Original With Provenance Vs Fully Restored
Discussion
I have a GT6 which has a detailed history file dating back to when it was new. How important do you think this is when buying a car and would you pay more for an unrestored (so not perfect) classic vs a completely rebuilt car with little to no provenance or vice versa? Bare in mind that an unrestored car has still had many parts replaced and repaired over the years but just has a story to tell.
Whether or not the car is fully restored, the file of history is worth a lot. I would find it hard to put a pound note value on the paperwork but it is highly desirable.
If the car has been kept up together and had parts replaced as required then I don’t see it as so black and white between an unrestored and a fully rebuilt example.
Having a full rebuild done on a relatively good running example is never going to make pure commercial sense as the extra value in the car will often be less than the cost of the rebuild so if return is the key then best not to do a full rebuild.
If the option is full rebuild against a non running bare shell then that is different .
If the car has been kept up together and had parts replaced as required then I don’t see it as so black and white between an unrestored and a fully rebuilt example.
Having a full rebuild done on a relatively good running example is never going to make pure commercial sense as the extra value in the car will often be less than the cost of the rebuild so if return is the key then best not to do a full rebuild.
If the option is full rebuild against a non running bare shell then that is different .
GT6s are still cheap starter classics with good examples available at £15-£20K. I think what is important to you that counts.
Given a choice, I would much prefer unrestored as with restored cars you don't know how well the work has been done.
Not only that but to me, it is nicer to step into a car that still has the original factory finish, no matter how bad that was.
Given a choice, I would much prefer unrestored as with restored cars you don't know how well the work has been done.
Not only that but to me, it is nicer to step into a car that still has the original factory finish, no matter how bad that was.
How long is a piece of String?? Anything that has been restored previously poses big questions, first of which is who restored it. If the car started off with history and provenance and has been done by a properly reputable restorer and the documentation covering the work is full of photographs, before and after, and all the replacement parts are listed then the value will very likely have been increased. If the work was done by Fred underneath the arches and the paperwork is skimpy and there is no previous history and close inspection reveals rust in dark corners and filler under the paint then it is probably a disaster needing another, proper, rebuild with value diminished accordingly. It also depends on what it is, a rotten Dino with no history for £5k is worth having no matter what - so long as you can afford the astronomical cost of restoring it properly. Having worked for two blue chip companies in the historic restoration business I would suggest that less history means less value and also that previous restoration work can be anything from totally worthless, even devaluing what was there before, to a huge asset - all depending on who did it. It is to be expected that many parts will perhaps have been replaced, that indicates only that it has been cared for and looked after.
e28525e said:
I have a GT6 which has a detailed history file dating back to when it was new. How important do you think this is when buying a car and would you pay more for an unrestored (so not perfect) classic vs a completely rebuilt car
These are just "old cars", and in the case of a GT6, lots about, not particularly valuable in the grand scheme of things, so just "old cars".Up to the prospective purchaser to decide whether or not they would pay more for a restored, or un-restored example. There's no magic formula here, it completely depends on the cars being looked at and the purchaser's desires and opinion.
The "completely rebuilt car" (as you put it) certainly has "provenance" and "a story to tell". Quite a story, I'd have thought.
e28525e said:
Bare in mind that an unrestored car ....
I am not about to "bare" anything! 
It's a strange business, and it depends on what it is you like about classic cars - is it a time capsule (in which case strict originality is the priority), is it the sensation of driving a 'showroom fresh [or better]' example (in which case you'd be looking for restored examples) or is it something in between? In any case provenance is helpful, either to prove originality or, in the case of a restored car, who did the work and what exactly it entailed.
My early Mk1 Mini is one of the curious middle-ground cases. 78,000 miles since new in March 1960, with its original owner until 2004, never 'restored', lovely 'patina' etc. etc. etc. Full paperwork trail from its original sales receipt and Austin warranty certificate until the week the original owner sold it. All work done at the same local garage which was a BMC/BL dealer until the 1980s when it became independent.
But it would not win any marks in a concours, either for cosmetic condition or originality. Because it was run for 44 years as 'a car' it's had any number of replacement parts put into it which are not the 'correct' type for a March 1960 Mini. It obviously has a later boot lid, for instance, which was fitted after it had a minor rear-end shunt in the 1970s, and I would suspect that the rear bumper is not the original, either. It had at least two gearboxes under warranty/recall in the early 1960s (because early Mini gearboxes were terrible) so the unit it now has is quite different internally from the one it left Longbridge with. The same goes for the driveshafts. It was fitted with later brake and clutch master cylinders with plastic rather than metal filler caps. It had a replacement rear subframe (surprise, surprise!) when it was 8 years old and I would be very, very surprised if the subframe it has now is to strict early-Mk1 spec. Someone fitted a later 11-blade plastic fan, and the later distributor/coil rubber boots at some point, because why wouldn't you? It's had patches put on the front of the sills (not very well) and an nearside wing put on in the 1990s, which is also not exactly the type it would have had in 1960.
