Why is restored worth more than original?

[rainbow4jd]

For me - unrestored means undependable.

Well, from my isolated world, granted it's been a world of nothing but Mopars, I could drive that '71 anywhere...      And to top it off, it used to be my daily ride for about 3 years until I found my former unrestored '79 Lil' Red, of which it took over daily-duty.  

A daily driver, that is repaired and kept up along the way, generally holds up pretty well.    The point is - you've got to drive it and when you do, it suffers from wear and tear.  I'm not certain you can wear out a guitar - beyond just changing out the strings (which I guess would be the equivalent of a motor swap to a car)

[maxwellwedge]

I would always go for a true survivor before a restored piece.

That goes for:

Guitars

Cars

Women

[hemi68charger]

I would always go for a true survivor before a restored piece.

That goes for:

Guitars

Cars

Women

  No truer words spoken........

[Ghoste]

Which doesn't mean that any of those things can't be truly worthy and highly desirable in their own right as restorations.

[maxwellwedge]

Which doesn't mean that any of those things can't be truly worthy and highly desirable in their own right as restorations.

True - The first two  -  100%

The last one could be very costly down the road.......

[Ghoste]

I haven't found them to be cheap as survivors, restorations or barn finds.

[maxwellwedge]

I haven't found them to be cheap as survivors, restorations or barn finds.

Amen! 

[DPL]

Define a "true survivor" - is it where the item is vintage yet in very good original condition and not driven (or played) much?

If so, I too will take the true survivor over restored ANY day! 

Problem is with guitars they are twice as much.  With Aero's they are seemingly between 25 and 50% less!

Not sure about women.  Probably in the end it costs the same

[moparstuart]

I haven't found them to be cheap as survivors, restorations or barn finds.

i dont think you want the barn find 

[Ghoste]

Tufcat enters, stage right?...

[Bobby41909]

It appears my view point has been expressed previously.  But in an effort to pile on:

These cars, built by the factory, aren't suited for today's driving conditions.  They handle like shi*, stop like a boat and after 40 some years, rattle like a spray paint can.  Somethings just aren't made to last forever.  

If you were buying a house that was 100 years old, would you pay more for it if the previous owner replaced the wiring and plumbing?  Sure you would because you're going to use it..  Now if your looking to use it as a tourist attraction (i.e. historical house/museum) you'd probably pay more if it were original.  

I totally appreciate a winged car with 5,000 miles on it that still has the original air in the tires but I wouldn't drive it.  Why?  Because I know shi*s going to break or I am going to damage it when the soccer mom texting while driving in front of me slams on her brakes and her minivan has better stopping ability than my aged elephant.

All my classic cars have been updated for safety purposes and are new penny shiny (just because if your going to do it, you might as well do it right).  I do this so I can feel confident with my family in the car with me. Unfortunately, I know how much it costs to update these cars (not just get them shiny).  If I were shopping for another classic car, I would definitely pay more for one that someone else updated/restored.  

[XS29LA47V21]

I personally like unrestored cars ( had one once, a survivor '71 Charger R/T - people here remember Whitey). The beauty of a survivor/unrestored car is you can see how they were built, how components are supposed to look like (or take a educated Mopar-forensic guess). They are the best to either leave alone (like Doug's Superbird) or use for the basis of a correct OEM restoration (for those inclined to do so). So many "restored" cars have had multiple "restorations" along the way, often times done incorrectly or with improper methods. So, for me, comparing a nice survivor/unrestored car to that of a freshly restored car is an easy one for me. I'll take the unrestored car hands down. Steve's B5 Superbird is another fine example that comes to mind. Now, when you take the to shows, the survivor might not get the kudos it deserves.. After all, at most shows, most people aren't going to have a clue what they are looking at (even the judges). Now, get it around mopar people that are knowledgeable, it'll be the talk of the show and you'll have everyone taking pictures of it (ask me how I know). The pictures aren't for the shiny paint or the perfectly restored underside. 9 times out of 10, they are reference pictures taken by someone who is currently restoring a car just like it.

And the original/survivor's continue to disappear in volume.  It is refreshing to me seeing original cars.. provokes thoughts of the cars history, loving owner taking good car of a car, where it has been with limited wondering what it is or is not....   

And I still want to know how the dent in my 1/4 came from in original paint which I learned from a previous owner was there in the 1970s when the car came out of Cali.

[maxwellwedge]

You can restore something 100 times.....but it's only original once. I love survivors because......somehow.....they survived. They all drive beautifully and dont shake, rattle or roll either. A good original car that is 100% mechanically fit is safe and a joy to drive.

I have a good mix of survivors and restored cars......I like driving the survivors the most.

Anyway - To each his own.

[Ghoste]

I don't own one but I see a lot of cars from all eras every day in my job and I love the survivors the most too.  There is a special aura to them.