Why the obsession with originality of classics?

[Gemaeden]

Let's face it, all classic cars were built down to a price, rather than up to a standard. As such the base model is a starting point from which we can customise it according to our whim.
The obsession with originality is largely tied up with value.
What intrigues me is if I modified a Porsche to Singer standard it would be worth less than the Singer version.
Why?

[RichB]

Gemaeden said:

Let's face it, all classic cars were built down to a price, rather than up to a standard.

Let me just politely disagree with you.

[a8hex]

RichB said:

Gemaeden said:

Let's face it, all classic cars were built down to a price, rather than up to a standard.

Let me just politely disagree with you.

But he's probably right for most marques, Jaguars certainly were, yours are a delightful exception.

[Equus]

Gemaeden said:

Let's face it, all classic cars were built down to a price, rather than up to a standard. As such the base model is a starting point from which we can customise it according to our whim.

Even if that were true, where do you draw the line? Early Triumph TR's famously had an engine shared with a tractor. If budget had been no issue, they'd have been fitted with a nice all-alloy twin cam. And despite the fact that most cars of that era were 2 valve per cylinder and carburetted, there were precedents for 4 valves and fuel injection, even back then.

So, hey, let's just fit a Ford Duratec with throttle bodies and call it authentic, because if you squint a bit, you could claim that it would have been the money-no-object solution in period?

Come on guys... who are we trying to kid?!

Gemaeden said:

What intrigues me is if I modified a Porsche to Singer standard it would be worth less than the Singer version.
Why?

Is this a trick question?

Because Singer has built a reputation for itself, and you haven't...

[GoodOlBoy]

Equus said:

Even if that were true, where do you draw the line? Early Triumph TR's famously had an engine shared with a tractor. If budget had been no issue, they'd have been fitted with a nice all-alloy twin cam. And despite the fact that most cars of that era were 2 valve per cylinder and carburetted, there were precedents for 4 valves and fuel injection, even back then.

So, hey, let's just fit a Ford Duratec with throttle bodies and call it authentic, because if you squint a bit, you could claim that it would have been the money-no-object solution in period?

Come on guys... who are we trying to kid?!

You have a rather strange habit of making up scenarios, attributing them to others and then criticising them.

[sim16v]

Equus said:

Gemaeden said:

What intrigues me is if I modified a Porsche to Singer standard it would be worth less than the Singer version.
Why?

Is this a trick question?

Because Singer has built a reputation for itself, and you haven't...

So what are your thoughts on Singer?


By your reasoning, the cars should be crushed and the owners birched?

[Equus]

GoodOlBoy said:

You have a rather strange habit of making up scenarios, attributing them to others and then criticising them.

Well, how else would you interpret a suggestion that we should choose a base model and then 'customise it to our whim' (his words, not mine), on the grounds that to do so is fine because it was originally built to a price?

To claim any sort of 'authenticity' on such a basis is completely self-delusional, is the point I was trying to make.

Edited by Equus on Sunday 4th June 23:57

[Equus]

sim16v said:

So what are your thoughts on Singer?

By your reasoning, the cars should be crushed and the owners birched?

I don't believe I've anywhere advocated that crushers or birching should be involved?

If owners wish to 'Singerize' their cars, that's up to them. That they may make a loss on the conversion in the longer term probably doesn't bother them if they can afford Singer's prices.

I personally think that it's a shame that a fairly rare original car has had its authenticity destroyed, but Porsches leave me cold, anyway, and are not that uncommon, so I'm not particularly enraged by it. I would be more upset at a Spyder converted Lotus Elan, but each to their own.

For genuinely rare or important cars (and I'm talking about the likes of the Carrera 2.7 RS or the Elan 26R, or rarer), then I wouldn't be averse to some sort of 'preservation order' along the lines of a historic building listing, to ensure that the vehicle is maintained to a 'heritage' specification, but ultimately I think that it would be unnecessary: very few owners of cars of that level of importance are stupid enough to ruin their values by ham-fisted 'improvements'.

