Patina == History, or just Rust?

There are varying degrees of patina. All the way from real nice to pretty rough. Keep your car however you want it to be. My car has "extreme patina" but it runs and drives great. It will sit like it is until I feel like restoring it if I ever do. That might be a project for someone else. What was the question again?

 

"An airplane hanger, and a full-time mechanic" would be pretty sweet, but most of us can't afford that. But even if you could, the difference between keeping a car in good running condition and keeping a fully restored show car are two completely different animals.

I have seen a bunch of unrestored, heavily patina'd cars that I love in their grungy condition, and many that have been a little too far gone. As well, I have seen some outstanding over-restored cars and I love them too. I think a passionate car lover can get excited about either one.

The real issue is worth, and which is to be valued more or less, and with that, for what should an investor be looking and why - however, that is a question I cannot answer.

For me, my Ferraris are toys I plan to use as much as possible. I use them, break then and fix them to as best a level that I can, but with that, I can't ever plan on showing them at an event unless I want to convert them into garage queens and spend a silly amount of money preparing them to pristine condition.

 

If its old original paint and worn leather etc thats patina. if its rusty and has animals living in it like some recent barn find posted here then thats RUST, nothing attractive about it. At that point what are you preserving? Rust from sitting unloved or racing scars?

 

The criticism of the Ralph Lauren collection, as I understand it, is that he took cars from the 'survivor' category and restored them - thereby removing the factory finishes, racing battlescars, etc.

To me, the 'grunge' that you mention adds character to a car.

Regards,

Art S.

 

In the GTO thread, a member posted a picture of the now- RL 250GTO. Before Lauren bought it, it showed character in a pretty blue, with racing headlights and extra vents. It was truly a unique car, and it's history was palpable. Ralph bought it and "restored" (neutered) it into a glossy fantasy of a 250GTO that never existed on the day. Yes, it looks beautiful, but also fake in a strange way.

This is to be contrasted with the fate of 6GTO, who had his car completely restored at MotoTechnique. As we've learned since the rebuild, the owner of 6GTO intends to drive the car and enjoy without worrying about bug guts "damaging" the paint.

I think RL enjoys the car as a static form of art - but IMHO, a car is more beautiful as moving art. The good news is that his mantra that he has/will never sold a single car is just BS marketing hype. He has sold cars before, and with any luck, his historical Ferrari's will end up in the garage of somebody who intends to do history justice.

Yes, he has great cars, but every time I see them I can't help but think that they were acquired merely as a prop for some phony black and white photoshoot of the new fall catalog.

Peter

 

Yes!

The leather in particular can look very very good with a bit of wear on it. It brings the gain out and makes it look soft and comfortable, like it's calling you to sit down and go for a drive. That's patina.

Dirt and rust are ....well....dirt and rust.

 

I am in complete agreement with both you and Newman. I am partial to battle scars, but rust and dirt are just that and signify uncared for and unloved cars...

 

This is a very subjective subject even at the extremes. No Ferrari except an important race car should be rusty and dented in my opinion; they need to at least look 'okay'. A 30 year old car with original paint that's presentable does not 'need' a repaint; vintage cars with vintage paint look fantastic! The problem is: how do you take a dented, rusty 330 GT look 'period' when you restore it? You can't create 40 year old patina and it's almost dishonest to try, so if it needs extensive body work you can misalign the panels slightly if you want to look original but an intentionally sloppy job would be a tough call for someone spending what it takes to restore a vintage Ferrari. Most people would want it looking 'new' even though they end up with a car far nicer than they ever were when new.

Tough calls!

Ken

 

You are way off base there. My car is completely original and came with all service records, tools, manuals, etc. I have personally met all three of the previous owners with the exception of Prince Bertil. I have two three ring binders with the complete history of the car and service records from 1960 on. The car is a little ratty, and has some rust, but runs like a champ. Unloved, I don't think so.

 

In the patina there s someting emotional, and sur it s a part of history.
The best exemple is 166MM 0052M barchetta an authentic and unspoiled piece of Ferrari racing history
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I'd have to paint it, no question.

 

At least with the competition cars, the issue for me is whether the restoration is done to a standard that is much, much better than the car ever had, even as it left the factory gates. Period photos and folks who were familiar with the cars will tell you that the finish was a little dull and the metal work a little wavy - these were workhorses - no miles-deep reflections.

I had the privilege of speaking to Sgr. Scaglietti (through an interpreter) about this very thing at Reading in 2000. He confirmed that the less-than-perfect metalwork on our 0556(0446)MD was pretty much how he remembered dong things (minus the two shunt scars and dents where I leaned my bike on it whenI was a kid!) on the race cars. He was extremely adoring of the craftsmanship he saw on the other cars, even if some were arguably over-restored - my memory is that he said "I wish I could have hired all of you back then!"

Here are pics of 0556(0446)MD at that show - warts and all - and with my father, Gozzi and Scaglietti. The car is red in the shots - dad painted it red in 1960 (he says he thinks he is the first perpetrator of "re-sale red" syndrome) - it is being taken back to FRB.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I see both sides, and for a car with real competition history I can see leaving it alone. But the Ferrari factory didn't apply faded paint, cracked leather or dents. I'm not convinced that a tired-looking car serves much purpose, whereas a faithfully restored one should be much closer to the original state of the car and reflects a kind of stewardship.

