Downtown Flint, Michigan. Saturday, August 17, 2019.
Only three weeks ago, I was back in my hometown of Flint, Michigan for the annual Back To The Bricks car festival, which is now in its fifteenth year. The big Saturday show is when the entire main thoroughfare of South Saginaw Street and the surrounding streets are blocked off and filled with classic cars, people, food trucks, bandstands, and other festive vendors and events.
The days leading up to the main event also feature rolling cruises, a live concert (this year, it was Chicago tribute band, “Old Days”), a movie at a local drive-in, and other fun things. The fun surprise this year was that Friday featured yet another car exhibition downtown on a smaller scale of what to expect on Saturday. It was on a Friday that I came across an all-original specimen of a first-year 1953 Corvette.
Of course, I had recognized this example as one of the early models of C1, but I was baffled as to why such a tired-looking example was displayed so prominently in a central part of the main, downtown parking lot. I knew there had to be some backstory, so I zoomed in for a closer look. As it turned out, this ‘Vette was number 253 of the original run of 300 built for ’53, right here in the Vehicle City. Of that 300, only 183 were sold during the ’53 calendar year.
The placard beneath the front of the car, written by its owners read:
“We set out for Maine, February 1971, for a 1954 Corvette, stopped at a market on Franklin & Robert T. Longway to stock up on snacks for the trip, and the teller said he had a 1953 Corvette.
Many years later, August 1976, we purchased that 1953, #253 built, from the McCormick family of the college cultural area of Flint. We have owned it ever since.
A previous owner…purchased it on a car lot in Birmingham, MI in 1954 and brought it to Flint, MI.”
At the “General Motors: Parade Of Progress” display.
Utterly fascinating. I didn’t see any pictures of what No. Two-Fifty-Three looked like when purchased, but in a reversal of my initial “appraisal” of this car and its condition, I absolutely love that it is all-original, unrestored, and looking like exactly as it does. I imagine the first-year ’53s would hold special interest and emotional and historical appeal to those from the Flint area, where they were built, as production was moved to St. Louis for ’54 (and eventually to Bowling Green, Kentucky, in the early 1980s).
1953 Chevrolet Corvette fold-out brochure courtesy of www.oldcarbrochures.com.
I thought about the span of time between when this car had first been manufactured and when the current owners had purchased it: over two decades. A twenty-three year old Corvette today would be a 1996 model, the last year for the C4. The upcoming 2020 C8 has almost completely changed the traditional Corvette layout and architecture by being a mid-engine design, but backtracking slightly to the final year of the C7, it’s clear that so much more had changed between 1953 and 1976 than between 1996 and present day. Having been in diapers in ’76, I’m trying hard to imagine what the ’53 Corvette might have seemed like in the era of the polyurethane-bumpered C3, disco, and “Charlie’s Angels”.
These ’53s were largely handbuilt in a small, temporary facility next to the main Chevrolet plant in Flint. With its triple-carbureted “Corvette Special Six” 235-cubic inch six-cylinder engine with 150 horsepower (based on the “Blue Flame” six), combined with its two-speed “Powerglide” automatic transmission, it was capable of doing 0-60 in 11 seconds or so. Its base price of $3,513 was considered very high for its day and turned off many prospective buyers, along with some quality control issues and design flaws of the first cars, like fit and finish of the fiberglass body panels and water leaks. All ’53s were finished in “Polo White” and featured interiors in “Sportsman Red”, which is what we see on display here.
In 1953, the plot of parking lot on which this Corvette was parked would have been in the footprint of the former Smith-Bridgman’s Department Store which, from all accounts I’ve read and pictures I’ve seen, was a wonderful place to buy things, look around, and just be. This Corvette was born in a time of great prosperity for both General Motors and Flint. The current and recent chapters of Flint’s story have more hope and triumph in them than has been the case for decades. Let’s celebrate this ’53 Corvette, patina and all, for serving as a reminder that greatness doesn’t always come in the form of a frame-off restoration.
