New collector vehicle designation: “resurrection”

[hubleyman]

OK fellow enthusiasts, I suggest we come up with a new category to describe some of these “born again” classics and muscle cars……

How about: “resurrection”; a rising again, as from decay, disuse, etc.; revival. (not to be capitalized as that implies religious connotations).

I, for one, am always looking for better ways to describe items more accurately, especially when representing them for sale. In this world of critics, it’s always better to be honest with no excuses (or hidden agendas). After recently reading the episodes of one such “mis-described” survivor vehicle, I went on a Internet treasure hunt.

Choosing “survivor” as my search goal, I viewed approximately 100 cars on Ebay that were labeled as such. My estimate is that only two out of the 100 were actually described legitimately. Judging a car as a survivor is at best very subjective, but TO ME a “survivor” should be a vehicle that has made it through the years fairly intact, with the majority of it’s born-with components, all of which are in reasonably good restorable (yet still unrestored) condition.

A car that has rotted out quarter panels, framerails, floors or trunk is not a survivor. A car that has low mileage because it was gutted and raced is not either. Original engine/drivetrain is gone… no good. These cars did not survive (as far as compared to when it left the factory).

So your 1969 Boss 429 blew it’s engine in 1970? That means it only “survived” one year. Your Hemi Cuda has no miles because it was gutted, had a roll cage installed, etc., then it only survived until it was modified. Your ZL1 was “slightly” wrecked in the ‘70’s and it needed new quarters or fenders, then it didn’t survive either……

The typical complete exterior repaint isn’t too bad as long as most of the rest of the car is untouched (door jambs, trunk, engine compartment, etc.) and the car wasn‘t stripped of all it‘s glass, interior, etc. to do the job (then it becomes a restoration). A rebuilt engine (born-with, of course) isn’t a sin because problems happened regularly to the best of our cars. As long as the majority of the car is as delivered from the factory, then you should be safe to describe it as such.

I whole-heartedly support anyone who saves a car from it’s near death experience and brings it back to life. A complete re-body or replacement drive train is wonderful if another cool car is around for us to appreciate. We just need a better name to call these “resurrections” than “restored originals“. And if you choose to deviate from the way it was originally built (such as adding options, changing colors, etc.)… than just call it an “enhanced resurrection”.

And while I’m venting…… Clones:
If they made more than two of whatever you are copying, then it’s a CLONE ! A “Tribute Car” or “Re-creation” should be reserved for designating a duplicate of a unique, one-and-only kind of car (special race car, historical significance or ownership, etc.), where you are actually paying “tribute” to someone or something, and not just trying to glamorize the sale of a vehicle…….. Otherwise, a Clone is a Clone is a Clone…….

There, I feel better now so now I’ll go have another glass of “whine”………. Charlie

[L78steve]

I'll second that.

[mudjnky]

What would the difference be between "ressurection" and "restoration"?

[WILMASBOYL78]

Interesting comments and very accurate...I have been using the term "refreshed" lately to describe a lot of the cars that are out there. They aren't survivors and they aren't restored...but have they been "freshened up" to look nice, maybe detailed under the hood, some touch up here and there..you know, "refreshed"...

wilma

[PeteLeathersac]

I don't agree as each vehicle needs it's own individual circumstances considered before it's a clear cut yes or no to entitlement as a genuine Survivor..

While you've got some valid points to consider, an otherwise original ZL1 w/ replacement fenders or original Boss 429 car w/ a correct and admitted replacement engine could certainly be considered a Survivor if all else is deemed worthy?.

Here's Bloomington's base Survivor judging criteria...considering they're the ones who started and copyrighted the 'Survivor' term, it's worth reviewing!.

http://www.bloomingtongold.com/judging_criteria.pdf

I feel it's a good thing they've left enough room for cars w/ some issues to still attain Survivor status as otherwise these cars would be restored and what originality they do or did have to offer would be lost..

