What should be worth more..a survivor or a restored car? | FerrariChat

What should be worth more..a survivor or a restored car?

Discussion in 'Vintage Ferrari Market' started by amenasce, May 2, 2013.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. amenasce

    amenasce Three Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 17, 2001
    33,014
    Full Name:
    Joe Mansion
    If you were to buy a vintage Ferrari, which one would you prefer between a concours quality restored car and a completely original but in great condition car?
     
  2. simon klein

    simon klein Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Feb 25, 2009
    28,802
    North Qld
    Full Name:
    simon klein
    +330 for the original car.
     
  3. Bryanp

    Bryanp F1 Rookie

    Aug 13, 2002
    3,799
    Santa Fe, NM
    that is the trick; I have to believe that that would be a very, very rare car.
     
  4. bannishg

    bannishg Formula Junior

    Oct 6, 2008
    480
    Springfield area, MA
    Full Name:
    Greg
    This is actually a good one.... I certainly don't think I have a confident answer...

    Well if the survivor were to be worth more I'd assume that it would have to be 100% functional and fully capable performance-wise.

    But if the restored car's restoration were done at the factory with 100% correct and original parts that were manufactured during the same period the car was built......
     
  5. JazzyO

    JazzyO F1 World Champ

    Jan 14, 2007
    12,143
    The Netherlands
    Full Name:
    Onno
    Contrary to what you might think, the factory does not do restorations itself, it contracts everything out (yes, everything). So your premise is hypothetical in that sense. Not that I mind really, it is entirely possible to get a perfect result in a number of ways. But don't be fooled into the concept of having a classic car built-as-new at Maranello, it doesn't work that way.


    Onno
     
  6. simon klein

    simon klein Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Feb 25, 2009
    28,802
    North Qld
    Full Name:
    simon klein
    The OP's example is for a 'completely original but in great condition car',so that really negates your comment on that score.
    I'm sorry but have to take umbrage in some folk trying to dissect OP's and others' questions.That is the reason the example has been put up,no more no less,it explains itself.
     
  7. cheesey

    cheesey Formula 3

    Jun 23, 2011
    1,921
    survivor to restored is a blurr of defintions, too many variables for a finite blanket one answer covers all...

    first how does one define restored... restored definition can include a car with nearly 100% of original parts that were refreshed to a car which was rebuilt from a pile of rubble with a ID plate and parts with serial / chassis numbers which relate to a specific car

    A survivor car should be one that is in running condition as it left the factory with a minimum of refurbished or replacement parts and in a presentable condition, with decent paint and interior, not a running rust bucket with a tattered interior tauted as having a patina ( if the car were a high production car, one would not hesitate to put it out with the rubbish )

    I would prefer that a restored car be defined as one that has a high percentage of original and refurbished parts with worn items replaced to a " as delivered from factory" condition

    reconstructed car should be a car ( regardless of provenance ) that was resurrected from an identifiable pile of rubble into a car resembling what it may have looked like when it left the factory. The majority of the parts are not original, which have been either replaced or reproduced, essentially majority of the car has been discarded... in reality a reproduction around an ID plate and a couple of chassis numbers.

    the best value would be in having a restored car
     
  8. bannishg

    bannishg Formula Junior

    Oct 6, 2008
    480
    Springfield area, MA
    Full Name:
    Greg
    My premise WAS 100% hypothetical, but to turn the practicality dial up a notch (though it's still closer to the "hypothetical" marker), let's just say, regardless of the firm performing the restoration, the staff is comprised of the very people who assembled the car when new and the whole thing was overseen by the very people who devised the original blueprints.

    That's assuming they're all still alive, but I suppose you'll tell me next that it's a 1950 166MM and they're all dead... :/
     
  9. bannishg

    bannishg Formula Junior

    Oct 6, 2008
    480
    Springfield area, MA
    Full Name:
    Greg
    "Great condition" doesn't necessarily extend to "100% capable of optimum performance", and he didn't say "greatest possible condition" .

    Now I realize I'm dissecting your objection and I suppose you take umbrage at that as well...

    What's wrong with throwing in a few qualifiers? Where is the clause that states that they are off limits? C'mon there was no need to say that, really...
     
  10. Glassman

    Glassman F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed Silver Subscribed

    Which is it???
    The restored car should be worth more because most probably more money has been thrown at it.
    For me I would own the well worn original....and I wouldn't give a crap if it was in great condition or not.
     
  11. simon klein

    simon klein Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Feb 25, 2009
    28,802
    North Qld
    Full Name:
    simon klein
    Well,frankly:,DILLIGAF
     
  12. simon klein

    simon klein Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Feb 25, 2009
    28,802
    North Qld
    Full Name:
    simon klein
    The stories told by the original one would be fantastic whereas the stories have been cleansed with the resto one.
    We,on this forum,have seen some shockers re bought, 'restored' cars,yet we see,currently, some fantastic restorations.
     
  13. MiuraP400

    MiuraP400 Formula Junior

    Feb 3, 2008
    939
    Arizona
    Full Name:
    Jim
    This is my preferance too.

