What some people may see as faded paint and dull chrome, others may see provenance and history—in short, patina. What exactly is patina? Well, it depends on who you ask.
Patina's effect on the collector market is also curious, as, on occasion, there have been worn examples of classics that sell for more than their restored counterpoints.
Read about our …
What I don't get is the fascination of "barn find" condition. Where the condition is more about really poor storage than being a represneation of what the car would be if used a lot.
And much of those "barn find" conditions are borderline abusive- rust, worn paint, scratches, mouse holes. etc. That's not patina, that's just crappy storage.
When everyone has enough FU money to own anything in concours condition, you have to do something to stand out. Patina is for billionaire hipsters in that context.
I don't like owning a perfect car, because it's no fun to drive, and you can't park it at the grocery store.
I really hate patina cars that have been clear coated to preserve the patina.
I hate rust.
I like not rusty, kinda dull, gently dented cars that are mechanically perfect that I can park at the mall by the front door.
Menards. Morris, Illinois. Yesterday. This patina/rust is acceptable
In the world of restoration, I totally get it in the case of cars like that Aston pictured above. If that rolled into the shop I would beg them not to restore it.
I think every high end collector has realized they have spent 90% of their time and money undoing the damage of bad restorations. The appeal of an honest, well kept original car that simply needs repair work is huge.
Now this stuff
That is just riding on the coattails of that popularity. It is the lowest eschelon of the functional original, non restored market, but if you want in that game and can't afford a stunner like the Aston this is where you end up.
I honestly feel that the low quality, looks good from 20 feet, quick flip builds for circus like, televised auctions has brought the level of most "restored" cars so low that car enthusiasts will pay a premium for something that hasn't had that treatment.
It became popular when people stopped enjoying their cars because they couldn't afford perfect Riddler quality paint or grey tweed interior. I'd like to think CarCraft under Frieberger (or Frieberger in general) popularized it afyer he turned it into JunkyardCraft in the late 90s.
In my case 'patina' is when one can't afford a quality paint job.
When most women view my Outlaw Bug they ask, "what color are you going to paint it?"
When men view it they say, "Don't paint it. I love the look of the original 1963 paint."
I'm OK with honest patina. This is my dad's (and before that, my grandparents') T-Bird. It was parked in an open carport for decades with the rear end facing south. The original paint is battered, but there's no rust. The car is in great mechanical shape, and given what it would cost to repaint the car properly, I'm fine with the way it looks.
That said, I'm not into gaping rust holes or fake patina.
I think originally the appeal of patina had to do with making not being rich cooler in the car scene, but it was quickly coopted anyway by people who spent legit money trying to make faux patina.
On this 71 Cuda my wife and i have been working on we did something silly that some people might call faux patina. She just wire wheeled the valve cover down to a very inconsistent bare semi-rusty metal finish and cleared over it. I threw the air cleaner in a fire which brought out a lot of weird visual stuff (galvanized maybe?) and i cleared over that. lol
I'll try to remember to take a pic and post it later.
I consider my Honda 90 to be patina, it's unrestored and there are various small bits not right but this is the way it's been for the last 45 years/ the pinstripes were added sometime in the 70s. I am also not a fan of clear coating rust . Note the 87 Novakar in the background is not patina it's scruffy.
.
I look at an old car as I would a book. The story of its time is writ on the surface and sum of its parts. If you can preserve what is there, the ownership experience is of appreciating what has been and adding to the story rather than erasing what is on the pages and starting your own story as you would by doing a restoration.
Rat rods are a story unto themselves.
As an unsolicited thought, I believe that the word "restoration" is used incorrectly in the car hobby. "restoration" seeks to preserve what can be saved from the original . Most of what I see in the automotive world is re-building and recreating.
Pete
Trent (Generally supportive dude) said:In the world of restoration, I totally get it in the case of cars like that Aston pictured above. If that rolled into the shop I would beg them not to restore it.
I think every high end collector has realized they have spent 90% of their time and money undoing the damage of bad restorations. The appeal of an honest, well kept original car that simply needs repair work is huge.