[mph]

Equus said:

Even if that were true, where do you draw the line? Early Triumph TR's famously had an engine shared with a tractor. If budget had been no issue, they'd have been fitted with a nice all-alloy twin cam. And despite the fact that most cars of that era were 2 valve per cylinder and carburetted, there were precedents for 4 valves and fuel injection, even back then.

So, hey, let's just fit a Ford Duratec with throttle bodies and call it authentic, because if you squint a bit, you could claim that it would have been the money-no-object solution in period?

Come on guys... who are we trying to kid?!

The TR's were produced for the prevailing market place.

Even if Triumph had the budget and expertise to design and manufacture a fuel injected twin cam, which I doubt, it wasn't necessary and would have made little sense.

I don't see where anyone, other than you, has tried to justify fitting a Duratec engine using historical speculation.

[aeropilot]

mph said:

Equus said:

Even if that were true, where do you draw the line? Early Triumph TR's famously had an engine shared with a tractor. If budget had been no issue, they'd have been fitted with a nice all-alloy twin cam. And despite the fact that most cars of that era were 2 valve per cylinder and carburetted, there were precedents for 4 valves and fuel injection, even back then.

So, hey, let's just fit a Ford Duratec with throttle bodies and call it authentic, because if you squint a bit, you could claim that it would have been the money-no-object solution in period?

Come on guys... who are we trying to kid?!

The TR's were produced for the prevailing market place.

Even if Triumph had the budget and expertise to design and manufacture a fuel injected twin cam, which I doubt, it wasn't necessary and would have made little sense.

I agree.

As you say, even if they could have designed such an engine back in that era (which I also agree is unlikely) the Standard-Triumph dealer network wouldn't have had the skills to look after such an engine.
It still didn't have the skills to correctly maintain the Dolly Sprint and Stag engines in the 70's...!!

[Doofus]

Equus said:

We've reached page seven of this thread, and without checking every post, I'm not sure we've heard the phrase 'period modification', yet? Period mods are generally accepted and even welcomed; out-of-period mods are not.

On page one I said:

I don't call that updating or modernising, because you're adding parts that were available in period.

[Yertis]

sim16v said:

Come on then Equus, show us some photos of your classics.

What classics do you have and cherish?

Or are you one of the vociferous rivet counters that attends classic car shows in their Picasso?

Waiting patiently for the answer to this one.

Unless the car is literally 'as it left the factory' it isn't going to be original. Not too many of those around. Personally, I can't understand why someone would take a wreck and restore to 'factory condition', without rectifying all the faults and weaknesses that had emerged over the ensuing 40 or fifty years. What are Stag owners supposed to do? Fill their cylinder heads up with casting sand and reinstall stretchy timing chains? I can think of countless deviations from original which dramatically improve the reliability and longevity of old Triumphs, and I've no doubt the same applies to most marques. I acknowledge that some people completely wreck the character of the car (there's a V8 TR6 doing the rounds at the moment which is not to my personal taste) but the 'originality above all else' argument makes no sense to me at all.

[steveL98]

RBH58 said:

I'm so in two minds about this, I don't have problem with fettling them to make them liveable classics. Like putting modern electrics and brakes and suspension that work on a DB5 or an E-Type. But when I see classics like this that have been "stanced", I think a public flogging is called for...

Really like that and I'm an old skool musclecar fan.. I'd get rid of the airdam though.

[RichB]

Personally I think they look better on nice fat rubber as built. There are millions of modern Ferraris so if one's preference is for something on skinny tyres then go newer.

[Yertis]

RichB said:

Personally I think they look better on nice fat rubber as built. There are millions of modern Ferraris so if one's preference is for something on skinny tyres then go newer.

Agreed – I think most classics look better on the correct profile tyre, although not necessarily the correct Equus-style original fitment, which often looks ridiculously skinny to my eyes. But that abomination up-thread is supposed to look like a 288GTO, not a 308, hence the air dam that's been mentioned. But those wheels – ouch, my eyes, etc. I don't know much about 288GTOs, but I really hope that isn't a real one.

[RBH58]

steveL98 said:

RBH58 said:

I'm so in two minds about this, I don't have problem with fettling them to make them liveable classics. Like putting modern electrics and brakes and suspension that work on a DB5 or an E-Type. But when I see classics like this that have been "stanced", I think a public flogging is called for...