    Cheers Jim
     
  14. 300GW/RO

    300GW/RO Formula Junior

    Nov 7, 2010
    991
    east end LI
    Full Name:
    Jack
    That was the intent of the OP......not which would you rather have/own.....very very tricky and/or difficult to answer accurately.

    Based on auction results, it seems to be more important as to WHO owned the car (steve mcqueen)...rather than "barn find" v "restored".

    I believe that a concours level restoration will "cost more to buy" as most times such cars are really "better than factory"....yet one could pay a premium for "outstanding orginal condition" which will then need more money (parts/service etc) sooner than the restored car.

    Can not really say apples to apples, but restored car should bring more money (as said above, owner/seller has more invested and wants the $ back-out)...that's how prices "ladder-up"....given of course that car is a desirable "hot" model like a GTC at the moment....we all know that most money is left "in the resto" on not so desriable models or cars that have fallen out of favor...american muscle from 2006 for instance. Just my thougts. Jack
     
  15. geno berns

    geno berns F1 Rookie

    Oct 26, 2006
    3,005
    Midwest
    Full Name:
    Geno
    #15 geno berns, May 2, 2013
    Last edited: May 2, 2013
    Andrew-

    The trend had shifted in a big way to original (only once) cars as being the most sought after. They are usually evaluated higher. The fact is once you take a factory original car fully apart you're done!! I don't care if Paul Russell and Company is restoring your 250 TR for you and charging $2MM to do it or a second rate shop is going through a vintage Ferrari at a cost of $250K, the car will never ever be the same. 9 times out 10 it gets way over restored. The in period craftsman that put the car together in the first place using certain materials and methods can not be duplicated. Restorations always have a lot of subjectivity applied to the process by the parties performing it, no mater who's doing the work. An original car has a certain quality and charm to it that can never be gained back once the car is torn apart and than put back together to the best of a restorer's ability. I am currently having a 1959 250 PF Coupe restored. Removing various parts, padding, liners and other "stuff" that no longer can be reused and needs to be discarded and replaced with new materials sort of makes me sad. So if a well preserved original car in excellent condition goes to market it should command a premium. There is value in the history of the car as a whole and all it's bits.

    Geno
    PS I should add that many shops out there who do fine work still lack the knowledge to really truly get the car right and too often it takes another (expert) to sort any issues out post restoration no mater if the car is destined to be showed on not...
     
  16. bannishg

    bannishg Formula Junior

    Oct 6, 2008
    480
    Springfield area, MA
    Full Name:
    Greg
    #16 bannishg, May 2, 2013
    Last edited: May 2, 2013
    No, and I'm glad you don't! The best, most efficient way to diffuse an explodey-thing is swiftly and succinctly, as you have just done :)

    Retracting the qualifiers I placed earlier, I would say restored. Purists may have a thing for an untouched piece, but owners would probably have more confidence with a restored car at an event, especially a race. I know that in the late 80s during the first big market frenzy, the Japanese investors paying those huge prices were only interested in restored cars. Though a big factor in that, according to an article by Mike Sheehan, was the lack of restoration shops and the scarcity of factory certified mechanics in Japan at the time.

    True, it is tricky, but IMO, the two are not quite that exclusive. Popular desirability lends itself to value, and sure there are other factors as well, but without desirability, there wouldn't be such an enormous difference between the values of a GTE and a GTO. Or more aptly, there would be no reason for a survivor to be worth more than the restored, and vice versa.
     
  17. WCH

    WCH F1 Veteran
    Owner

    Mar 16, 2003
    5,180
    This seems like an easy question:

    "a completely original but in great condition car"

    Now, to find one ....
     
  18. Glassman

    Glassman F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed Silver Subscribed

    5701GT when I saw it the first time it had 3175 miles on it. That was a few years ago.
     
  19. simon klein

    simon klein Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Feb 25, 2009
    28,802
    North Qld
    Full Name:
    simon klein
    Hehe,we're all looking for that one!
     
  20. Timmmmmmmmmmy

    Timmmmmmmmmmy F1 Rookie

    Apr 5, 2010
    2,612
    NZ
    Full Name:
    Timothy Russell
    As taught by SCM and various others

    Restoration vs preservation

    Very few cars are affected by this argument, most cars have either suffered from restoration by now or are too far damaged by poor storage for the question to need answering. The very few cars that are old enough to be of any historical value and have always been well stored and kept are on point here. If you did have a 40 year old rare Ferrari that was never restored and could be preserved you have a choice, you could restore it or you could preserve it. And there is value in both.

    imo

    Preserve

    - Keeps the item as a historical artifact
    - Ensures the item is as it was in 2013.
    - It cant be the same as 1964 without being restored, it can only be preserved as it is today
    - Lack of usability due to the need to keep things absolutely stringently original, every time the car is used from here on will start to kill the preservation.
    - You will be stuck with any previous owners modifications without any real choice to change it.
    - In certain cases - if you totally preserve it, you cant actually drive it, can you.
    - You can look at it and like a work of art you can admire the car in its totally original glory.

