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