~ Pete

[ORIGLS6]

"A rose by any other name"............. still makes you sneeze and causes pain if handled incorrectly!

[ANDY M]

Would a "resurrection" car be able to drive on water, or turn water into Sunoco 260?
How about calling them a "Phoenix", a mythical bird that rose from the ashes to fly again. Very appropriate for '69 TA verts, or a '78 X-body POS.

[x Baldwin Motion]

thanks for sharing that bloomington data, Pete. I am surprised that survivor does not always mean original untouched paint, as I thought it would imply. So it seems the waters are cloudy again and full disclosure should be mandatory in car sales like real estate.
JMHO

[hubleyman]

Mudjnky,
The difference between "resurrection" and "restoration": If someone told me they did a "restoration" on their car I would have absolutely no idea what the car was like to start with. It could have been a very nice survivor or a POS basket case....
If you tell me you did a "resurrection" to a car, then I can safely assume you started with a pretty poor shape car and brought it back to life.
Neither situation indicates the quality of the work that was completed, but one of them tells you a better perspective of where the project started.
Of course, most likely only an honest person would be up front and let you know their car was in bad shape before the repairs, but this might save a handful of questions (or accusations) in the course of a sale....

Pete,
Thanks for the link to the "Survivor" judging info!! I must admit, they are far more flexible than I am as far as their standards. I tend to be over critical, but considering my viewpoint is that of a buyer and not just a judge at a car show, than I need to be.... My frustration comes from the over-use and mis-use of some of the terms we use to describe our cars.
Case-in-point: I was just checking out a really cool Shelby GT500 that's for sale. It's represented as a survivor. It's had a full repaint, doesn't have the original engine, and doesn't run because it's been stored for 20 years....
Except for the not running part (which could be easily addressed), it should meet the minimum criteria for a survivor based on the Bloomington Gold standards.
Is it a survivor? Of course it is, because they all are to some extent (as you stated each vehicle needs to be critiqued individually). Would I like to own it? Definitely!! But it doesn't meet with my standards of what I look for in a survivor class vehicle for my collection. To each their own, as they say.....
Several cars I viewed recently were described as 100% original. They typically had interiors changed, replacement engines or drivetrains, only one repaint or perhaps the intake and carb replaced with aftermarket parts and a nice Flowmaster exhaust system with Hooker Headers, yet still claiming 100% original. Doesn't 100% in old school math mean everything, not the majority? There I go getting picky again, must be my OCD kicking in again..........

Andy,
I really like the name "Phoenix" !! Might not go over to well selling a car in an auction in Scottsdale..... Basically I would just love to see a term that shows the seller has some honesty and integrity, and save me from having to specifically ask him whether the car was a POS before the resto..... Seems some sellers have the "you have ask me that directly before I will tell you" kind of attitude when it comes to peddling their wares....... Very frustrating and a complete waste of time for serious buyers.

[PeteLeathersac]

Hubley...great topic and points but I doubt anyone who performs a 'resurrection' on a car would want to call it that...perhaps the term would be more useful to describe a known vehicle by others in the hobby, kind've like a frankenstein thing?.

As usual, until your own or trusted eyes can view something and decide what's really there, anyone's description will forever have to be considered as a 'beauty in the eye of the beholder' kind've thing ?.

On the Shelby GT500 you've described...using Bloomington's base Survivor criteria, this car would actually not be able to attain the designation as with both paint and motor being more than 50% changed it would fail to meet the 'three of four' rule..

The thing I see possible slipping through the Survivor process is the saving of survivor parts and installing them on a vehicle they were not originally shipped on?.
Picture a nice original engine car with racing seats and a big scoop added to the hood years back but still retaining mostly original paint otherwise...swap in correct original seats and a correct original paint hood in the same color...if the paint tone was correct and nobody knew the car previously, you could then pass the interior and 50% original paint part and you're in?.

~ Pete