Anyone else tired of "Patina"?

While I like seeing unmolested, original cars the "preservation class" at some of these concours events gets a little silly.

Sorry, but dirt is not patina. If your car is going to be on the lawn at Pebble Beach at least vacuum it! I get original wear, and age.....but dirt? No, being filthy should not increase the value of your car.

In reply to Joe Gearin:

"Yeah, but that pigeon E36 M3 came from the barn. It's a barn find after all!"

Joe Gearin wrote: While I like seeing unmolested, original cars the "preservation class" at some of these concours events gets a little silly. Sorry, but dirt is not patina. If your car is going to be on the lawn at Pebble Beach at least vacuum it! I get original wear, and age.....but dirt? No, being filthy should not increase the value of your car.

^This.

I think it was an episode of 'Chasing Classic Cars' where Wayne was chiding one of his employees to not wash the car they had just dragged out from a shed, "It is worth more with the dirt on it". In my opinion, the car collectability pendulum has swung far past stupid in this instance.

I don't argue that filthy is not patina. Nor is cancerous rust. But, old tired paint is. So is unboogered. That's what I mean about it being original only once.

Taking an old collectors car that is in fact original and promptly repainting or reupholstering it forever changes it from being original. Now, it's just one of the many "restored" cars. Worse still, cut in new door speakers and the like as an "improvement".

Tim danced on this issue with his Mustang. His articles, and especially the end of his last one on that car, were worth reading. I thought he addressed it quite well.

When it comes to cars I'm certainly not a purist. There are few cars that I would classify to good not to modify or upgrade with modern parts. While I enjoy looking at the perfectly restored muscle car correct down to the assembly line chalk and paint marks I don't exactly get it because the car will probably never be driven. I also don't get rat rods. They are far from the "way they used to build em" I'm sometimes told even though I am from that era and know better.

However, a while back I went to an auto parts store and sitting in the parking lot was a early 50's Cadillac. It was a emerald green, the paint was very faded and not much shine left. The chrome (lots of it) had some surface rust and the interior was faded but not ragged out. It had wide white walls and full hubcaps. The store had only a couple people in it so I looked around for the likely owner and asked if it was his car. We talked for a while about the car. He said it was original paint and the car had come from Colorado and hadn't been driven in 30 wears. All he did was get it running and cleaned it up. I asked what he was going to do with it. He said leave it alone and drive it! At that time I had to say I agreed with him it would be a crime to restore. I really can't say that about many cars.

dlmater wrote:

Joe Gearin wrote: While I like seeing unmolested, original cars the "preservation class" at some of these concours events gets a little silly. Sorry, but dirt is not patina. If your car is going to be on the lawn at Pebble Beach at least vacuum it! I get original wear, and age.....but dirt? No, being filthy should not increase the value of your car.

^This. I think it was an episode of 'Chasing Classic Cars' where Wayne was chiding one of his employees to not wash the car they had just dragged out from a shed, "It is worth more with the dirt on it". In my opinion, the car collectability pendulum has swung far past stupid in this instance.

no, that was richard the ass monkey with that lincoln zephyr. wayne actually washes stuff.

my stuff has "patina" because i don't have enough practice with body repair to do them right yet. one day, after i've done enough cab corners and rockers on rusty trucks, i'll be good enough at welding in patch panels to fix the quarters on my belair. for now, they can have all the crackled crazed paint they want. so long as it doesn't rot past where i'll be cutting out for the patches, i could care less.

Here's my take on it. If it is intentionally made to look like patina then it is lame.

My '53 Bel Air came out of a barn. Literally. Everything was berkeleyked up on it and would cost way more than it was worth to fix. So add wheels and drive it around. I would have loved to restore but since I couldn't afford it.... do what you can. It got way more attention than "show cars" when it was out and I think those guys decided they wanted a piece of that action with the fake patina E36 M3 that goes on.

My Land Rover has lots of patina. It's led a long life doing adventure, and you can tell by the wear. The top of the fenders are worn free of paint because that's where you put stuff on a Land Rover. The paint is almost the exact color of red oxide primer, so when I replaced the hood I simply painted it with red oxide primer because it was easier than painting the whole freakin' car.

Meanwhile, the Cadillac has badly sunburned paint. Not in a cool way, but in a 'that was a cheap clear coat' way. Some people think it's awesome, I think it looks sad. It needs the old gorgeous finish back again.

I think there's a fine line between good, natural use, authentically aged patina like the 53 Chevy crankwalk posted above and cars that are purposely stripped of paint and rusted, sanded randomly with an orbital, or randomly primered to LOOK old. There's something beautiful about authentically worn original paint sometimes. There's also too many people who are "trying to hard" to make their car look old and worn out.

I'm also sick of seeing the "look! it's a barn find!" cars that have random blotches of spray paint on them in different colors. I don't give a crap if you actually did find it that way. Just because the previous owner was doing some half @$$ed body work 20 years ago and grabbed the first can of readily available spray paint to cover up some flash rust and then left it that way doesn't mean you should claim it as authentic patina that way. Paint the damn thing!

