Patina is a controversial subject; folks either like it or hate it. And of course it’s become a big fad, and fake patina is now commonly “applied” to old cars and trucks. Well, I was into patina long before it became cool, and my truck is proof of that. I just appreciate the natural aging that takes place, although I prefer some kinds of patina more than others.
This fine old Chevy is sporting a pretty strong case of patina, and while it’s clearly genuine, it’s a bit too blotchy for my taste. I’d be torn as to what to do with it if it were mine. Maybe repaint with a bit more delicate fake patina?
I’m no expert on the subject but I think that there are basically two kinds of patina: wet climate and dry climate. This looks to be the former, where organic material that accumulates gets wet for half the year or more and starts deteriorating the paint and creates surface rust. The dry kind is pure sun exposure, which tends to form on upper horizontal surfaces and is more gentle and not blotchy like this.
This is a good example of the “dry” kind; basically sunburn. It spreads gently.
This car has obviously been saved from a moldering slumber, and the interior shows that too.
Aftermarket turn signal switch?
It’s still mostly intact, but the forces of entropy have been at it.
I do like these old Chevys of this vintage. Their styling was curiously more conservative than Ford’s, but they just really hold up over the long haul, in more ways than one. And that includes the drive train.
I respect and appreciate how this one’s exterior has aged, but I wish it were a bit less blotchy. Sometimes Oregon’s Healing Rains are a bit too much of a good thing.
Related CC reading:
Personally, I don’t really care for patina. Although some cars wear it well successfully, on others it just make an old vehicle look like what it is, an OLD vehicle. Generally, I find that old/vintage vehicles get more respect when sporting a painted/shined up, or even unrestored look. Unfortunately, too many people today think “it’s just an old car” so it doesn’t matter if I bang my door against it. I much rather prefer to have my vehicles displaying the look of a well loved and cared for possession. Just my $0.02 worth! 🙂
I have to say that as a life-long east coaster, mostly New Englander, the whole patina thing has generally been unsettling. I just can’t look at surface rust and see anything other than what I expect to be the indicator of more structural deterioration that is (my gut tells me) sure to manifest momentarily. Intellectually, I know that’s not true in certain climates, but try telling that to a gut that has lived a whole life afraid of cars rusting into dust. So no, I’m not really a patina fan. I don’t think I could willingly live with a car that made me so uncomfortable when I looked at it.
I never liked when the car shows on TV will upgrade the engine and suspension, but do nothing to the body in the name of preserving the patina. To me, these car builders are either too cheap or lazy to at least put down a coat of satin black so the next person can give it a proper paint job. Gas Monkey Garage was famous for that. Even an Earl Scheib paint job would be an improvement on the 51 Chevy. Big NO to patina.
I’ve come to learn that patina isn’t just a controversial subject in the car world. My wife is an amateur musician, and from what I understand, brass players have similarly robust disagreements about patina on their instruments.
On the car front, I’m with Jeff on this one. I can’t help but seeing cars with heavy patina and just cringing a little thinking of their decline into oblivion. Maybe if I’d lived in an area that’s known for softer types of patina, I’d have a different vantage point.
I agree with the first 4 comments here, patina just looks worn out, as if no-one could be bothered to look after what is an expensive purchase.
I honestly think the main reason behind the popularity of patina is the fact that it is cheap, and requires none of the skill to renovate a car body. As Mark said, lazy
In Europe you can equate patina to structural rust as its never far behind (wet climate and Unibody), such vehicles do not look roadworthy
Fake patina is an absolute fraud, as bad as wearing a fake Rolex or fake suntan
Also +1 with the four above and boy do I ever hate old worn peeling paint on the USS Hornet Island.
I’m much more familiar with mid-to-late ’50s Chevys than those from earlier in the decade, so what grabs me here isn’t the patina but rather its shape and style. I can barely tell a new Camry, Accord, or any crossover from the ones they made 8 years ago, but this ’51 looks nothing remotely like what Chevrolet would be building in 1959.
It is a personal taste and one that I am not overly crazy about. I enjoy an actual patinated car that is well-cared for with perhaps one or two thin paint areas, but I generally prefer to see them as from the factory in “stock” condition. I frown upon “fake patina.” If you are going through the expense and preparation for a patina paint job, why not restore it to stock from the factory level?
Mind you, I have nothing against rat rods or hot rods, as most are built from cars that cannot be restored to factory stock levels, and the skill of creating those cars illustrates their excellent skill sets!
But at least it’s got whitewalls. Thin stripes anyway.
I agree with Paul. Over-restored cars are fake; patina’d cars with clear varnish over the surface rust/exposed primer are even more fake. My view: Old machinery should LOOK old–it’s called “honest wear”. If you saw a ’50s car in the late ’60s-’80s, even the nicer ones looked a little weathered. Added to the charm. So light patina on an old car is authentic and appealing to me–it’s the way I remember them. Like that green ’30 Ford recently featured.