Downtown Flint, Michigan.
Friday, August 16, 2019.
This one causes a major twinge in my heart, a wonderful jab at my childhood. As to why:
My earliest conscious memory as a child is the summer of 1953 (I’ve just turned three at the time) when my father brings home the first Corvette that the Motor Sales Company of Johnstown, PA (it hadn’t been sold to the Hallman’s yet) got. He takes mom for a ride in it, takes me for a ride in it, and promptly trades it off to Grabiak Chevrolet in New Alexandria, PA (US 22 about midway between Johnstown and Pittsburgh) for two BelAir hardtops. Dad thought it was the stupidest car Chevrolet ever made, and it sure wasn’t going to find a buyer in Johnstown back then. Dad claimed it was #14, but I’ve got no proof one way or another.
Fast forward 17 years. By this point I’m in college, home for the summers and showing a 1937 Buick Special at the local AACA meets. I find that Corvette. Four blocks from my parent’s home. Sitting in a garage. Rotting. (Start with the pictured car, but make it undriveable.)
Talked to the elderly widow who lived there, got the story: Her son bought that car from Grabiak. Later bought a ’58 Corvette from dad. Was killed in the ’58, so she’s keeping her son’s ’53’s as a memory. Letting it rot, but it’s definitely not for sale. “It’s my son’s car and it stays there.”
Dad and I spent the next five years trying to get her to sell. Nothing doing. Suddenly one spring day in 1975 I get a call from dad. “Guess who’s name just showed up in the obituaries?” I’m in my Vega and heading home within five minutes.
Drive by the house on the way home and it’s already gone. Somebody in the family had it out of there before the body even got cold. Ok, nice story, I’ve had a lot of fun retelling it over the years.
So about five years ago I’m at the annual big fall classic auto meet near Richmond, and there’s a guy about my age with a ’54 in about the same condition as the pictured car. A little nicer in the paint, but definitely all original and patinaed. I’m telling him the story and his nephew (who owned the car with him) looks at me and asks, “Are you George Paczolt’s kid?” My jaw drops. Now, I went thru my youth being “George Paczolt’s kid” (I’m Junior), but dad’s been dead since 1992 and I never thought I’d hear that line again.
Turns out the guy’s father (Corvette owner’s late brother) bought cars from dad back in the day.
For 45 years, that ’53 was the only Corvette I’d ever ridden in, and to this day I’ve still only driven one. A C4 I was tempted to buy, but there were too many lights glowing on the dash. And I’m no mechanic.
Restore it.
Yup… Restore it.
I know “it’s only original once” blah blah blah…
Return it to showroom condition.
Just a thought for consideration. This ancient, but historic C1 has been an apparent “garage queen” for years. No way is this C1 a “driver”. It and its story are more far interesting unmolested by a restoration.
A simple recommendation for the current and future owners, please leave it alone for historic enjoyment by voyeurs like us in the CC universe, like Joe Dennis and then take the intended restoration money and put it towards a new C8 which will be a modern, useable and enjoyable “driver” whether daily or weekly..
That would be an interesting garage…like bookends…a C1 next to the game changing mid-engined C8.
Following this route would likely be far more interesting,more satisfying for driving, ultimately less frustrating, and most cost effective in the scheme of things, based on prior experience and observation. Any one who has done a sympathetic restoration and its associated costs in time and money will understand of what I speak. Just saying.
Driving this car would be embarrassing. There’s no need to do anything but clean it and repaint it.
What Dan F. said.
This whole “it’s only original once” thing may be getting out of hand. We’re memorializing neglect and not the machine itself.
