Why is restored worth more than original?

[DPL]

I collect and drive 68-70 b-bodies.  I collect and play 68-70 Gibson Les Paul guitars.  Why is it that my guitars are worth much more in their original, worn but decent condition than in an immaculate restored condition?  Whereby, our cars are worth way more the other way around?

I had a 1963 Fender stratocaster in mint restored condition.  I don't really like strats so I sold it for around $8k.  The same guitar in unrestored original condition is worth twice that amount!

Curious what you aero guys think.  I am looking at buying an original unrestored low mile 69 Daytona.  The price is much less than a fully restored car.

Why is this?

[Beep Beep Dave]

I dunno about that but I would think a really good original would be worth more than a resto'ed version. Maybe its just me?
I really think there are just soo many variables, cars really have to be judged on a car by car basis.
Dave

[Aero426]

I would say the faction of the car hobby that embraces (and is willing to live with) unrestored cars is still in the minority.   I feel that some people have a hard time getting their heads around the way an unrestored car looks, compared to how they "think" it should look.     Freshly restored cars built to a level of perfection not done by the factory clouds your judgement.    I have a friend who is somewhat new to the scene, and looked at a 5000 mile Superbird at Mecum.   He said the nose was a different color from the body.   Well, if it hasn't been painted, it probably would look like this.    The wing has some chips.   Well, that part was painted with cheap lacquer by the factory, so yes, that's normal.   And by the way, it is 42 years old!

There are certain unrestored cars that should be worth a premium based on condition.    If you like an unrestored car, and can buy one in presentable shape for a reasonable price, I'd take the discount and not ask why.  

[ACUDANUT]

A original car will have to be restored (it's 40 plus years old). That means More Money.

[DPL]

A 5000 mile unrestored bird, everything original, numbers match 4 speed car went for $95k.  Same car restored would go for a lot more.

This just seems strange to me.  Yes the restored car will look nicer, shinier, better fitment, etc etc.  But it isn't original anymore.

Either way, I thought the topic would be worth discussion and am curious what the aero community thinks in this regard.

[skip68]

I would say because a guitar collector isn't about to be playing a rare guitar.  It will be a show piece for display.   Now, a car guy is more likely to drive, show and enjoy a classic car.  It's something that would get played with more than a rare guitar.   

[Cooter]

Even the Most Purist or Purists these days are becoming a minority. They have finally learned that all that car is doing sitting in that climate controlled garage is sitting, waiting on some idiot with deep pockets, but soon enough they reallize they have missed out as there aren't anymore people willing to pay 50 prices for an Original, wornout, dry rotted, breaks if you breath on it, car. They used to spend huge money on "Investments"... Today, there is no such thing, so they might as well drive 'em. You can't do that with an all original "Survivor" type car you bought as an "Investment"....

[Aero426]

I would say because a guitar collector isn't about to be playing a rare guitar.  It will be a show piece for display.   Now, a car guy is more likely to drive, show and enjoy a classic car.  It's something that would get played with more than a rare guitar.  

Who says that rare guitars don't get played?  

There does seem to be a disconnect between the car hobby and other areas of collecting.   Just about every other area of antiquities has a premium for original items: furniture, guns, silver, clocks and yes, guitars.  In most of these examples, originality trumps all.    

[DPL]

I play each and every one of my Les Pauls.  They get beaten on believe me (and they just sound and play better every time!) 

Aero426 is bang on.  There is a disconnect which strikes me. 

[Scaregrabber]

The current car buyers with money like them to be shiny. The purist's prefer original but they don't seem to be the guys buying them right now. My mostly original 66 Hemi Coronet is a walk-by at shows, everyone is drawn to the new, shiny penny type of cars (however incorrect they may be).

Sheldon

[triple_green]

My car is a combo of both, but as I have learned 40 yo wiring, electronic parts, interior parts, sheetmetal and nuts and bolts sag, break and rust , even if the car is well cared for.

If you want to drive the car, restored is much more reliable.

I have learned the more of someone else's money and time already into the restoration the better. Next time I would like to buy a completely done car. (I believe it is cheaper in the long run, even if you do most of the labor yourself.......

Mark

[69_500]

I am not sure that original doesn't trump if it is still looking really good. Personally I would rather have original every day of the week.

[Mopar John]

I am not sure that original doesn't trump if it is still looking really good. Personally I would rather have original every day of the week.

I have seen some decent originals go the route of a cheapo restoration that might be shiny and all that but you stand back and say what a MESS! A popular example was when a lot of folks were using the Year One half quarters and not only were they not lined up but they wouldn't even trim the 3 inch wide wheel opening lips down to the original size! Or how about the original glass getting sand blasted or DA marks wherever it met the metal body! Or where there is a dent in the chrome in every spot where Brutus mashed down on it! I could go on for a while but you know what I mean.
MJ

[69CoronetRT]

I collect and drive 68-70 b-bodies.  I collect and play 68-70 Gibson Les Paul guitars.  Why is it that my guitars are worth much more in their original, worn but decent condition than in an immaculate restored condition?  Whereby, our cars are worth way more the other way around?

