Yes, I believe it’s about time that I express my true feelings about patina and ask about yours. It was a pleasure meeting you all and sharing my stories.
Patina, for those of you coming for the edutainment, is usually used to define a layer that forms on the surface of certain metals through age and exposure. The most notorious case is the statue of liberty, which acquired its shade of green around 1900 or so due to the magic of chemistry and nobody bothering to polish the thing. This may actually be a good thing as patina provides a protective coating to metals. For our purposes we’ll use the more modern and general definition of the word, which refers to any signs of age and wear and tear.
We don’t shun vehicles that carry their age proudly here at CC, we even had a whole week dedicated to patina (Finale here) Indeed, if anything patina is a badge of honor here. Something cars carry proudly as a badge of their time on this planet and all the stories they’ve been a part of through the years. But…
Unlike copper, run of the mill steel doesn’t just turn green and gets a protective layer, remove the paint of a car and it’ll leave it’s primer and bare metal exposed to corrosion and water and all those nasty things that are detrimental for vehicle survival in the first place. It’s not that they don’t look interesting, patina can create an entire array of interesting shapes and colors on the car’s surface. But I can’t help but think just how cool would the car look in its original color. A patina’d 1940’s Pontiac can look good, but one resprayed in period correct black would look even better.
But that’s just like…my opinion man, what do you think?
Although I prefer concours d’elegance condition cars, I also like cars with a little patina to it. As long as there are no holes anywhere, nothing that would sacrifice the structure of the vehicle, and it’s driveable under its own power.
Agree with Jason. Weather, patina and character are awesome when it suits the vehicle. Cancer, holes, dents, mismatched body panels and body damage…nope.
I think the patina thing is a good example of where things are relative. It doesn’t look so good on some cars, but others it just makes them appreciable for what they are. That panel VW bus would REALLY speak to me if it were just dumped down low and wore some fuchs mags. The beauty of that bus is that you could truly drive and enjoy it without obsessing over it. What fun is it to own a pristine perfect museum piece that you cant actually get out and DRIVE without sweating and wringing your hands the whole time?
the patina thing seems to me to be a reaction to the whole overly perfect part of the car hobby, where the cars don’t even look like cars anymore but like car models…but the look where it looks like the car was abandoned in the desert for 25 years just doesn’t do it for me, sorry.
Interestingly both VW vans pictured have been hit on the side doors but on the shiny one the damage stands out like dogs balls while on the faded one it hides.
I think that’s the reflection of a car’s front wheel (parked next to the shiny one) and the white marking stripe on the pavement, not a dent.
Thats what makes it obvious the reflection is distorted.
Patina works best on brutish cars/trucks that weren’t that attractive in the first place. Another thing with patina is that it can only look good with non-clearcoat paints, if there’s anything I truly don’t like about restorations it’s the use of the wrong damn paint. Yet they go to the pointless step of adding chalk marks everywhere???
I believe that base/clear paint is more forgiving when applying and easier to maintain. I don’t know if you can even get auto paints designed for single-stage application anymore. This may be due to the low-VOC restrictions today. Base/clear may not be technically correct, but I think most restorers have their hands tied when it comes to paint selection.
Single stage paints are still available and I’d disagree that they are easier to maintain once the clear gets to thin it starts to flake and it is done. A good single stage can be buffed out and be brought back to life. Single stage is still used for “fleet white” and MD and HD trucks.
It may be different in places like AZ where the sun bakes the paint, but flaking clear coat doesn’t seem to be a problem here anymore. I don’t see any newer cars that have flaking clearcoat the way that the early ones painted that way did. Even then, the worst offenders were cars belonging to people that worked at or lived near industrial areas. Possibly airborne chemicals attacking the paint?
I know that, on our daily drivers (painted with metallic base/clear), I’ve been able to buff out light scratches with polishing compound and they look as good as new. Using polishing compound on a single stage metallic may affect the metalfleck so it would be noticeable.
On the other hand, my ’66 2-door hardtop was repainted with a single stage metallic in the late 80’s. That paint is beat and there’s no bringing it back except very temporarily. It’s gone porous, holding dirt like a sponge so it doesn’t come out when washing the car. The only thing that helps is to a professional “cleaner wax”, but it doesn’t last long.
My dad’s ’66 Chrysler was also repainted single stage metallic in the mid 80’s. The paint was still decent until 2 years ago. Then it got kicked out of the garage into the driveway. Since then, about 1/4 of the paint has flaked off the horizontal surfaces, revealing the primer underneath.
My Chrysler is getting repainted with base/clear and I’m fine with that. 🙂
“Patina works best on brutish cars/trucks that weren’t that attractive in the first place.”
