acceptible behavior? or not?

[droptop62]

At what point is it crossing the line on deception during restoration?

Example; Buying brand new glass that has correct dates and codes to mimick original glass.
Is that OK, or not?

Stamping dates and codes on reproduction spiral shocks to appear 100% correct.
Is that acceptible?

In these days with fake build sheets, and other forms of documentation, I am just trying to see what real car guys think of this stuff.

so your opinions please.

[bignbad60]

Just my .02, but if your doing it for your own gratification go for it. If it's for profit, wether trying to decieve a possible buyer, or trying to fool a judge at a competition, that would be an unforgivable sin. If fully disclosed as reproduction than that's just replicating detail. Again my .02 cents, which means nuttin :dunno

Tim

[models916]

If you are trying to pass it off as un-restored orig., that is wrong. If it is restored, I don't see the problem. I see restored as put back to the way it was when new. Full details when selling lets you off the hook for any deception. Plenty of restored Packards and the like that are restored to original that have custom made or cast parts. Sometimes NOS or refurbished is not an option.Some of the Pebble Beach cars brag about the hand-tooled parts for restoration.

[tripowerguy]

I agree with the others, putting it on the car is OK just as long as you tell any buyers that it isn't original. I have had people ask me if the 348 is original and I tell them that it isn't and they act as if I had committed a sin. How many cars can be original? Not very many, most have had engines replaced sometimes 2 or 3 times. Look how Cecil is working just to come up with a numbers matching 61. That is not original but numbers matching. If it is a barn find that somehow has weathered the years without losing any parts then that is a jewel but most of the cars have had parts replaced and there is not one thing wrong just so you don't try to hoodwink someone.:deal Roy

[goat boy]

my thoughts are if the car has remained stock, keep it that way. if it hasn't, why worry about date codes, etc? i can see using original type parts to keep it looking stock, but when you can order new parts with "correct" date codes what meaning does it have. there are more 435hp 67 vettes now than gm ever built. and every one is "correct". there are so many cars out there that have restamped blocks and replacement tags i would rather buy a car advertised as a clone or nom than one claiming to be original. at least you know what you are getting! remember they are just old cars! when you were younger you couldn't wait to swap motors. why change now??!!
just my take on the whole thing
scotty t

[oldskydog]

If restoring it to the original "as it came from the factory" look, it's ok as long as you don't try to represent it as a low mile original with all the original parts that came on it from the factory. I like to get parts with the correct vintage numbers to represent the correct components for the time. I like to know what is correct so I will have a sporting chance at spotting something that is being misrepresented. I have always believed that your best defense is to know the rules (or numbers) better than the other guy.
I've been a member of the NCRS for many years. They started all this numbers thing and I think it's great from a historical knowledge perspective but I don't get all anal about the wrong head markings on a particular bolt. In my opinion, engines, trannies, and rear ends were comsumables much like batteries, shocks, and fan belts. Most guys who drove their cars drove them hard and replacing the engine was done routinely. The car was still the thing that attracted us in the first place. If someone wants to restamp an engine to make it look right I really don't have much problem with that as long as he is up front about it being a restoration/replica replacement. In order for it to be correctly represented he will have to obtain a properly numbered and dated casting that in fact, was built on the same assembly line, in the same engine plant at approximately the same time as the missing original. In effect it is the same vintage and could very well have been installed in his car but for the luck of the draw from the assembled engine rack. Besides, it's very difficult to get it perfect and many don't even try that hard. The original broach markings on a small block are not easy to duplicate since the blocks were machined on a shaper instead of the more common circular milling machine. Which brings me to another issue and a question for everyone:

All my W blocks do not show any evidence of the straight broach marks on the pad like a Flint small block. Instead they show the more typical pattern from the current machine shop circular milling machines. I could be wrong, but it looks like Tonawanda didn't use the shaper type like Flint did. Does anyone have one showing straight fore and aft marks?:scratch

[wc chevys]

IF YOU BUILD A CAR JUST FOR PROFIT DOENT MISLEAD PEOPLE ,TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WISH TO BE TREATED. If your building it to keep and enjoy you only have to make your self happy! And sometimes people really do'nt know, for example I bought a 66 SS 396 375 HP CHEVELLE basket case several years back supposed to be numbers matching car .After I got it home and started checking the motor was'nt right.The person I got it from bought it in 69 and did'nt know the motor had been changed.I finally reached a family member of the original owner he told me it blew up soon after it was purchased and the GM dealer installed a new short block.After more checking numbers came back to a 67 replacement block and heads and center head matched the car. SO SOMETIMES THEY REALLY DONT KNOW

[droptop62]

Just to clear things up, I am not asking for myself, just a general question.
I got into it with another guy on a different sight, because he wanted to stamp codes and dates on his reproduction spiral shocks. I thought in my opinion that it crossed a line. I thought it was deceptive. to me the only reason people re-stamp stuff is for financial gain.

In my opinion the behavior is not acceptable.:cuss

[real61ss]

Just my opinion....stamping an old date code in new glass is no different from restamping an engine block or a cowl tag, you are trying to make something out to be what it isn't. :nono1:

If you want to have date coded glass then have it stamped with the current date....let's see how many people want to do that

[Tom Kochtanek]

Doing it isn't the sin, misrepresentation is.