I also think it should come down to how much damage the actual rust is causing too. If it's just a layer of surface rust on a solid car from the South or out West that had the paint baked off over 50 years then that's great, but if you have rotted out fenders and cab corners, "Flintstone Floors" etc. then it's just a beat up structurally weak car.

My 49 when it was still barn fresh. Now it's in the paint purgatory of primer. Body work is not my forte, but I'm still not a fan of leaving something "all but finished."

does this count as "patina"?

because the original paint on my T Type is fading on the horizontal surfaces (hood, roof, trunk) and falling off on the rest of the surfaces. the front bumper filler on the driver's side has disintegrated to nothing, but the only actual rust on the whole car is the lower rear corners of each door..

i also used to own this car, which had the original paint (the front clip was from a different car, but it looked original, too..). it was unreal how many door dings were in each door:

is this one old/cool enough to qualify as "patina"?

i hope so... it might get the supercharged 3.8 out of my '01 GTP put in it if i get bored with that car..

I had fully intended to "fake" some patina on The Crusty Chevy, but as I was working on it, I decided that the "patina" look on a square vehicle doesn't work - it would look like a beater. On a round body, like the '53 above, or the Fauxtina Phat '46 on "Trucks!", it works.

Yeah, not for everybody, but ~we~ build the vehicles ~we~ want, don't we?

Leather that is "worn in" sports a patina. Rust is damage.

wearymicrobe wrote:

Duke wrote:

John Brown wrote: I helped a man build a fiberglass 32 Ford 14 years ago. We did the thick paint/sand/fake rust patina trick on it. It looked 100% authentic right down to the authentic bullet holes shot into the decklid (30.06 into an old Ford hood seamed into the glass) and real rust on the body (same thing, real steel panel seamed into doors and cowl scuffed and oxidized then cleared). The guy still drives his Rod regularly, and treats it like it looks... poorly, like it was meant to be treated.

No offense, Quas, but this is exactly the kind of "tons of extra cost and effort to make it look like a piece of E36 M3" E36 M3 that really chaps my ass.

I will go even further, its fiberglass its a reproduction NOT a hot rod.

I can't justify it, I am only saying that it was done BEFORE the current craze and AT THE TIME he had never seen one done before. It is a really cool $25,000 kit car. Drives like it should and it does turn heads.

Did I enjoy building it with him? The guy is brilliant with glass and paint, it was an amazing build. I loved the entire process from uncrating the box to cruising Dream Cruise in it.
Would I have built it that way for me? Doubtful.
Would I buy it for $25,000? No Would I buy it for $2,500? Oh hell yes.

crankwalk wrote: Here's my take on it. If it is intentionally made to look like patina then it is lame. My '53 Bel Air came out of a barn. Literally. Everything was berkeleyked up on it and would cost way more than it was worth to fix. So add wheels and drive it around. I would have loved to restore but since I couldn't afford it.... do what you can. It got way more attention than "show cars" when it was out and I think those guys decided they wanted a piece of that action with the fake patina E36 M3 that goes on.

boiiiiiing.

i had a 53 in the same colors. way worse off though. my 54 is in a state of semi-poor amateur body restoration 18 years ago patina. like i was 15 and learning and had no idea what the hell i was doing, then my dad used the wrong thinner and the crap shrunk and cracked all over.

The term has been overused, and now means whatever the listener/reader wants. It's like "restored." Restored means back to the way it left the factory, NOT better than the factory, NOT modified, improved or changed.

99% of the cars I see advertised as restored do not meet my definition. They have different wheels, aftermarket stereos, intake and exhaust mods, etc.

dlmater wrote:

Joe Gearin wrote: While I like seeing unmolested, original cars the "preservation class" at some of these concours events gets a little silly. Sorry, but dirt is not patina. If your car is going to be on the lawn at Pebble Beach at least vacuum it! I get original wear, and age.....but dirt? No, being filthy should not increase the value of your car.

^This. I think it was an episode of 'Chasing Classic Cars' where Wayne was chiding one of his employees to not wash the car they had just dragged out from a shed, "It is worth more with the dirt on it". In my opinion, the car collectability pendulum has swung far past stupid in this instance.

Wayne has done it with a few cars. I stopped watching CCC as a result.

My "Patina" car

Remember it is my ZAV and was a free barn find, now has a new engine, trans, suspension and brakes.

However the rust is being repaired.

In reply to aussiesmg:

You just have a whole garage of badass don't you?!

If "patina" is somehow "desirable", then my GEO Prism has too much of a good thing.

"Patina" Kinda sounds like a striper's name.

Zoombie thread.

patina - [pat-n-uh, puh-tee-nuh] noun
1. a film or incrustation, usually green, produced by oxidation on the surface of old bronze and often esteemed as being of ornamental value.
2. a similar film or coloring appearing gradually on some other substance.
3. a surface calcification of implements, usually indicating great age.
4. a rusted hunk of E36 M3 someone is trying to sell it's lack of care as a feature.

"There is no way you will get $20k out of that old rust bucket." says Tom. "Yes I will. I will say it has great patina and charge $30k!" says Joe.

ok, as long as this old thread is revived, I will ask Dean1484 if he got that 37 Ford Coupe from the woods. Been a year and a half now......