My three 58-60 cars, one totally repainted; the others partially repainted, still have something of a patina look. Decent looking, but not artificially new-looking.
If I had that ’51 Chevy–whoa, not sure what to do. First, replace missing front bumper guards. Then get it to MAACO for an original-color paint job. That interior–yecch! It grosses me out. I guess reupholster, new headliner. What to do about door panels? Match as close as possible? Now it’s not original anymore. Plus lots of $$$$ spent. This is the kind of car that I would only maybe take if you gave it to me free. As is, it looks like you’re driving something that someone pulled out of a swamp! Where does “patina” end and “junker” begin?
On another subject, I also think Victorian houses should also retain a certain patina look. A Victorian that looks too “clean” seems off. Victorian houses should have a slight “haunted house” atmosphere–a little weathered, a tad “creepy”; original features in place but still in good repair. Like this place:
I agree about Victorian houses. Some owners can pull of the patina look very effectively.
The photo below is of a house near where I grew up. It was in rough shape and haunted-looking when I was growing up, but in the interim someone bought it and thoroughly renovated it. However, they kept the peeling paint (it’s painted stone). It works very effectively on this house to give it an authentic but curated aura of patina.
That’s the only right thing (historically) to do with a painted stone (or brick) house. It shouldn’t have been painted in the first place so letting it slowly wear off is correct. Blasting it off (sand or beads) is very much discouraged nowadays as it also removes the original mortar between the stones and bricks. Modern mortar is not compatible. Many brisk buildings have had their facades damaged by sandblasting and then tuckpointing the bricks/stones with modern mortar. This was very common in the 70s when the bare brick look was very in.
I like the look too, but I’m not so sure just how much “in good repair” this house is. Looks like some fairly serious damage has started on the porch roof edges and such.
The problem with wood exterior houses is that it’s pretty easy for damage to start on these due to the very complex woodwork. It makes keeping it patinated a bit of a challenge. Once you start to repair rotted sections, it’s hard to know where to stop. Ask me how I know…
That photo was from 1995. Here’s the same house now. Things are in much better shape, to be sure, but we’ve lost some originality. Replacing round top dormer windows with square ones is a big no-no in my book. Also there was some kind of ornate wooden balcony thing on the side which has been stripped away. Worst of all, the original puddingstone wall fronting the property was replaced with modern concrete (Noooo . . . . ) Despite all this, I’m very glad the house was preserved, and overall it does look quite beautiful. 🙂
Of course, the argument will be that some of the old features were too far gone to restore. Maybe, but if it were my house, I think I would find a way . . .
Paul, I like your “basically two kinds” classifications. I grew up in Great Lakes salt belt, where rust was never something to be ignored—but was rather charmed when I moved west and started seeing the “sunburn” kind on decades-old cars.
I’d be curious to ‘track’ this Chevy in current (or future) owners’ hands, in terms of cosmetics of interior and exterior…I somehow feel that if it’s not left to totally go downhill, there’ll be a paint job in its future.
Eric703: Brass instruments used to always come from the factory with a protective coat of lacquer, which would wear off where hands contacted it (moreso with some people’s perspiration)…in the U.S., the vogue for “stripping the lacquer off” with hot water or chemicals started about 50 years ago, trickling down from professionals to college players and even teens; the “boutique” makers will even sell you an unlacquered one if you wish. (Players insist it “feels” different and sounds better to audience.) And there are endless fetish-y discussions of polishes/cleaners to use (or not to use), whether wire-brushing will “open up the sound,” etc., etc…….
The topic of patina on instruments fascinates me. Since I’m not a musician at all, I’m baffled when people say that patina improves sound quality.
At a recent concert that my wife played in, I noticed that one of the younger players (teen or young adult) had a heavily patinated horn. That surprised me, but since you explained that the patina trend has tricked down the age ladder, it makes more sense. I do recall my wife mentioning that brass-instrument patina is not very popular in Europe – don’t know if that’s still the case.
Funny how good the chrome on the front bumper looks compared to the back bumper. Maybe parked under a car port for many years with the back bumper sticking out into the sun?
Or maybe the front was rechromed?
Past accident damage to the front repaired at a later date in the car’s history?
What’s your theory?
My Dad had a ’54 Chevy Belair. There is a cord that ran across the back of the front seat. All six of us kids (yes, six) would hold on to that cord as my father was a bit fearless when driving!!
I’d say I liked patina on a case by case basis, dare I say some cars actually look better a little aged and tattered.
However Patina as a fashion statement? Patina as (yet another) excuse for greedy sellers to overvalue old clunkers and wreck the classic project car market with? Yeah, no. I think I prefer nice paint if the car is valued a penny over $5000, so patina in the present day I’m no longer a fan of.
