One of the features of the recent UK National Classic Motor Show in Birmingham was the number of barn find cars presented in “as found” condition. Following on from the find and sale of this Mini, which was chassis number 8, last year, the question is therefore quite simple:
How extensively should vehicles like this Austin A40, A35 van and Bedford Chevanne be restored, bearing in mind that they have do not have the historical significance of being the oldest known Mini that had not been restored?
1 – to as new condition
2 – as far as possible given a likely value when completed
3 – enough to be safely and legally usable, but retaining much of the original patina
I know my preference, but what’s yours? And what are the best examples of the option you prefer?
I’d say (3). I saw a story on TV years ago about Jay Leno finding a 1928 Duesenberg in a garage in California. It had sat there since the late ’40’s, and apart from a mouse nest was in pretty good shape. He cleaned up the interior and had the engine and drivetrain restored to running order but left the body as he found it. They showed Leno using it as a daily driver, and he said that despite its age it had no problem keeping up with modern traffic.
I had much rather see barn finds than junkyard sightings. It is like the difference of seeing a Hollywood star with a bad hair day or seeing her 40 years later, fatter and missing most of her teeth.
Also bad; over redone “classics”. Liftings can go too far.
I’d pick option 1 or 2 for anything with exterior rust holes.
Option 3 for the ones with light exterior surface rust and oxidized paint.
Option 3 in nearly all cases. A car is only original once and restoration detracts from the aura of an original car.
Suppose I found a ’34 Ford Victoria in a barn somewhere. It’s a rare car but by no means impossible to find another. Keeping it as is – apart from mechanical upgrades to make it drivable and stoppable – tells its history much better than pictures ever could. If you restored it, the story seems compromised and/or eroded plus as time goes on its restored self can easily overtake its more interesting history as it goes to subsequent owners.
I’d say all three of the pictured vehicles should have been left in their respective barns. Those A40 Somersets were common when I was small, and I always considered them mingers.
+1 a much disliked French teacher drove a dark green A40.My brother put a potato up the exhaust pipe one day.I had a dislike of these cars because I assosciate them with Miss Banks
Funny how that happens. I have an aunt who nobody in the family liked who drove an ’83 Ford LTD Crown Victoria and have had trouble warming up to the box Panthers ever since…
My wife is like that with Miatas, which is the only reason I don’t own one.
While I like the idea of a #3 restoration, which is the kind of standard I do vintage bicycles to, unless the customer requests otherwise; I do have to keep in mind that an automobile or motorcycle invariably has a much harder life than a bicycle. And while its easily possible to bring the bicycle back to a clean patinaed condition, trying the same in a barn find car will probably just get you a lot of comments of “I assume you’re going to fix it up some day.”
Let’s face it, the standards are different.
The only way an automobile or motorcycle looks good in worn, original condition is if it has been in constant (even if light duty) use. Tossing a car in the back of the garage, shed or barn and forgetting about it for a few decades invariably means a good cleanup, some engine teardown, and a respray. Such is the cost of a more complex piece of equipment that had harder use back in its functional days.
In the case of the above examples, I’d definitely go for a #2. If the vehicle really turned me on, I could see doing a #1. But definitely no #1+ – the current mania of restoring a car to a condition that never would have been reached on an assembly line. Like way too many restorations are done today.
Tough question, and to me, it depends on the car. I once knew a guy with an original Model A – lots of patina, down to surface rust on the horizontal surfaces and shredded interior panels (with a blanket on the seat). I love an original car of that age. There are lots of restored versions around, and the original car is a really rare sight.
With newer stuff or stuff that has not been restored much (not being that familiar with British cars, I would toss out something like a 60 Newport sedan.) Its not worth much, but at least some paint and body work would be nice, particularly if there is any significant rust-through. I guess my scale slides depending on the car. I’ll know it when I see it.
#3 for me.. get a vehicle into the shape it was in when it was still a respected and used but not abused car. Maybe how it was when it was six or seven years old(and not subject to road salt or salty humid climate)
Well said. After all, that is why we are here. ‘CC’s’ are old cars that are (or appear to be) still in use, doing what they were built to do. That is why I prefer to view vintage street scene photos or movies over modern ones with restored cars. You see them in everyday use. It is hard to restore one to it’s original condition (and many people don’t even try), so I prefer to see them as they were.
I’m driving a barnfind its been stripped and derusted and reassembled with powertrain differences to stock which is ongoing but its only in tidy condition not restored immaculate it hasnt been washed since easter and is driven every week sometimes all week
The first actual barn find I saw had just been purchased by a fellow license plate collector and car enthusiast when I saw it in Winterset, Iowa, in 1957. It was a 1935 Ford five-window coupe in black with apple green stripe and wheels. It was the usual story, guy died, wife didn’t drive, so it was put in the barn. But this one was covered up in the barn and was in mint condition with its original 1935 Iowa license plates still mounted. Bob said all he’d had to do was wash the car and vacuum the interior. That car gleamed like a new penny.
Someone here locally has a 1928 Packard roadster that has to have been a barn find at one time. He’s refurbished and painted the wheels and mounted new tires, but the paint and upholstery are original and in decent condition with noticeable wear and patina. I like that Packard a lot, and I’m glad he left it that way.
I gravitate between options 1 and 3 depending on nothing in particular! Having owned my own barn find 1936 Dodge for several years, half of me wanted to put in modern brakes and running gear, tidy the interior and leave the heavily patinated exterior alone. But then the other half of me wanted it to look like it would have when new or near new, with shiny paint and restored running gear. It’s an internal debate I expect to have for years to come.
Tricky one to answer… I’d say that for the three vehicles shown above I’d take option 2 for the A40, option 3 for the A35, but the Chevanne’s quite possibly too far gone to bother with – once the wheelarches get that rusty, there’s probably larger problems underneath, which would make it B.E.R.
As to the more general question of what to do with “Barn Find” cars, well, that can only really be answered with “It depends on the car”. More specifically, it depends on many different aspects of the car – mechanical condition, bodywork condition, rarity (numbers built), scarcity (numbers surviving), obscurity (the “what’s that?” factor), etc, etc…
It also depends on the intended use of the car. A car intended for regular use would need much more mechanical restoration than a car that will be trailered to shows…
Hmmmm… No real answers here. Reminds me of another famous unanswerable question, “How long is a piece of string?”.
Regardless of the barn finds… I just learned about a new vehicle: the Chevanne. That is just so cute!
They did a passenger version as well, the Vauxhall Chevette. Quite a cool car in it’s day, and they still have a few loyal fans. Well worth a Google…