

Unless a car has significant history in it's modified form, I rather see cars restored as close as humanly possible to the way they were when they were first built.

 

If you've ever wondered what liquid wax looks like, and who hasn't - I spontaneously blew my wad on the last pic.

Good Lord, that's beautiful.

Clearly, the landyacht builder did an exceptional job of taking exception to the rule where exceptions may be had. Because...

Chassis + Engine - Shell = Knock your(s)elf out, you hot rodder, you!

 

Hi

No flack on P 4/5 from "purists". (4 Sure not everyone likes it but no flack about using an Enzo as a starting point) I think Ferrari was annoyed that I did it but when Luca first saw the full scale styling model he liked it, understood what I had done, and that it was good for Ferrari and felt that she deserved to be officially badged as a Ferrari and that was that.

I remember seeing the same "GTO Spyder" you did near the Throgs Neck Bridge and being very impressed as well. Was it Red with a Blue Maranello Concessionaires Stripe? I seem to remember it was.



Best

 

Well... the problem with that position is that they have to be modified before they can acquired significant history while in modified form!

 

Jim,

Every single car and modification was done "in period" and for a good reason at the time, ie: to win races. To for example modify 0844 NOW would make no sense as it's well and truly retired, and does not have any races to win (yep historic races mean nothing ... I know Jim and I agree on this point, but I've added it for others).

Thus to modify a 250GTE to make your special unique car would also make no sense, your sure as heck not advertising your companies abilities as a coach builder. BUT to modify a 599, yep would make perfect sense, as would modifying a F430 race car ...

I honestly do not see the interesting part of this thread, it's cut and dry and simple. Leave old cars alone (or restore them to a form they once had that tickles your fancy) and enjoy them for what they are ... if you want to play, buy a newer one .
Pete