Really like that and I'm an old skool musclecar fan.. I'd get rid of the airdam though.

The airdam is stock OEM!!!! The stupid 20" bling and 1cm ride height isn't".

What it's supposed to look like....

[swisstoni]

Yertis said:

sim16v said:

Come on then Equus, show us some photos of your classics.

What classics do you have and cherish?

Or are you one of the vociferous rivet counters that attends classic car shows in their Picasso?

Waiting patiently for the answer to this one.

Unless the car is literally 'as it left the factory' it isn't going to be original. Not too many of those around. Personally, I can't understand why someone would take a wreck and restore to 'factory condition', without rectifying all the faults and weaknesses that had emerged over the ensuing 40 or fifty years. What are Stag owners supposed to do? Fill their cylinder heads up with casting sand and reinstall stretchy timing chains? I can think of countless deviations from original which dramatically improve the reliability and longevity of old Triumphs, and I've no doubt the same applies to most marques. I acknowledge that some people completely wreck the character of the car (there's a V8 TR6 doing the rounds at the moment which is not to my personal taste) but the 'originality above all else' argument makes no sense to me at all.

I'm sure he can speak for himself in a minute, but Equus isn't one of the rivet counters.
He's merely pointing out that 'originality' is what a lot of classic buyers look for.

[papple]

Jukebag said:

Are these people really bothered about driving these lovely cars and enjoying them, or is it just about keeping them as perfect and original as possible in order to safeguard future investment?.

Edited by Jukebag on Tuesday 23 May 15:26

To take this back to the original poster's comment, therein lies what I think is the explanation.

To me there are three types of enthusiast;

1 Car enthusiasts
2 Driving enthusiasts
3 Money enthusiasts

Personally, I fall into category 1. I am more keen to see originality because, to me it preserves the original aesthetic and the history.

I accept that some fall into category 2 and I therefore understand why these points take second place to the driving experience (I one looked to buy a TVR - the owner had driven it for years and enjoyed it but it was badly maintained and he knew absolutely nothing about it - nor did he care)

The seemingly excessive attention to detail is often pursued by category 3 owners - its all about status and monetary values.

[sim16v]

RBH58 said:

steveL98 said:

RBH58 said:

I'm so in two minds about this, I don't have problem with fettling them to make them liveable classics. Like putting modern electrics and brakes and suspension that work on a DB5 or an E-Type. But when I see classics like this that have been "stanced", I think a public flogging is called for...

Really like that and I'm an old skool musclecar fan.. I'd get rid of the airdam though.

The airdam is stock OEM!!!! The stupid 20" bling and 1cm ride height isn't".

I think (Hope) the GTO is a photoshop, lots of details don't look quite right.

I think "OEM+" works, car a little bit lower with similar/same wheels, but +1" diameter.

Subtle things that you don't notice on first glance, but that is just my opinion.

I also appreciate the totally original concours/museum cars, but just don't think it is realistic.

Just look at the mega valuable 250 GTOs

As many were raced and crashed in period, how many are totally original, with original parts and paint?

Most are like Trigger's broom with many new parts.

Also look at the saga with Jag D types.

Many built from little pieces of chassis, or remaining crash damaged parts.


I don't go preaching to anyone what is right or wrong, much like religion.

If anyone wants to believe (or not) in their own god, fine, but don't try to ram your beliefs down others throats.

[a8hex]

papple said:

To take this back to the original poster's comment, therein lies what I think is the explanation.

To me there are three types of enthusiast;

1 Car enthusiasts
2 Driving enthusiasts
3 Money enthusiasts

The seemingly excessive attention to detail is often pursued by category 3 owners - its all about status and monetary values.

I'm really not sure about this. A lot of the people who obsess about getting just the right manufactures bolts and perfect reproduction stickers on their washer fluid bottles, go to fantastic lengths only to then sell them at a loss and move on to the next project where again they'll obsess about getting the car 100% "right". These people are a fourth type of enthusiast, they are into the detail, the project and the journey. Once they've achieved "perfection" they're bored and go looking for the next one.
Many of the money obsessed owners are into shiny things, which isn't the same as originality at all.