If you "clone" something for yourself, that's just fine and dandy. Tell everyone that it is a clone. Don't deceive anyone, especially a future buyer, that this is original.

A few of us like to try to be "period correct". Not the original stuff (blocks, heads, shocks, etc.) but something made just before your vehicle was. I think that's what Cecil is trying to do. I do that, so do others. One problem is the long term one of "I know what it is, but do my heirs?". Say 30 years from now I'm gone and no one recalls the details of originality, etc. Then what happens? Some shyster can come in and misrepresent your build AFTER you're gone. But we flatter ourselves to think that any one would actually want one of our X-frame 409 cars in say, year 2037 :) :) :).

I faced a few of these decisions when I did my Corvette, and again when I did the '62 SS car. I tried to stay close to original in many aspects, but made a few "personalizations". Some call it "restification". A bit of modification, a bit of restoration. I bet there is a range within those two that many of us fit in. Some are total true restoration, some modify to suit their fancy. Some of the mods are cosmetic (body work, etc.) some are functional (upgrading to a dual master brake cylinder), some are radical (customizing). There's plenty of room for everyone to play!

As to what's ethically correct, we can split hairs here for a while. So long as it's yours, you can do what you want. Sure, we can comment on your taste (you did what with those hydraulics on your truly original 1961 SS car?), but in the end it's your property. Just don't try to misrepresent that object for personal gain.

Cheers!
TomK

[1958 delivery]

The worst part is people that are gulible enough to think, even for a moment, that any of this stuff could really be original. Come on, I sell glass, anybody that can't recognize "new" glass, regardless of the code is a blind fool. But there are people that try to play this stuff off. And I imagine there's also those that WANT to believe. I've gotten to the point that I believe no one when they start telling the "original" stories. Original now bores me to death. But that's my opinion. There is absolutely nothing on any car that can't be perfectly duplicated.
The problem with clones, even when the initial owner is telling the truth is eventually that car ends up being misrepresented as "original".

[3483x2]

I'll chime in with my 2 c.

As for me, my goal is to restore, taking the benefits of todays technology with yesterdays look feel and "vibe".
Will I powder coat parts? Yes... Will I persue the correct color? Absolutely...
My attitude is if I'm going to invest the time and $$ to restore, I want it correct and I want it to last.

My block is a correct HA tri-power
I laugh all the time when I see 3 x 2's with a "G" Powerglide stamping on the pad.
(Let the buyer beware)

Will I invest in date coded windows? (with the dates from the car) Yes...
I'm glad resources like these are available to obtain such parts.
I could imagine doing a restore and having the orig faded windows stick out like a sore thumb knowing they were available. :grumble:

Will I add vintage accessories?
If the price is right and it adds to the vibe, perhaps. It is still my car :brow

Now... Will I pass it off as a non-restored original? Heck No!:cuss
I'll proudly present this car a quality restoration and fairly disclose the add ons.
(If I decide to sell.)

However, I have no sympathy for the termites who buy a cowl tag to create a rare 409 or super sport for something they pulled out of the river.

I think we can all agree that having the quality resources available to us is a blessing to the hobby.
Those who choose to capitalize on the unwarry by passing off their clones as original unfortunately will alway be there.
There had better be supporting documentation if they want my dollars.

I guess my parting message would be: Make sure you know you stuff, use common sense or be prepared for the worst should it occur.

I think I need a cherry coke and a moonpie... :)

[droptop62]

Now... Will I pass it off as a non-restored original? Heck No!:cuss
I'll proudly present this car a quality restoration and fairly disclose the add ons.
(If I decide to sell.)

You, might disclose this stuff, but the guy that buys your car and then sells it later may not. Happens all the time.

[Tom Kochtanek]

Droptop mentions: "You, might disclose this stuff, but the guy that buys your car and then sells it later may not. Happens all the time."

I agree, and am well aware of this dilemna. Verne Frantz and I have discussed this a number of times. Is there some solution?

I have a pretty close to original restored vehicle that had a 283 PG in it, now a 409 four speed. Plans are to slip in a more correct looking date coded 1962 409/409 in place of the existing stroker engine, which does not appear stock-like. So how can one feel comfortable that somewhere down the line, someone does not "misrepresent" the car as being original? Here's what I am thinking: make copies of the original invoice (which I have) and place one on top of the gas tank, another under the rear seat, another under the dash, etc., etc. That way somewhere down the line someone will at least have a chance in determining non-originality. If you don't have the original invoice, place notes that document the actions you've taken, just to give people a fair chance. They might not discover these right away, but at some point in time these will be discovered and perhaps the chain of misrepresentation will be broken, even after you are long gone. Perhaps there is a means for "registering" originality" with folks like Verne Frantz or some other central authority that the vehicle in it's current state is not original, that it is a reproduction. That way, the potential buyer has either local paper evidence (in the case of the invoice placement) AND some central database that is maintained independently and made available publicly. I'm thinking web site, but those are currently somewhat temporal, not archival in nature.

How's that for a kicker, someone making an effort to document that their car is a clone? Sounds weird, but it might catch on...

Cheers,
TomK

[3483x2]

I see the point now. Hmmmm :scratch
Interesting idea about the "tell-tale" restoration documentation. Has a lot of merit in my book.
BTW - I am a lifetime member of Chevy Classics (formally Late Greats) and have read about and have the highest regard for Vern Frantz's exceptional work with accessory documentation.