Matt, I do agree, but to a point.
Thing is, I can't have the patina
both my 911s are little hussies. The Jag does, however have interior patina (exterior repainted) and I DO love it.
I remember the article on that speedster - it is truely cool, and there are plenty of well restored speedsters out there for those that like it.
I think I am talking about the difference between being petrified that the next stone chip will ruin the "old" paint, vs the "drive it" feeling.
Actually, I have no idea what I am on about. I like 'em all. I fully appreciate the time warp aspect of a concours car; the virtually new feeling of a restoration of a car that will be driven (my preference, I think); the patina of age in a well cared for, low mileage car; the hard worn miles of a well used car; and, in my case with the '69, the rough and ready, good from 10' repaint and interior (at least it doesn't matter if it gets dirty
).
I think the question is whether a concours car is worth more than an "original" car? I think the reason the "original" cars are worth more is simple - they aren't making them any more and you can't reverse time - they are simply rarer than restored cars. You can make a restored car, but can't make 30 years of lovin'. I appreciate that, but the ability for me to buy such a car is so far out of my reach (eg Paul D's 72S) that it becomes an irrelevance.
So I end up a notch below - cars which could do with a repaint (or heaven forbid, rust repair then repaint - see '75 below
). Matt's car is a perfect example (no rust though). His interior really is very very nice. Beautiful brightwork and the body is straight. But the paint is, ummm, textured. So what to do? 'Cause Matt likes it, in the perverse way described above. I guess on that basis, the time and money involved aren't worth the incremental enjoyment - if any?