Restorations vs conservation

[PlywoodPascal]

I’ve a keen interest in classic cars, even if don’t own one (oldest currently 1998). I also live in an old house and am pretty interested in conservation of historic buildings.

The approaches applied to historic/old cars and buildings seem quite different.
Many buildings are conserved. The aim is to leave historical/original fabric as it is, repair where necessary, not rip out original stuff for the hell of it/ because you want to put a shiny laminate floor in your Tudor manor house. Of course we see very many Victorian properties utterly devastates, and even some Georgian ones, but the building trade seems to me to be increasingly learning to restore and conserve rather than renovate, even if many uninformed people are still ripping out original floors and removing fireplaces.

But cars - we seem to not worry about so much about conservation and just basically gut them and reinstate with new materials/parts/paint/trim.

Why do you think this is? Do you see it changing? Will we begin to look for cars that are as original and authentic as possible rather than is as good condition (new looking) as possible?

[OutInTheShed]

Depends what function we want from cars and buildings.

Museum piece or everyday use?
Is cost of use a consideration?

Sometimes it looks like too many artifacts, no enough care to go around.

[Jaz2000]

I enjoy the process of a full restoration literally taking every last nut and bolt off but to be fair I buy cars that are in very poor condition or have already been ripped apart by others so conservation is not really an option.

The other reason I like this approach is I will use my cars often once finished and want to be able to take them on long trips with reliability as good as I can get. I do however try to keep originality as much as possible and am not a fan of restomods but each to their own.

I like to see conservation cars but dont really want to own one as my ocd would want to sort out the worn parts and make to look like new again.

[Gary C]

Plenty of cars are conserved, the Lebanon 911 is a prime example

[Riley Blue]

PlywoodPascal said:

I’ve a keen interest in classic cars, even if don’t own one (oldest currently 1998). I also live in an old house and am pretty interested in conservation of historic buildings.

The approaches applied to historic/old cars and buildings seem quite different.
Many buildings are conserved. The aim is to leave historical/original fabric as it is, repair where necessary, not rip out original stuff for the hell of it/ because you want to put a shiny laminate floor in your Tudor manor house. Of course we see very many Victorian properties utterly devastates, and even some Georgian ones, but the building trade seems to me to be increasingly learning to restore and conserve rather than renovate, even if many uninformed people are still ripping out original floors and removing fireplaces.

But cars - we seem to not worry about so much about conservation and just basically gut them and reinstate with new materials/parts/paint/trim.

Why do you think this is? Do you see it changing? Will we begin to look for cars that are as original and authentic as possible rather than is as good condition (new looking) as possible?

My thoughts: many old buildings of all types,sizes and age have been adapted, enlarged and radically altered over the centuries to suit the needs and whims of successive owners whether Buckingham Palace, a farm labourer's cottage in rural Suffolk or a Derbyshire pit workers two-up, two-down. Probably a small minority have remained exactly as designed and built though are less likely to be permanent residences today.

The difference with classic cars is that owners seldom use them every day so can tolerate their historic characteristics unlike an old, damp house with inadequate heating, draughty windows, poor sanitation and so on.

With cars; the more modest, for example the Morris Minor, exist in their thousand and many owners treasure their car's originality whilst others enjoy theirs with uprated suspension, brakes, engine etc. as suits their needs. From what I've seen, this also applies as you move up the car market though as you near the top end originality can become more desirable.

I don't think the approach to old buildings and to classic cars is that different really, in fact hardly at all.

[Willhire89]

Riley Blue said:

I don't think the approach to old buildings and to classic cars is that different really, in fact hardly at all.

It is entirely different because it is unregulated - if you own a historic car you can literally do whatever you like to it but with a historic or old house either listed or in a conservation area there are checks and balances.

Your marque has suffered more than most with the chopping up of saloons to create faux racers under the (often false) guise that they were uneconomic to repair. Lots of Edwardians and some really rare ones have been chopped in length and the bodies discarded to make speedsters and this one is a prime example which was a unique survivor and now lost forever to be yet another two seat pointed tail fake



Conserving a car can be very rewarding and it certainly does not mean keeping worn or damaged elements but instead retaining the original patina but under the skin making it function perfectly and be safe. They are only old once.

[davettf2]

Spot on, they are only old/original once. Many years ago (35 +) I was building a 350cc Ducati classic racer to compliment my existing 250. On going to a recognised tuner to get the parts needed, fairings, seat tank, cams valves etc. I happened to mention that the bike i'd acquired was in original condition having languished in the owners shed for the past 15 years. Yes the chrome was rusty, paint faded and generally tired looking, but ran great. His comment was, leave it alone, find one that's been hacked about and unloved, your staring point is one that should be just used and enjoyed, it's only original once.

Cheers
Dave