Now this stuff
That is just riding on the coattails of that popularity. It is the lowest eschelon of the functional original, non restored market, but if you want in that game and can't afford a stunner like the Aston this is where you end up.
I honestly feel that the low quality, looks good from 20 feet, quick flip builds for circus like, televised auctions has brought the level of most "restored" cars so low that car enthusiasts will pay a premium for something that hasn't had that treatment.
I disagree about the Jag, that's the one I'd enjoy driving with zero concern. Spend the money on keeping it running and driving well, clean up the interior, and just enjoy it.
Part of me wants to save the "patina" on my '61 Apache (Original Omaha Orange, with Forest Service green lacquer on top), but I can't stand rust, and I have to fix the holes, and I don't want to baby this truck and keep it out of the elements.
I hate rust. I hate holes. If I don't deal with the existing rust proper, and prevent the original rust-access from doing its dastardly deed again, it's just going to continue to rust. I hate rust.
In order to blast out the affected areas, and properly seal them, I'd have to fake a significant amount of patina, which seems like more work than just doing the whole thing.
It's it's just faded paint and dents and stuff, I can do patina. If it's got rust and holes, I can't.
When I painted my '77 Silverado with Tremclad (Alkyd Enamel) and a roller, I knew it was going to oxidize and fade and go chalky, and I wasn't worried because over time it would just look like an old truck (which it is), and I was NOT interested in fixing all the rust properly beforehand. I didn't love the truck enough.
I love the '61 enough to do it proper.
And if I keep it long enough - the patina will come back.
You want Patina? Spray a contrasting lacquer over it, and then just wait. It will come.
My 57 can have "patina" from being a "garage find" aka "E36 M3ty storage practices" because i want to enjoy it for what it is and not spend a fortune making it so nice i freak out every time i want to drive it.
I keep thinking of the HGTV home decorating shows where they would artificially distress things for a "country home" look.
Which, to be honest, is kind of insulting. Kind of like the $200 jeans that look like you owned them for ten years after buying them at Goodwill, because you're broke as hell, times the idea that anybody rural is too poor to own nice things.
Patina seems like a very pretentious word for my stuff, which is just well used. I would never suggest the drivers seat of my pickup truck has patina. It's just worn out.
I'm good with patina.
Everybody should do what they like.
In reply to MrFancypants :
This whole patina thing isn't about using it and enjoying it- it's that somehow having a patina adds value to the car as it sits.
As if years of neglect in a barn makes a car special and more valuable.
Or years and years of sun bleaching makes it more valuable.
Which I see as very different than an original car, loved and regularly used, with a lot of miles on it- but all original.
In reply to wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L) (Forum Supporter) :
Or, Trigger
In reply to wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L) (Forum Supporter) & Mr_Asa :
Ugh, that whole "relic'd" guitar thing is something else now too. I certainly appreciate the well-used original examples above, but to take a brand-new guitar/parts, artificially wear/age/damage them, and then somehow that adds value to the instrument - I just don't get it.
I think the late 90s/early 00s aircooled VW scene did a lot to popularize the patina phenomenon. As far as I know they're still going strong with the look.
That was definitely one of the driving forces of the patina movement moving into the watercooled VW crowd, which is about the time I built a faux-patina car. Clearly I'm a fan of the look, but it has to be either original or employed with a deft hand.
Rust holes are not patina.
Rust holes are neglect.
At the Scrooge McDuck levels of money, they want something no one else has. "Anyone" can pay for an immaculate restoration, so the next step is having a car that's never been restored.
At the other end of the spectrum, for new cars it's having coachbuilders or special one offs made for them.
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to MrFancypants :
This whole patina thing isn't about using it and enjoying it- it's that somehow having a patina adds value to the car as it sits.
As if years of neglect in a barn makes a car special and more valuable.
Or years and years of sun bleaching makes it more valuable.
Which I see as very different than an original car, loved and regularly used, with a lot of miles on it- but all original.
'scuse me while I rust the hood on my Jetta
You'll need to log in to post.
