IMHO, it's not so much a matter of percentages as how authentically the
restoration is completed.
If a car starts out as an Adventurer, and ends up as an Adventurer, using
correct parts, it's a restoration. If it starts out as a Firedome,
Fireflite or Firewood and ends up as an Adventurer, it's a clone.
There's nothing like an unrestored car in good condition, but the next best
is a car painstakingly restored to original. There's nothing wrong with a
clone that's identified as a clone.
A far as options, does anyone mind if a HiWay HiFi, power steering, or the
like is added, if it was available? However, some "options" weren't
originally options, like a 4 barrel or oil cooled PowerFlite on a '55 or '56
Firedome. If you have to do it, expect that it will be noticed as a
retrofit, don't say it might have been a special assistant second
vice-president's special order.
However, some option packages were tied to the identity of the vehicle. [I
think we know of examples without my going into detail and getting flamed
again.] Adding those would make a clone.
Check out a Ch--y meet some time, guys looking at the color and stamping on
the dipsticks, that sort of thing. That's authentic to a fault. Of course
when they have to compete with 300,000 other cars of the same model they
have to get picky.
Just my humble opinion, since my cars are pretty much not scarce models.
--Roger van Hoy, '55DeSoto, '42DeSoto, '66Plymouth, '73Duster, '81 Imperial,
Washougal, WA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Exner Fan" <xnr_fan@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [FWDLK] 57 Adventurer Cvt - Barrett-Jackson
> On a slightly different note, I have to ask, at what
> point does a car like an Adventurer convertible become
> a clone?
>
> Take a situation like this (this is strictly
> theoretical):
>
> A man purchases a 1958 Adventurer Convertible,
> completely rusted out but still containing a solid
> frame, VIN tag and cowl tag.
>
> This man undergoes a massive restoration of the car's
> body in his garage, replacing numerous parts from
> other hardtops and convertibles to make it whole
> again, this includes parting out a nice Adventurer
> hardtop to get the wheel covers, air cleaners,
> manifold, etc.
>
> When it's done, he sells it at an auction for big
> bucks.
>
> Unsuspecting buyer purchases the car, based on the VIN
> matching to Historical records, etc. The tag says
> Adventurer convert. the cowl matches that and the
> frame stamping matches as well.
>
> Did the seller sell a "clone" car? After all, was it
> not made up of parts from other cars that WEREN'T
> Adventurers (and one that was, albeit a hardtop)?
>
> So this begs the question, at what point does a
> Historical documented and accurate car become a clone?
>
> If the '57 Barrett Jackson Adventurer in question had
> simply been a rusted out hulk with a matching VIN,
> frame and cowl tag that someone had taken a clean '57
> Fireflite convert. body shell to create the Adventurer
> body again, would it still be a fake?
>
> I am not trying to imply anything one way or the
> other, but aren't the only "true" and "authentic" cars
> the ones that were never in accidents and never
> restored?
>
> Isn't everything else just a clone?
>
> At what point in the restoration does a car move from
> authentic to clone?
>
> How many parts can be replaced from other cars before
> it is qualified as a clone?
>
> It still comes down to a Buyer Beware philosophy, but
> I am curious to know what other people think about
> this.
>
> Leslie Howard
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network