    Anything else is a restoration, partial or total.

    imo

    - Restored cars can be personalised to your taste
    - Can be made entirely safe through stress testing, replacement and other avenues
    - Can be made immaculate or as original depending on owners tastes
    - Will ensure the car doesnt rust, rot or otherwise deteriorate

    Bearing in mind, most cars will need at least partial restoration, any shop apart from the top 5% will want to restore this and that and before you know it, what do you have left. I am a believer that only the best shops understand what originality means and will do everything to maintain the car in a preserved state.... I am thinking DL George who have done the Simeone collections cars and perhaps a few others.

    Another thing a lot of owners dont comprehend what it is about a preserved car that makes it so special and will restore it, some just becuase they can...... I personally believe a car should have a mechanical restoration and leave the bodywork and interior alone. I quite like cars that show there age but are safe to drive.
     
  21. ApexOversteer

    ApexOversteer F1 Veteran

    Feb 15, 2007
    5,968
    Smoky Mountains, TN
    Full Name:
    T.A. Bell
    I want preserved survivors around, but I want a restored car to drive.
     
  22. PAUL BABER

    PAUL BABER Formula 3

    Nov 1, 2006
    1,062
    London. UK.
    Full Name:
    Paul Baber
    Golden rule......You cannot recreate originality.....
     
  23. f308jack

    f308jack F1 Rookie

    Jun 7, 2007
    4,300
    Cape Town, South Afr
    Full Name:
    Jack Verschuur
    Reading the opinions with interest, as I am busy bringing one back to 'preserved' condition. Not a Ferrari, but a Maserati Khamsin.

    This car was delivered new to South Africa, and has always been in a very dry climate, and has 63.000 kms on it. It was re-painted in the original colour in 1997.

    I started by thoroughly cleaning the car; Not where you see it, but where you normally don't. I am almost done with the suspensions now, and it comes out from under the caked on dust as if it left the factory yesterday. Even all the cad-plating is still intact. It's all perfectly functional, apart from needing hand-brake pads.

    The rest of the car is like that as well. Even the cad-plating inside the headlight-pods, on the springs and electrical connectors is like new when the dust is off.

    This is by all means a complicated car with its' unusual hydraulics, and in order to have confidence enough to explore her capabilities, I'd normally take it apart before doing so.

    The maintenance items on the hydraulics were done, they work great.

    I feel I need to keep on 'preserving', read cleaning, and keep her as is, do the maintenance it needs and enjoy. It is original only once. The option to restore is always there, but not the other way around. Therefor, an un-restored car in great condition should be calling for a higher reward.

    Best,

    Jack.
     
  24. JazzyO

    JazzyO F1 World Champ

    Jan 14, 2007
    12,143
    The Netherlands
    Full Name:
    Onno
    I think originality is cool, but I think useability is much more important. I do not value original cars that never get used any more because they can't be driven in their original mechanical state, or the owner wants to keep it as it is and therefore doesn't want to drive it.

    Cars should be used in the manner that they were intended. Therefore they wear. Therefore, eventually, they need to be restored. Tyres from 1954 are distinctly uncool, in my opinion. So is minimising the mileage. So is never driving it hard.

    For instance - there is hardly any pre-war Bugatti out there that is original. Does this mean they are uncool? Certainly not. Some parts need to be remanufactured, so what. It means that we can still enjoy these cars on the Mille Miglia blasting through the Italian countryside.

    So - if originality means that the car can't be used properly anymore, then I value the car much lower than a well restored example.


    Onno
     
  25. BIRA

    BIRA Formula Junior

    Jun 15, 2007
    950
    This is an extreme concept of originality, not driving to preserve a car, and some of us, including Jim G have a clear view on this.
    But more often the issue is slightly different. Should a car be restored to concours, or preserved with a shabby paint that is 50 years old. Thanks to the action of some people, including Dr Fred Simeone, a new trend has emerged and is visible for people who have been visiting Pebble Beach in the last 20 years. While extreme restorations are still the norm, preservation class and preservation of existing material have become a reality.

    Does not mean the car cannot be driven, even under rain, and that mechanically it should not be fully sorted out. But original paint is maintained and the car is not rechromed to preserve the original patina ( rather than over restoring and creating an artificial patina).

    It costed much more to restore 424 (564) MD ( now sold) to retrieve the original paint under the red respray, but how imperfect it was, this was the paint put by Scaglietti on the body in 1955. Did not prevent to do the MM with the car, just being careful not to bang it.

    For some people it would have been better to do a 100 points restoration, but then originality is lost.

    So in my opinion preserving is better than renewing when it can be left like this. But if the car cannot drive properly,,then preserving does not make sense.

    Incidentally this ties up with the thread on GTB, in the case of 7736GT The idea was to keep it as original as possible. But there is too much corrosion and preserving corrosion is not preservation! So the car is going through a full restoration.
     

Share This Page