All of this is documented in its history file. So it is 'original' but it is very much not 'original'. A high quality and fully 'anorak' restoration could return it much closer to its as-built specification but I think that's somehow much less authentic than it is in its current state. One of the first things I did when I got the Mini was fit a four-blade fan that I had lying around because I think an early Mini isn't entirely 'right' without the fan roar to drown out the transfer gear whine. But I still have that 11-blade fan in a box, because that's the one that is itemised in the car's history file.
Right now it's got to the stage where it needs new sills and probably a pair of new front wings (the offside wing is the original). I might wince a bit as I cut out that Longbridge-installed metal but I'd rather do that than keep it as a static objet d'art. The replacements will be as correct as I can source/make and the work will be recorded in the history.
My early Mk1 Mini is one of the curious middle-ground cases. 78,000 miles since new in March 1960, with its original owner until 2004, never 'restored', lovely 'patina' etc. etc. etc. Full paperwork trail from its original sales receipt and Austin warranty certificate until the week the original owner sold it. All work done at the same local garage which was a BMC/BL dealer until the 1980s when it became independent.
But it would not win any marks in a concours, either for cosmetic condition or originality. Because it was run for 44 years as 'a car' it's had any number of replacement parts put into it which are not the 'correct' type for a March 1960 Mini. It obviously has a later boot lid, for instance, which was fitted after it had a minor rear-end shunt in the 1970s, and I would suspect that the rear bumper is not the original, either. It had at least two gearboxes under warranty/recall in the early 1960s (because early Mini gearboxes were terrible) so the unit it now has is quite different internally from the one it left Longbridge with. The same goes for the driveshafts. It was fitted with later brake and clutch master cylinders with plastic rather than metal filler caps. It had a replacement rear subframe (surprise, surprise!) when it was 8 years old and I would be very, very surprised if the subframe it has now is to strict early-Mk1 spec. Someone fitted a later 11-blade plastic fan, and the later distributor/coil rubber boots at some point, because why wouldn't you? It's had patches put on the front of the sills (not very well) and an nearside wing put on in the 1990s, which is also not exactly the type it would have had in 1960.
All of this is documented in its history file. So it is 'original' but it is very much not 'original'. A high quality and fully 'anorak' restoration could return it much closer to its as-built specification but I think that's somehow much less authentic than it is in its current state. One of the first things I did when I got the Mini was fit a four-blade fan that I had lying around because I think an early Mini isn't entirely 'right' without the fan roar to drown out the transfer gear whine. But I still have that 11-blade fan in a box, because that's the one that is itemised in the car's history file.
Right now it's got to the stage where it needs new sills and probably a pair of new front wings (the offside wing is the original). I might wince a bit as I cut out that Longbridge-installed metal but I'd rather do that than keep it as a static objet d'art. The replacements will be as correct as I can source/make and the work will be recorded in the history.
A fully restored car doesn't lose its provenance which is what the thread title appears to imply; a full restoration simply adds another chapter to it.
Because I enjoy making long trips in my Riley I need reliability, comfort and safety so I've changed the seats, fitted and unleaded head, improved the brakes and lights, fitted seat belts and, because it failed an MOT due to rust, it's had a lot of body work done and a complete re-spray. I now feel sufficiently confident to take it all over the UK and to France. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that's it's not as it left the factory, there are plenty of One-Point-Fives that are.
Because I enjoy making long trips in my Riley I need reliability, comfort and safety so I've changed the seats, fitted and unleaded head, improved the brakes and lights, fitted seat belts and, because it failed an MOT due to rust, it's had a lot of body work done and a complete re-spray. I now feel sufficiently confident to take it all over the UK and to France. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that's it's not as it left the factory, there are plenty of One-Point-Fives that are.
The question gives us two distinct choices. In reality most cars fall somewhere in between the two - to vastly varying degrees.
If I was in the fortunate position to be able to afford a million pound classic I'd say that in most cases provenance would be essential and would greatly affect the value. Restored or unrestored is something else.
If I were buying a GT6 I'd buy purely on condition.
If I was in the fortunate position to be able to afford a million pound classic I'd say that in most cases provenance would be essential and would greatly affect the value. Restored or unrestored is something else.
If I were buying a GT6 I'd buy purely on condition.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff