IS IT RESTORED?
I’m not one to generally write to magazines, but this article (“Back in Black,” Aug. 2018) forced me to. It is about the “restoration” of a 1965 Pontiac 2+2. I used quotes on restoration quite intentionally. The gentleman bought a wrecked car and then replaced the frame and the body. Reusing one fender, one door, the trunk lid, and the engine is not a restoration. The article says that the usable parts were put back on the car. They weren’t; they were put on a different car. I’m not criticizing the amount or quality of the work done, but don’t call it a restoration of a car when you hardly use any part of the original car. That’s the end of my rant. Very nice car, but it isn’t a restoration. Dave Maryland This question comes up often, and will likely continue to come up as time goes by and the quality of potential restoration projects deteriorates. We get your point. Just how much of the original car has to remain to consider it “restored”? What the owner did with this Pontiac was essentially build a car using components from two donor vehicles and other sources. You’re right in that putting pieces from one car onto another isn’t putting them “back on” the first car. But the process of returning these components to stock (or better than stock) condition is, by definition, restoration. The owner isn’t trying to misrepresent it as something it’s not, otherwise he wouldn’t have revealed the details of the rebuild so publicly. He likes the finished product. So do we, and so do a fair number of show judges. Even you called it a “very nice car.” Can we leave it at that?