How Original?

The 'Ferrari Factory 1965' thread has some nice period pictures. Post #1 has picture number four there which shows a 206SP. Note the quality of the paint work. Further along in that thread post #3 shows a restored 206SP. The paint work there appears to be done to a very high standard.
Doug Nye who seems to know his way around these cars quite well had a interesting observation when viewing the 196SP '0790' at PB.
(This was the first concours - of any kind - I have ever spent time at in my entire life. Not really my particularly 'thing', and I probably won't try the experience a second time, but hands-on examination of this car amplified my disregard for the restored and the replicated...which were parked all around...")
Mr. Nye certainly has a way with words. To what standard should an old race car be restored? Once the numbers are judged correct, should owners have poor paint quality and a 'work horse' appearance to be accepted as real 60's cars? That Ferrari Walter M. had sitting around would fit in perfectly then.
ch

 

As fantastic as an older Ferrari looks when it's been completely "restored," it certainly does lose its originality. I really enjoy an unrestored car, glorious in its patina. Even a few real battle scars give it a personality and authenticity that let you know that the car is a survivor.

I find it interesting how divergent car show judging is between the Ferrari world and the Corvette world.

The Ferrari concours rewards perfection. Flawless paint and perfect upholstery, even on race cars, is the standard.

For NCRS or Bloomingtoon guys, factory original is the goal. Those guys go crazy trying to replicate the factory assembly line, right down to orange peel paint, overspray, and greasepen marks.

Why do you suppose that is?

 

Perhaps the greater talent is in reproducing flaws. There are lots of people who can hang a nice paint job on the car but to work to the standard that the 'General' used requires real knowledge of the original cars. When car shows picked a class or show winner the easiest way was to judge the quality of the work done on the car. Each loser if that 'term' can be applied to a Ferrari owner then brought back a more 'perfect' car next year. Then once everyone had a 'perfect' car the 'history of the car' became a deciding factor. Some people had lost before the car even rolled out of the transporter. A system that acknowledges a car is a 'silver' or a 'gold' standard of quality has it's merits but some people want to be NUMBER 1 and not part of a group...
ch

 

As one of those rotten over restorers who has to count on big money allowing me to create, to feed my kids, I agree.. Inspection marks and greasepencil marks are apart of the current game, as with a few spot welds in the right places showing through the paint. But other than that, its guys like me tring to out do ourselves every year. The difference is our game is a Concours d' Elegance, and many marque events are not. I have done many cars for marque events or club events based on a 100 or 500 point system. I have even disscussed it with a few FCA judges. Its simply a different game. But don't think its any cheaper or more original. I once worked on a Ford model AA truck for the annual MARC event (model A restorers) that cost over $200,000 to restore and lost to a car with over $250,000 in it! And I won't even get started on Corvettes...

 

All cars IMO should be restored to as perfect as you can, ie. as the factory would have if money and time was no option.

Regarding race car patina ... that is easily solved by RACING the car again!

That is the problem with most race car restorations, ie. the car never turns a wheel in anger again and thus it's soul dies.

Pete