I don’t really have a problem with this patina on a base level, restorations cost boatloads of money and I’m far more tired of the “well, you got to pay to play” attitude among car snobs demanding overrestored quality if you want to be a respected classic car owner. This grabs my attention more than a mint row of interchangeable 53 Corvettes. I’m never drawn in to look at one, let alone a row of them at a car show, because they’re all the same as the next one. This isn’t, I actually appreciate the good ones more by seeing rough specimens. A machine isn’t perfect, my hammer has oxidation, dings and stains on it but it is still a damn good tool, doesn’t work any less well than a shiny new one.
Now I do think it gets out of hand when a car is in “as found” condition, with dirt, beehives, flat tires left intact from the barn or field it came from. I have seen these first hand at events in the last couple years where the owner puts up placards next to the car DO NOT TOUCH OR CLEAN!!! Really? This is where we’re at in society now? I’ll presumably face legal action if I accidentally wipe the dust off your car? I have always respected people’s cars, even as a kid I made sure to never touch a car at cruise nights, but my god does my inner rebel want to grab a super soaker and blast away these preserved patina presentations with these warnings.
These were the cars in the condition a regular joe could get into Corvettes(et al), but now that this is a trendy look it’s just a way for the wealthy collectors to scoop away any remaining examples from the working hobbiest.
I was on the fence about whether or not to restore this one, until I read your post. You convinced me that this one should be left as is. No matter how many 53s you see at a show, they all do look exactly alike!
Actually, what I’m getting tired of is the “restored way beyond what the factory ever did”. This is very prevalent in the vintage British motorcycle hobby, where the usual comment is, “if they’d been built this well in the first place, they would have never gone bankrupt.”
It’s one of the things I enjoyed so much about my ’29 Indian 101 Scout – it was a ’60’s restoration, so the paint was a good approximation of what came out of the Springfield, MA plant, not the six mile deep glosses that paint jobs invariably carry nowadays.
Restorations today are too perfect. They give a rather skewed view of what the vehicle originally looked like.
I’d be sorely tempted to repaint this ’53 if I owned it, although I’d most likely let the interior alone.
Clarifying where I stand on this—Cars should be cared for. If someone before didn’t, the next owner should. I’m not talking concours restoration—as Syke points out, that’s the other side of the same coin as “unrestored barn find”.
But seriously, paint is there to protect—as is upholstery—as is carpeting. If you don’t put the car back to those basic minimum standards of upkeep, you’re just enabling its further decline and decay.
On my Ford truck forum a 65 F-100 was being restored supposedly and it was all up there to see. Every single inch was gone over and every single gap was checked and double checked so that they were all the same. If not then do what was needed to make the gaps perfect right down to welding in extra metal.
I said this is restored? I don’t think so since Ford slapped these together and then out the door even if panels were not completely flat. My 65 was rebuilt and repainted but the gaps nor body panels were not perfected. That makes “restored”, as it can be used in both the over the top or as a complete joke, just as annoying as “muscle” car.
This! I look at “restored” Mopar E bodies and am amazed. The Chrysler Corporation of 1970-74 could not have possibly been less able to build a car to these standards. On my lottery-win bucket list is to restore a Mopar of that era to the level of build quality you actually got back then and watch everyone’s head explode. 🙂
Here in Toronto we have a car show at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre every February. I saw a restored C1 this year and I think it would be well worth the owner’s time to fix it up. Not necessarily to concours condition, but a good paint job and replacing the worn or missing bits would be great. Leave some of the patina (like that well worn steering wheel) to let people know that this is a driver, not a trailer queen. I’ll have to come to Flint sometime for this festival. Between the classic cars, the food, and the music it sounds like a great time. I last went there in 1981 when our high school senior shop classes from Sarnia toured the Buick plant.
That Chevrolet could not sell 300 of these shows that they got the formula waaaaay wrong in 1953-54. A proper 4 speed stick behind that Blue Flame might have made for a credible sports car. But Chevrolet didn’t have one. So they decided to sell what they had instead of what they could get if what they could get had to come from somewhere else.
