Restored vs Unrestored or how should we restore

I hope, that some europeans chime in, since I think that there's a significant difference between the US and Europe.
We have a ' patina hype ' over here.

 

Good thing my 308 has "patina" so I should just leave the rust? Haha

It's around here as well but not nearly the same scale.

Most people over restore.

 

"Patina" is a beautiful Italian word that means "old"

 

I am somewhat happy about the patina hype, since this makes my classic cars, which are mobile items and not stationary, more valuable.

But I am afraid that "patina" does not mean the normal scars of use, but to take a car, bury it in a field, undig it a year later, put it in a stable, throw some hay on it, place a few hen on the roof and let them **** on the car, make a series of fabulous photos of the scenery, assure any person having interest that the car will not be able to move just one meter, construct a story about a potential famous preownership and deceased last owner, put a price tag on it with at least the double of a true (! meaning that everything works and does not just look good) concours car and let an auction house offer it with the disclaimer "all infos provided by the owner".

I will consider this approach in a few decades, when I have become to old to drive and enjoy my cars

 

I was busting a gut when I read about replicating errors found in photos from the factory assembly.

Then on the other end there are people who polish the balls of the seat rail tracks.

To each their own I suppose.

 

I like the term - Preservation.

 

I used to be a volunteer at the Patton Museum at Ft. Knox where we went against Army regs and restored tanks for use in demonstrations. It was living history vs. a static display.
I believe only the most rare of specimens should be kept original and in a museum. If we drive our cars they will eventually need restoration of various levels.

 

You know what the difference is between a patina car and a polished seat rail balls car ?

 

$250,000-300,000?

or is it that the polished car never gets driven?

 

One you get labeled a ball polisher, the other an Italian?

 

Fake patina. Get the all imperfection without the authenticity.

 

Authenticity - w194.com

 

I like yours better , but no.

vrsurgeon was right, the difference between the two is 250 grand

 

This is a really interesting thread to me. I bought my Dino eight years ago from what was basically the second/third owner... Does mother to son count as one or two owners? Anyway, the two of them had the car for 26 years before I bought it in 2006. The car was originally Bianco Polo Park 20-W-152 but the son of the second owner says he remembers the bottom half of the car being painted blue. Working on the car has confirmed that the bottom half of the car had been sprayed blue at some point in time but none of the paperwork that came with the car supported that story. What the paperwork did support was that in 1980 the mother took the car in to have it sprayed two tone blue and then changed her mind and had the car painted all black. While it was my original intention to return the car to the blue and white combination after reading about the California Spider at Fantasy Junction I'm beginning to think that leaving the car as it is in black is a better idea. I can touch up the various flaws in the paint and stay ahead of any minor rust leaving the car in as close as original condition as can be... The car runs great and I have kept all of the pollution equipment in operating condition (removed from the car). Next idea is to remove the original non op A/C and install the Retro 308 conversion. Please let me hear what you think about leaving the car black...

 

My Espada originally was green and repainted silver by a preowner. The paint job was well done and it still looks very good, after at least 10 years since repaint. No flaws, not to speak of rust spots.

The interior ist somewhat tired (you would have to take a close look on fotos, hoewever).

The mechanics in the meanwhile are up to their job in all details.

I will now leave it just as it is and enjoy driving. Maybe in a couple of years I will redo the interior. Or preserve it as "patina" .

The advantage of this approach is a) fun using the car and b) no costs coming up, except usual service costs.

However a "collector" will not really appreciate such approach, but spend $$$$ making the car like it looked when leaving the factory. If he does that correctly, however, he will also have to provide for rust appearing all around after two years (see contemporary car magazine reports ).

 

Claude, you have to get out of this mindset of "why"....some people want a brand new car, period. It's not for you to understand.

Someone who has a collection of cars would love to have a brand new 308 like it was in 1976, it's that simple. To define the market in absolutes is not realistic, we are talking about toys in general.

The reality is , this car is not being marketed for you or me or to you or me , we are not that target for such a car. Like it or not, someone will see value in it and buy it.

You are trying to make sense of a financial purchase that doesn't make sense in the first place. Do you know how many people think you are "nuts" for having a 308 and a Testarossa.

You will never find the perfect answer you are looking for, but it's a fun debate to try and understand why.

For the record, it's cheaper and better to restore a good base car , the rusted out buck of s..t you suggest to restore will be much more expensive, plus knowing which parts are original will be harder to source, and more experience to buy as a neglected car will have much more incorrect pieces, cause more time to restore. Therefore, a bad base potentially could cost more and take longer to restore, hence driving up the price. The last thing you want to do on any Ferrari is start doing frame tube rusted work and cut up wiring from old radios.