I agree -- a Ferrari is supposed to be a special car. The (stupid?) analogy in the back of my mind is the fire truck, which sees hard use and extreme conditions, yet gets maintained fastidiously because there is no margin for failure.

Given the amount of maintenance these cars require, it seems to me as though the bodywork, interior, switchgear, etc., should all be in superb condition.

 

Amen.

Perfect IMO!

Pete

 

Me too.

That car did not race looking like a worn out old bomb. Why is leaving it like that (which it never ever, ever looked like in it's "working" days) making it authentic?. I just don't understand.

The only thing authentic about it is that it is unmaintained. Heck I can find heaps of old cars in Australia that have been left in a field that look that sort of authentic.
Pete

 

Maybe not "off-topic", but just a slight bend in the road: There is a Vignale racer (225? I forget) which was restored by a highly respected shop with hand-brushed grey paint in the engine compartment. Not exactly applied patina; I'm sure they viewed it as applied authenticity. And you've all seen the latest in rat-rods with applied rust spots and several layers of paint/primer. What's next? Fangio's applied fingerprints?

 

Let's not forget the original Italian air in the tires. No extra charge!

CW

 

Yes but as you know it no longer looks like that, see: http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=137283886#post137283886 ... it has been tidied a fair bit.

I'd still paint it myself ...
Pete

 

Pete,

They got rid of the grey stuff, and made it safe to drive - I think that's about it. It still has the peeling paint and other issues - I think it is much more wonderful as is than restored!

Regards,

Art S.

 

Since I was the one who brought it up in the RL thread I guess it's up to me to expand on the thought.

RL just doesn't seem to take it on a "case by case" basis. I think it's fair to assume that 0052M (well preserved as it is) would be subjected to the same over-restoration treatment as everything else were it in his collection, but a fair number of us agree that it's acceptable and actually more valuable in it's current state.

My line in the sand is firmly drawn with competition cars. Personally, I could give a rat's ass if someone wanted to over-restore a passenger car, and most of the time I'm grateful for them doing so. But when you're talking about something with a notable history which can be preserved with minimal effort and still function (like RL's GTO) it's a tough idea to get on board with when you consider that the cars were rolling testbeds at birth- there is no one 'standard' which you can apply across the board. Each one is absolutely unique.

In this case you take the good with the bad. There are some nasty areas, but if you were to repair them with today's techniques (if you were even inclined to undertake such a effort) you'd lose the imperfections in the process. Imperfections are character, and character is what made Ferrari.

FWIW, take a closer look at the racing photos of the time and you'll see that this car is the definition of the 'quality' that existed during that period- we're just used to seeing perfect examples that never really existed. Bryan's encounter with Sgr. Scaglietti re-enforces that idea, and IMHO revising his work is like thinking you can 'help out' a Van Gogh because we've got a better brush selection now (I'm sure the curators at the Getty would love to hear my ideas for Irises).

There is a middle-road that must exist, and Napolis has a good hold on it. The cars are enjoyed and restored just enough- he picks the most significant year in it's history and uses original parts and techniques where possible to reach that point (usually un-doing several wrongs in the process) but doesn't impose his will on the past.

 

Agree.

Regarding over restoration. It really is only a problem if the owner then does not use the car, and ofcourse they chrome something that shouldn't have been.

But take 0052M for example. If that car was restored perfect and then (unlike RL's cars) raced again it will very soon look like a wonderful used and raced car. Same with RL's GTO ... if he raced it for a couple of seasons and did not repaint it between each race, etc. it will soon get a little bit of race car look about it again and then we would all be happy.

IMO cars should be restored to perfect period condition (that is how the car was when built/raced, etc. ... not as they were found) and then USED, and looked after.

Not using is worse than over restoration IMO.
Pete

 

I owned this car for a few years using it as daily transportation and in informal track events. One of the first things I did to the car--after completing an engine rebuild--was to tend to some body work and repaint the car, but I did not alter the configuration or any of the identifiers that set this GTO apart from the others. When I saw photos of the car after its RL restoration, I was disappointed. I think peter5 has articulated what I felt when he says, "Yes, it looks beautiful, but also fake in a strange way." This is exactly the reaction I have to the car. It's like seeing a certain film star after his cosmetic surgery; he looks good, but not authentic.

 

PSK Pete,

I'm finding your argument interesting; you are one of the strongest proponents of not breaking up 2+2s such as GTEs yet for you, it is OK to remove the original finish from the last (and possibly one of the most historically significant) unrestored Barchetta. There are already more examples of these wonderful little cars than originally built that have perfect paint and no trace of the original hand finishing imperfections that were there when these cars were new or used in anger.

To me the restorations result in cars that are beautiful but sterile, separated from their previous history, sort of like imitations of themselves. Obviously if there is little or nothing left of the original finishes, a restoration is necessary but it always surprises me to see people ready to bring their cars to 'perfect' condition when they are in nice shape or where the condition represent significant history.

Regards,

Art S.