Attractive is in the eye of the beholder. I tend to find brutish beastly vehicles much MORE attractive than cutesy feminine looking ones. A Miata couldn’t wear patina as well as a ’68 Charger for example. Ill give you 3 guesses which one is ‘attractive’ to my eye. On the other hand, Ive always loved the RX-8 from day one, but that would look like garbage with any kind of patina. So I think youre definitely onto something.
I don’t think I said brutish is unattractive, I didn’t intend to anyway. I think that being unattractive on top of being a brutish or utilitarian design makes patina an improvement over factory paint. Think the D300 featured yesterday.
I think certain vehicles look awesome with patina, more so than with mint factory paint, but those vehicles aren’t in the ilk of classic Muscle cars(at least not ones like the 68 Charger). Not to say I think patina is bad on them, just that it’s not any better than shiny new paint(I won’t get hot and bothered if it’s restored in other words). An old well used truck or a big Uncle Buck full sizer on the other hand? Patina actually makes them interesting. That’s my view anyway.
Ok I think I know what you meant. No offense taken either way. Opinions being like A holes and all. I know my taste in vehicles runs counter to many popular opinions in some cases.
Good point.
I like both. It certainly looks better on pressed metal than it does on molded plastic, though. I wonder what carbon fiber body panels will look like after they’ve been left out in the sun and rain for 30 or 40 years?
Carbon fiber panels probably age similar to fiberglass.
I do know the urethane bumpers from the 80s era look like garbage when the paint wears down to yellow plastic. Not sure on the CF stuff but B.O.C. is probably onto something…
That VW at the top of the page needs to be cleaned-up and repainted. That’s what I think of patina on a car.
I could be happy with it if the car was all original. Put mags on it and – nope, needs paint.
Well, I’ve said it before but what is currently fashionable as patina qualifies as deterioration to me, which is what that first VW looks like.
My VW is painted with single stage urethane, which isn’t too shiny and has held up well over the past 4 years.
Perhaps we’re biased by our environment, Doug. A vehicle with as much surface rust as that VW is one or two winters away from the scrapyard.
Patina is much more eye catching on late model vehicles and looks terrible or alright.
Many years ago I thought old beat up cars looked like old beat up cars, and needed to be restored. Things have changed. I now love the look, as long as the vehicle is mechanically perfect. I currently own two “patina” cars, one from the early ’60s, one from the early ’70s. I am currently working on restoring them mechanically, and adding A/C, so they can be driven anywhere anytime, but I’m leaving the cosmetics alone. The ’64 Fairlane looks a lot like that bus, but with chrome smoothies. The oem wheels were trashed, and I chose to go with those, which are period correct, rather than spend 3 times as much on a set of stock wheels and dog dishes. The shiny chrome wheels and distressed paint look great together.
If I could afford it, I would like to have something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIh1Sm4DyAE
That does not mean I don’t appreciate fully restored cars as well, and actually believe that true classics should be restored. I would hate to see a ’65 Vette or a ’70 Roadrunner in that condition. But an old van, wagon, or sedan is another matter. They will never have serious collector value, and driving what appears to be a rolling piece of junk that is all new underneath can be a lot of fun.
BTW, I live in central AZ, where rust is not an issue. Even without paint, a car never develops anything more than surface rust here, so cars never actually rust through like they do back east.
Actually a ’70 Roadrunner would look pretty mean and nasty in a Mad Max kind of way with some patina. Of course, Im referring to a straight solid body with only the paint weathered and minimal to no rust of any kind. Some wide slot mags would complete that look and scare the bejeezus out of anything in its path!
Patina can look O.K. but total lack of paint like in the top Typ II photo means sooner than later , the roof panel will simply rip off in a stiff breeze .
I’ve seen it happen many times in days before diving abandoned cars became ‘ cool ‘ for some odd reason .
Old faded paint is fine , rust means you don’t really like the vehicle as you’re DAMAGING IT BEYOND REPAIR .
-Nate
Real patina is fine with me, as long as the definition is not stretched to full bore rust-through.
However, now folks are faking patina by spraying red primer randomly or over sanding an area, letting it corrode, then clearing over it for effect. No… just no!
“faking it” is actually a happy medium, if you ask me. You can fake the surface rust with paint and get the cool worn in look without actually causing deterioration of the sheetmetal. And that way if you got the urge, you could strip it and start again with a restoration if you wanted to.
+1 fake patina is the same thing as new torn jeans to me.