40 YO humbuckers sound sweet
40 YO brakes suck

40 YO wood ages nicely
40 YO metal rusts

40 YO finish gets a nice patina
40 YO paint looks like s&*^

The next time you have a 63 Strat for sale at those prices, please call me.

[rainbow4jd]

I collect and drive 68-70 b-bodies.  I collect and play 68-70 Gibson Les Paul guitars.  Why is it that my guitars are worth much more in their original, worn but decent condition than in an immaculate restored condition?  Whereby, our cars are worth way more the other way around?

40 YO humbuckers sound sweet
40 YO brakes suck

40 YO wood ages nicely
40 YO metal rusts

40 YO finish gets a nice patina
40 YO paint looks like s&*^

The next time you have a 63 Strat for sale at those prices, please call me.

Yep, that pretty much covers it.

[WINGIN IT]

Agree , sums it up pretty nicely ...

[DPL]

I suppose that does sum it up except for that super bird example.  That thing was beautiful, 5000 original miles!  How often do you see that!?

[Aero426]

40 YO humbuckers sound sweet
40 YO brakes suck

40 YO wood ages nicely
40 YO metal rusts

40 YO finish gets a nice patina
40 YO paint looks like s&*^

Have to disagree with you on that one.    Most of the paint on this car is 42 years old.   It has 38k on it.    Aside from the heads off for hardened seats, it's never been apart.    The brakes work, it isn't rusty and the paint still looks pretty good.    It's had enough to not be a true survivor, but it isn't restored, nor would you gain much by taking it apart.   It's just a nice car.  

[DPL]

Aero426, you get my point.  So why?  I get it that restored and shiny cars attract public attention but why command a higher value, I don't get.  And its a significant difference.  With the wing cars it often is nearly double.

I should note I don't really care about the value of my cars or guitars.  I just love to drive and play them.  And that original Daytona for sale has caught my eye!

[Mytur Binsdirti]

Aero426, you get my point.  So why?  I get it that restored and shiny cars attract public attention but why command a higher value, I don't get.  And its a significant difference.  With the wing cars it often is nearly double.

I should note I don't really care about the value of my cars or guitars.  I just love to drive and play them.  And that original Daytona for sale has caught my eye!

Restored cars have more care and quality craftsmanship that they did on the assembly line 40+ years ago.   

Plus, wages have definately gone up since then.   

[69CoronetRT]

Have to disagree with you on that one.    Most of the paint on this car is 42 years old.   It has 38k on it.    Aside from the heads off for hardened seats, it's never been apart.    The brakes work, it isn't rusty and the paint still looks pretty good.    It's had enough to not be a true survivor, but it isn't restored, nor would you gain much by taking it apart.   It's just a nice car.  

Exceptions do not negate general rules. I can find highly modified guitars that bring premiums over originals. (Hendrix Strat from Monterey, Harrison's custom painted Strat, Clapton's modified Explorer. Yes, they all have a provenance but they are also highly modified from stock)

I'm pretty sure he was asking about general rules of thumb for the 'average' guitar and 'average' car. On 'average', a 40+ YO car will need a lot of work to be functional or aestetically pleasing. A 40 YO guitar probably does not.

[Ghoste]

I would say because a guitar collector isn't about to be playing a rare guitar.  It will be a show piece for display.   Now, a car guy is more likely to drive, show and enjoy a classic car.  It's something that would get played with more than a rare guitar.   

An interesting thought.  I'm not sure I agree with you but it is thought provoking.  (speaking as someone who also collects guitars and plays all of them but displays none of them)

[hemi68charger]

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.

[rainbow4jd]

For me - unrestored means undependable.

So, using the guitar analogy (and I'm not a guitar guy at all).... The tuners won't stay tight, the strings are rubbery, the frets are grooved, and the wood is dry and cracked from age.

If I had no intention of ever driving the car.... err  I mean playing the guitar -maybe it makes for a good museum piece but functionally and dependably its suspect.

Now here's more of a mechanical reason why....

First, all the rubber from the ground up is suspect.  Rubber ages and is susceptible to becoming brittle.   That means all the hoses can blow at any moment, and so could the tires.  It's also possible that a hose rots from the inside and tiny pieces of broken rubber can clog a cooling passage, which could lead to over heating and in rare cases a cracked block.

Second, all your gaskets depend on the conditioning agents in both the coolant and oil, to retain their sealing ability.    And, they are also subject to aging.  Again, the potential for a costly failure.

Third, rust.   And I'm not talking about the body.  I'm talking about electrical connectors exposed to moist air, heat, and current.   Not to mention, internal engine bay components that get exposed to the elements.  Again, a question of dependability

Fourth, engine damage from actually NOT running the engine frequently enough.  Old engines did not have a sealed crankcase (that I am aware of) and gases have corrosive properties that can harm an engine.

Fifth, paint fade, dash fade, etc. etc. petroleum based products are susceptible to discoloration from heat and age.

Sixth, memories.   Cars are like women, my wife is 50 years old, but when I close my eyes she's still 20.  If I was single today, I don't want a 50 year old woman.  I want a 20 year old!!!   Cars are about your youth and the moments in time when you became an independent adult - they are extensions of you as a person and not an instrument.  I wouldn't carry my guitar everywhere I went - but I'll drive my car everywhere because its an extenstion of me.

[hemi68charger]

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.