In the past just about everything was taken apart and all systems and finishes restored to new factory condition. With the high costs of that type of restoration in time and money and the growing appreciation of survivor cars it seems to have shifted to what you would say repaired. I have a couple of original 30's cars and they really do seem to attract favorable attention at shows. I did restore a 31 Chevy that was way to far gone for a repair situation. I am not sure I have another one of those in me.

Dave

A lot of it is Po-tay-to vs Po-tah-to. Any time you fix something that's broken/inoperable, you've "restored" that part. Just stop where you feel comfortable. I've gone from this

to this

and spent a LOT of money in the process. That car is now living in New Jersey and I now drive this

which is mechanically sound but not nearly as "pretty".

The words I use to describe the two situations is restoration vs. preservation. I can appreciate all the work and money of a restoration, but my taste leans to preservation.

With my 1928 Canopy Express, I try to use correct parts for repairs, but those parts are sometimes hard to find. In that case, I use common sense if finding (or making) a replacement part. I actively try to not restore something, just resurrect it or fix it to be mechanically safe and reliable. For example, when I rebuilt the '28 engine in Lurch (see the link in my signature for info about Lurch), I cleaned and replaced a lot of internal engine parts while keeping all the crud on the outside of the engine, which helped showed its age.

My main mind set is, if I was on a farm back in the day, and my truck broke down, I'd use whatever I had laying around to do the fix rather than drive into town to get the part. This practice certainly would lose points in a judging situation, but more importantly, it represents how the vehicle would have 'survived' on the farm. Every ding tells a story.

The decisions along the way are all part of personal preference. And that's okay in my book.

Besides, I LOVE getting more attention for a survivor vehicle at car shows than the glittering, over-restored, or hot rodded vehicles get.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 😉

Cheers, Dean

I always thought a restoration was redoing the complete car and basically making it "as new" to score 995 points in a judged show. I'm not sure that replacement of parts along the way can ever be a proper restoration. Maybe not impossible, but it would be more difficult to pull off if you are regularly using the car. But those are just my thoughts. And with many cars, full restoration is about the only way to get them in good condition, whether it be the starting condition (basket case or rust bucket) or the potential value when restored.

That said, I much prefer original cars and those that show usage. I want to drive mine, and not keep them hidden in the garage. I like them all, and really appreciate those cars and owners that put the time and $$ in to do a correct restoration. 

Posted by: @william-vance

↑

I do not own a show car and I probably never will but I have a question out of curiosity. When does replacement of parts due to normal wear and tear or maybe new paint become a restoration? I see a lot of really nice cars and I have seen professional restorations at the shows. I actually like the cars that show a little use than the show room restoration.

So I guess my question is how far do you go to be considered a restoration.

Hope I don't hurt anyone's feelings but, like I said, Just curious. BTW my car is a 51 sport coupe with a 261 engine and 54 power glide and 12 volt conversion. There are a few more modifications to make the car more drivable and safer as it is a daily driver. It is my primary method of transportation so I am not asking for my self. 

Thanks, Pete