I fantasize about the encounter between someone who accidentally opens their door into, or merely brushes up on faux patinad car and the owner of said car blowing his or her top yelling “you scratched my patina, do you know how much this cost?!?!?!?”
What about the whole ‘rusted hood’ thing? Or has it taken me so long to notice that it’s already been played out for a couple of years now?
(I think it’s ridiculous)
I believe that ultimately, we will find this whole patina thing is just the latest “flavor of the week” until something new comes along.
I always figured patina was a reaction to cars that were over-restored….and a reaction to “trailer queens”.
The 1st time I ran across a “patina-ed” car was in 1969 in Pittsburgh. A co-worker had a Plymouth Valiant that looked like it had never been washed. “Living” in Pittsburgh in the 60s, that poor car had a layer of coal ash on it that nearly hid it’s pastel green paint job.
I prefer wear on a car to show that it was cared for, but still used. Paint being thin in certain areas due to years of polishing is fine. Flat out rust on the metal is not.
By the way, don’t ever get the idea that the antique automobile (or motorcycle) crowd invented patina. In this forum patina is optional. In antique bicycles, patina is absolutely demanded. To take a vintage bicycle, blast it down to the bare tubing and repaint – even if repainted absolutely correct to the bike when new, and find exact reproduction or NOS decals – takes the value of said bicycle down by 50%.
And in most antique bicycles, the cost of restoring that bike is more than the finished bicycle will bring on the open market.
> And in most antique bicycles, the cost of restoring that bike is more than the finished bicycle will bring on the open market.
That part is the same for most auto restorations as well.
Today I learned there is a market for antique bicycles.
Wow, is there ever!
This is my basement, and I sold three this summer!
I’ll admit to feeling a bit jealous now, Mr. 65. You’ve got your three 1965 cars, your toothy old Buick and all of those bikes? I “only” have eight bikes, the oldest being a 1951 Columbia Three Star. That yellow one in the foreground looks like an old Schwinn 3-speed. I wouldn’t mind having one of those!
Not that I want to brag, but I have four ’65s and the old Buick! 🙂
The yellow bike is a ’73 Speedster with a big 24″ frame, but only a single-speed Bendix. I really prefer the old three-speed “lightweights,” and the green Raleigh is probably my favorite bike, with the old Sturmey-Archer.
Eight bikes, huh? You might be tied with me, more or less…Three of these are my wife’s, and one of them is newer, so I don’t really count it. 🙂 I have to admit, the bike collection got a little carried away, which is why I’m downsizing a bit. Know anyone who wants a ’62 Schwinn straight-bar Typhoon? 🙂
That Columbia sounds like a fun old bruiser! Do you ride it very much? I just looked up a picture of one…pretty much the definition of a classic ’50s cruiser!
“Know anyone who wants a ’62 Schwinn straight-bar Typhoon? :)”
Yes.. Me..
Cheers ..
The kind of patina we like is generally impossible outside of specific climates. The question then becomes, if you bring a patinated Arizona car to, let’s say, New England, do you try to freeze patina with a clear, flat finish?
Only the first owner of a car can act like he/she doesn’t care about the encroaching surface rust. After that, the look is a choice.
And, it also hits on the old, “will she refuse to ride in it” problem.
“And, it also hits on the old, “will she refuse to ride in it” problem.”
Depends on your caliber of lady. Mine tends to be the type who you see in Rebel Rodz magazine….so Id have pushback if I had a shiny nice Mercedes or boring cammacord!
Ideally, factory fresh is best. A comprehensive and accurate restoration comes second. On vehicles used regularly neither condition can be maintained for long. that’s how it goes. I’m fine with visible wear up to the point where it can be reversed without wholesale substitution of parts.I’m less enthusiastic about the contrived finishes inflicted on some vehicles by numbskulls following fashions.
I agree about the “reverse snobbery” aspect of driving old dilapidated looking cars. I grew up very poor, and drove such cars out of necessity. Now I drive them for fun.
As for restored cars, I never understood the matching numbers, deliberately sloppy, production paint marks on the frame thing. If I owned an antique or classic car, I would want it restored to as close to perfect as possible. Technology has changed a lot over the past 50-60 years, and it is now possible to restore an old car to a condition far better than it was in when it was new. This is what I would want. Just keep the original parts. No switching drums to discs and carbs to FI. I’m not into winning points in car shows, and the idea of copying the poor workmanship of the time when the car was new makes no sense at all to me.
+1. If you are gonna restore a car, with today’s techniques, why not make it better than new. Like the designers and engineers intended. Most ’60s cars on the line were assembled by high school drop outs who couldn’t wait to smoke their lunch.
To have or not have patina, that is the question: In general, NO!
