Patina. Like or dislike in resoration?

[Bruzilla]

I think 440+6 hit it on the head. The concept of "patina" didn't come into play until car prices started climbing out of sight in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the costs of restoring cars got so high that owners started coming up with ways to justify not restoring them, and voila... patina came into vogue and later rat rodding. If I drove a rusted, "patina", car to a show in say 1989, I wouldn't even get a chance to point out the damage was "patina" before I would be asked to park my POS out in the parking lot forthwith! For me, "patina", i.e., the normal wear that occurs to a car, would be chips, scratches, peeling, and surface rust. Deep rust and rust damage is rust, not patina. Also car's missing most of their paint are not patina, they are cars that need paint jobs. There have been about a billion cars made, and aside from 9,000 Deloreans and a few others, they were all painted, so there's more rust than paint, that's damage not patina.

On the positive side of that, I like the concept of "patina" because like rat rodding and flat black paint jobs, they are making it easier and more affordable for younger people, and older people who are new to it, to get into the recreation driving scene. If you have a car with body pieces from three or four differently-colored cars, and you don't like the Partridge Family bus look, and don't have a few grand for a decent paint job, then throw some flat black on for $700 and get on the road. If you're a mechanical guy who can't do body work but can make a screaming motor, be a rat rodder. I only object when someone with a ratted out car tells me it's a rat rod when it has a /6, basic 4 cyl, or small V8... that were all stock. That's not a rat rod, just a ratty car.

 

[Mr Belvedere 30144]

I use the term patina because I collect and sell antiques. I do not mean rust! I mean things like I said. Chrome that's cloudy, emblems that the paint is worn off of, light pitting of some chrome on the vent windows and tiny cracks in chrome of the side mirrors. My car is very nice but things like the vent windows and the lack of black fill in the Plymouth letters on the hood and the cloudy bumpers and the side mirrors. These are things I prefer to leave as they are.

 

[PST]

My personal thought on this subject is "they are only original once". It always drives me nut when I go to a car show and a you look at a car and the info on it say all original but you can clearly see that it has had a repaint at one time even if it was 30 years ago. I am more of a as "original" type of guy. I love seeing original cars which may have worn through paint from years of over polishing and cloudy chrome. These are the cars that all us need as references for cars that need restoration. But there comes a point that there is patina and there is just plain rust.

To me patina is:

Worn through paint from years of polishing
Cloudy Chrome from natural wear
Steering wheels that were worn from many miles of use
Seats with some minor stitching come undone
Some minor rust bubbling
Dirty but presentable engine compartment
A few small dings and chips
Cloudiness is the tail light.

Anything worse that to me is a candidate for restoration.

I to have been torn on a project that I picked up this past December. This is all original car from Stem to Stern as you can see from the first picture it was very ugly but with some elblow grease, wet sanding and steel wool the car is coming back to life. Is the car perfect? Not by any means but it all original. Now if this car had been repainted at one time or another I would have probably done a repaint. Even now I am still very tempted to do a respray.

Before:

After BUT STILL NOT DONE

 

[Bruzilla]

My personal thought on this subject is "they are only original once". It always drives me nut when I go to a car show and a you look at a car and the info on it say all original but you can clearly see that it has had a repaint at one time even if it was 30 years ago.

Please don't say stuff like that. It'll bring the wrath of the originality police down on our heads.

Is it just Mopar guys who obsess about this nonsense, or is the fever beginning to spread more and more as all these "newly discovered barndfinds", which I translate as "we've known all about this car for years, and had it stashed away while we awaited a sky-high offer for it, and now that the market is collapsing we've decided to cut our loses and sell it", start popping up all over?

I remember the raging originality debates that started in the late 1980s. Some said if a car was damaged when new, and the owner had the dealership fix the damage with OEM parts, the car was original. Others said no. Some said if a car was damaged before it was sold, and repaired by a dealership, it was original. And others said no. Then you would find the owner of a car that had every single one it's original from-the-factory parts, and some other guy would say how his car is more original because it has all it's original parts and the original tires with the original air!!! Where does the craziness end? If you want to be technical, every car stops being 100% original the first time you change the oil, and the amount of change is strictly open to interpretation, which makes the whole debate rather pointless.

All is why I don't value originality at all. Appearance, performance, modifications, you betcha that's what I value. But if you want to bring a worn car out, I've got nothing but love for you, but for me personally, I would never drive one except to the shop.

 

[1971 plymouth roadrunner]

Oh no, at least not yet. That car looks rockin just as it is, but whatever you want to do. It is your car, I agree that worn through paint is interesting, but I like the ratty cars too. I guess many of you are not in agreement, but the rusty cars are fascinating to me. As long as nobody is coming up to me and telling me my work looks like crap I am cool, I get my psychedelic style may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I hate to see somebody judged for simply not doing the cliche'.