I actually don’t see this as aesthetics, more as function I like a clean interior. I don’t really want to park my butt on a really tattered seat, let alone deal with mold or the smell of rotting upholstery. While I am very lax about washing the outsides of my cars (I tell myself I’m being a good Californian by saving water) I wouldn’t really want to lean on the fender and get rust particle ground into my pants. On the other hand even an inexpensive paint job on this Chevy would look too new for quite a few years. Maybe fake patina isn’t too bad, at least in the form of faded paint, though not clear finish over rust.
From the look of the wheels, tires, front bumper; see a ‘project” in stages. Hope the progress can continue.
Hey, that’s my first car I bought in 1964 for $35.00. I wondered what happened to it!
Not much of a patina fan, but in my local climate I don’t encounter the dry type which is much nicer than this example.
Having paid to have an old car repainted I can understand why patina and primer finishes have become a thing, paint jobs are eye wateringly expensive!
Thats a bit too much patina for my tastes. Hard to tell what color it was originally, looks like it was pulled out from behind some tumbleweeds after sitting for 40 years.
And that interior, well at that point Im for doing custom upholstrey cause there is nothing original left to preserve or improve upon. Nothing too wild but some tuck and roll would look great.
Sucks when people rip out a beautiful original interior just to put black bucket seats, autolite gauges and a console in it to “modernize it” Its an old car, you’re missing the point
I agree with Paul on this car being to blotchy mostly because it’s gray. Probably wouldn’t look as bad if there was a more vibrant color to start with. If I had this car and the budget to do it. I would do a full restoration and let it age all over again
The Hudson has patina, the Chevy is just rusty. Rust never sleeps………………
Put some paint on the darn thing!
While I can see the appeal in the ‘survivor’ look, it gets a no from me too. There is a certain appeal to it, but once a look becomes over-popular to the point where some folk jump on the bandwagon to the point of of faking it, I just lose interest anyway. Contrary as ever!
What especially bugs me about this car is the contrast between the freshly chromed front bumper, grille and trunk handle (and dash speaker grille) and the rest of the car. Either all patina or no patina; personally, a mixture is the visual equivalent of biting into a lemon. To me, this is a beaut oldie which is fortuitously back on the road. If it were mine, I would treat to a new paint job. But I’d fix that interior first; I couldn’t enjoy that.
Fake patina on cars is like “relic” guitars – a dumb, pretentious fad that has already mostly run its course. But like any fad, just because the few cool kids who originally started it have long since moved on to something else, doesn’t mean that a bunch of wannabes aren’t still doing it. I predict that in a few more years, cars with fake patina will become as much a badly dated cliche as teal-colored street rods of the early 1990s.
I prefer original paint on any old car, even when it’s far from perfect. But once honest wear becomes neglect and surface rust, uh oh, better get Maaco.
There’s a big difference in patina that comes from honest use with reasonable care, to something that looks like it was sitting under a tree for 30 years. This Chevy looks like the latter. Nothing wrong with bringing something like that back to life,but it’s going to need some refurbishment to look like a car, instead of a pile of junk. Everything should be thoroughly cleaned, stainless trim never rusts and can be easily polished. Chrome trim may be rusty, but can be cleaned up with vinegar and aluminum foil then polished with Simichrome. Chromed pot metal trim is more tricky as it develops pits, but it can also be polished with Simichrome. Really bad areas on both can be painted with silver spray paint.
The bodywork on this car looks really good. it needs to have the rust nuetralized, then prime and paint. A production shop could do the prime and paint for around a grand. The goal is to make the car presentable looking and to preserve it. If a car has lots of fair original paint I would try to preserve that and just touch up some areas. I would always prefer preservation to a perfect respray.
The interior? Those old cars that have moisture damage can smell really funky, and if it’s had rodents living in it, it could be a real nightmare.
Of course the owner may like the way that it looks, it will surely get lots of attention at a Cars and Coffee event. And the owner might not want to spend a bunch of money on a car with little collector value. It’s their choice. I’m giving my two cents, and that doesn’t cost me anything.
These ’51 Chevies were actually not offered with standard turn signals. So the unit is likely after-market, perhaps dealer installed. Like on my Grandma’s ’52 deluxe sedan.
The turn signal unit is clearly marked as a “GROTE” brand aftermarket .
This car’s ‘patina’ is clearly faked and so ugly and damages the car and lowers it’s value .
These were/ are really nice cars IMO .
-Nate
Im not a fan of fake patina. Patina to me is a point in the restoration where your working on getting the car painted but maybe the body work isnt done or you dont have enough money to get the paint job. I drove my 55 chevy while I was working on it and at one point it was 7 different colors at the same time. But my goal was to get a nice shiny paint job on it, not look like a rolling rust bucket.
I feel it is a regional thing. Natural upper body surface rust/patina is natural on the west coast, and the US southwest. When a car acquires patina like this, here in Central Canada, it is typically already long dead in a field. It looks contrived, when seen here.