However, on certain vehicles I don’t really care for, it makes no difference to me. On vehicles I like? Well, I don’t expect showroom or restored better-than-new condition, but everyday-driven condition – that’s what I respect.
Case in point: My bought-new 2012 Impala has/is taking a beating these last 2+1/2 years and 57,000 miles and the finish shows; rock chips, rubs from who knows what, scratches, etc. A 100-mile-a-day commute will do that, you know! BUT… no patina… yet.
It seems that most all VW Type II, except the Sambas, came in that dull blue or off white. Both colors really show the rust.
After the discussion a few days ago, notice the dog dish hubcaps on that Camaro, a convertible, no less.
My opinion is this:
1. Do a complete restoration only if it is a basket case and you have lots of money to throw away.
2. Don’t buy a car that falls into #1.
3. Buy the most accident and rust free example you can find.
4. Restore only those areas that are starting to deteriorate.
5. Do number 4 as early as you can because for a while the restored areas are going to look “too new”.
6. Nirvana is when those areas dull down to the point that you can’t tell them from the older parts of the car.
Every time I go to Greenfield Village for the Motor Muster or the Old Car Festival, the announcers swoon over some ratty old heap blowing oil smoke “oh isn’t that wonderful? it will only be original once”
Fooey!
Ask Dick Teague or Alex Tremulis or Brooks Stevens if that is how they intended their work to look. I have a million Zimbabwe dollars here that every one of them will say NO! The cars are a tribute to the people who designed and built them, and should reflect the designers intention.
Harrumph!
It can be an old & shop worn original and not be a rattly old piece of junk ~
The picture here is of my ’69 Chevy C/10 with original paint everyone , even the Body guy told me I was nuts to take it fully apart for rebuilding (NOT Restoring) , until he saw where the cab had holes all through it and had in fact , ripped loose from the floor .
A rusty old POC with mis matched bald tires that chugs along , isn’t anything special , it’s _JUNK_ until you fix it up .
I got over the Restoration Bug in the late 1970’s after doing too many and no one ever enjoyed them , what a waste of effort and $ .
-Nate
There’s patina and then there’s just plain rust. I’m a firm believer in “it’s only original once,” and I don’t mind exploring the boundaries of “goodness, it’s far from perfect but I would hate to restore that and then be afraid to take it out in the road.” However, if the exterior finish is solely some combination of chalk, rust and peel, it’s time to deal with it. Clearcoating the rust in order to “preserve” really doesn’t make any sense to me.
I’ve owned two older cars. Not classics, not in Australia anyway.
My first one (’74 Cortina) had been resprayed just before I bought it in ’82, and I did my best to keep it in good condition. Until I polished through the paint on the hood in ’91 – oops! But even then it was garaged until I sold it in ’05.
My second one (’87 Ford Laser) was shiny but not babied when I got it in ’03. It lived out in the sun, which gradually took the shine from the paint until no amount of polishing would help it and primer began showing through. At that point I left it alone, and sold it in ’10.
Difference? I lioved the Cortina (first car!), but the Laser was ‘meh’. My current Mazda 3 gets washed twice a year. As I get older, I take less interest in the appearance of my car. But I know all the mechanicals are up to scratch.
Patina should be the reflection of a life of use, care, and maintainance. The owner was committed to preserving the vehicle. The paint can be thin in spots, the chrome and trim pieces can be a little rough in places but both should be waxed and polished. Minor dents and scratches should be touched up, not left to rust. There shouldn’t be any serious rust through. The interior can show wear to the carpets and upholstery but the seats should be repaired, restiched with patch panels. It shouldn’t look like an explosion in a cotton mill! It should be apparent that the owner cared about his vehicle. It should be clean. This rat rod, barn find attitude is a joke, a poke in the eye to uptight restoration community. I welcomed the idea of bringing in a fresh breath ( of somewhat dusty) air but it has run it’s course in my opinion.
+1.
It’s a difference between honest wear and neglect. I am all for originality, but it should be a reflection of the car’s life. Once it deteriorates beyond a certain point, it needs to be repaired. A car like the above Camaro I would leave alone as is, one like that unfortunate VW would get painted ASAP.
Everybody seems to have a different idea about what patina should be. I guess I shouldn’t mention rust rods and rat rods?
IMO, clearcoat is the worst thing ever invented. In AZ it is a nightmare. The sun burns it off in 2-3 years, in large spots. You cannot restore paint in this condition. Back before clearcoat, paint faded, but did not burn off. You could take a bottle of Color Back, a lot of elbow grease, and bring it back to nearly new, especially light colors. Metallic paint also burns off like crazy in spots. My neighbor bought a brand new 2012 metallic silver Corvette, left it sitting outside for one summer, and you could already see the light and dark spots on it. Yet I have seen 40 year old cars with original paint that could be brought back to nearly new with a bit of buffing. That old baked enamel was tough.
Just so ~
I know many younger Folks prefer the two stage but for logevity and ease of spot repairs , nothing beats single stage paints .
Them’s the facts whether or not you like them .
I’m having some GM code 505 Woodland Green lain on my old truck right now , not an easy thing to do anymore in California where they want us to only use water based Automotive paints .
Baked Enamel was good stuff , I like acrylic enamel .
One of my ‘A’ Model Fords still had it’s nitrocellulose enamel on it and I was easily able to polish it up to a high shine , _that_ car had ‘ Patina ‘ ~ chips and scratches , the nickle plating wasn’t terribly shiny but it still looked nice .
-Nate
Agree. A friend who was a bodyman years ago told me that any paint with a high percentage of clear in the formula would look bad after a few years of normal use. His explanation was that the UV rays would penetrate through the clear and heat up the pigments, cooking the paint from the inside. If it was a metallic, all the worse. This is why old silvers, champaignes and silver blues/silver greens weathered so poorly back in the day, while the darker browns and greens held up so well. I would imagine that the modern clearcoats fall right into this same problem.
BTW Nate, your Chevy truck would likely have been lacquer, not enamel. GM used lacquers which were beautiful when new, but which aged poorly. They were, however, very easy to work with on spot touch ups.
Really ? Lacquer in 1969 ? .
Wow .
The original paint shined up very well indeed , had not the cab been dangerously rusty , I’da not taken it apart .
-Nate
GM did not switch to enamel until some time in the 80s. Pretty much everyone else (certainly Ford and Chrysler) was spraying enamel in the 30s. If you ever wondered why the finishes of GM cars of the 60s and 70s did not seem to weather as well as those on other cars, well this was the reason.
I restored a 59 beetle that was laquer painted when new it still had that paint on it Enamel was dumped in the late 50s over here though my 59 Minx was enamelled new now its in nitrocellose laquer.
When I see a red primered door on a brutish car that wasn’t attractive in the first place I want it painted black.
Since when are 356 Posches ‘ Brutish ‘ ? .
=8-) .
-Nate
Porsches have been brutish since the V-16 P-Wagen of 1934, Auto-Union Type A.
O.K. , _that_ one , I was talking about the 356 , like the 1939 Rome to wherever racer , I got to fool with it once , it was light on it’s pins and very agile as a true Sports Car should be ,.
Nice Fairlane BTW ! .
-Nate
Here is my 1964 Fairlane. It has a lot more patina than it looks like in the picture. There are large spots on the roof and hood that look like rust, but are mostly the original red oxide primer. This car has never been repainted.
Not a big fan of patina. You could say my F100 was with the faded blue paint. However, it was originally holly green and it needed to go back to that and it did. The Polara was a faded white along with a faded vinyl roof and some rust under it. That roof and the body dents needed to be eliminated and were with a new coat of paint. The Park Lane has faded seafoam green, plus a fair amount of shallow dents along with six small rust holes in the rear quarters and trunk lid. They are being eliminated starting this spring. All single stage despite what California says.
Being a methodical perfectionist I like a nice shiny mechanically perfect car and will return one to said condition every time. My first car, the 68 Cougar, still looks perfect today as does the 11 year old Focus. It’s just my nature as once a car starts in my care it pretty much stays close to perfect all it’s life. That even carries over to my restoration of a 71 year old aircraft carrier. Whether others appreciate it is not relevant since it is done to please me and only me as a form of relaxation.
I want a mechanically perfect car, but I like both “patina” cars and nice ones. I can park my patina car in the parking lot, and not worry about door dings. I can park it outside and not worry about sun damage. With a really nice car, it would spend most of it’s time in the garage.
Plus I do love the reverse snobbery aspect. When some rich guy pulls up next to me in my Fairlane with a new $100,000 BMW that will be a $10,000 car in 10 years, I rev the engine a bit and smile. I have glasspacks on it.
Yabbutt ;
Your Fairlane has actual Patina ~ not a rusty red roof and a trunk shot full of holes .
Glass packs are nice , do you run a cross over ? I always do to take the sharp crackle out of that sweet mellow exhaust note .
-Nate
Aaron65
You wrote ” Know anyone who wants a ’62 Schwinn straight-bar Typhoon? :)”
I am interested if you still have it for sale..
Got any pics ??
Cheers ..