It was too much of a cruiser to be a real sports car, but too crude to be much of a cruiser. The Thunderbird came along with roll-up windows and power options and cleaned up. It took Chevy a few years to find the formula, which they finally did by 1956-57.
On the restore or keep question, I am agnostic. On one hand it looks a little ratty – if it were mostly covered with paint I would probably be fine with it. On the other hand I am sick to death of perfect Corvettes. This one is at least unique.
I will say that I’m sick to death of the guys obsessed with the correct stripes on the driveshaft etc.
I had a subscription to “Mustang Monthly” – I would get a laugh out of the back and forth about the correct shade of black for the grilles of the 1st gen and what was the correct level of flatness to the paint on said grilles.
That’s nothing. I found myself down a rabbit hole in a concourse Mustang restoration forum where they were debating what mix of factory colors would have been in a plant at what time of day to get the exact correct mix for the greyish greenish “batch primer” sprayed on the floor pans circa 1969.
Admittedly I was captivated by the conversation.
Or the old man tsk tsking me for having a dress up kit for a 302 on my 289…
(eye roll)
It’s the exact same thing .
If it’s a FoMoCo kit it likely has 1965 or 66 part numbers anyway.
@roger628
BUT THE VALVE COVERS ARE THE WRONG SHAPE (in profile or cross section) FOR A 289!
😛
I don’t see the utility of leaving this car unpainted. The original paint no longer protects the body from light and moisture, so the car will deteriorate. It looks so bad that it would be weird to drive in public, and what’s left of the original finish will be destroyed. It has become the equivalent of a 100-point restoration: a show car that must be carefully stored and is only useful for displays and as a reference for correct restorations.
I vote for preservation, but with a clean up and get the thing running and driveable. Fix the mechanicals without freshening any of the cosmetics of the drivetrain or body. I saw a video about the winning Thomas Flyer that won the 1908 New York to Paris race. When it was acquired by Bill Harrah in 1958, he didn’t want to restore it to a pristine as new condition, he wanted to restore it to the state it was when it rolled into Paris. The car was very deteriorated, so it just couldn’t be cleaned up. Harrah had it restored to his high standards than his crew took it out into the desert and ran it through sand and mud and beat on it until it had enough wear to simulate the real condition that it was in at the end of the race. After all, it started the race as a brand new car! Check out the video series “This Car matters” on you tube. It’s an interesting series.
Why would anyone want to drive this, exc at a Corvette show? It’s embarrassing.
The Thomas Flyer is a display piece.
As someone who was a senior in college in 1976, I’d say that back then, the first generation Vette was considered a joke, with its six cylinder and PowerGlide, though not much different than the early T-Bird. My old car magazines had pictures of those Vettes and T-Birds roadracing against Austin Healeys and Jaguars and that seemed weird, based on what the Vette (and in the other direction, the T-Bird) became in just a few years. But everything has to start somewhere.
“With its triple-carbureted “Corvette Special Six” 253-cubic inch six-cylinder engine with 150 horsepower (based on the “Blue Flame” six), combined with its two-speed “Powerglide” automatic transmission, it was capable of doing 0-60 in 11 seconds or so.”
I believe the engine was 235 CI not 253.
You’re absolutely right! Thanks for the correction – I’ll amend the text.
That is really cool. I would bet that the car had a constant crowd around it. Being an original Flint car in Flint is a special draw, of course, but I think it would hold true in any setting including a Corvette show. People will always find a car like this interesting even if it is ugly. It’s ugliness makes it unique and original survivor status makes it legit. So, it has a very worthwhile function in life as it is.
That being said, I wouldn’t blame the owners a bit if they wanted to have it painted in the original color. I have seen many “original except for a repaint” cars. It’s a little disappointing but understandable in the real world where paint doesn’t last forever. Those cars are still neat to see.
I’m really not sure where I stand on restoration vs originality, but I will say that in this case it would take more than a simple repaint. Joseph did not show us the driver’s side rear, but there is significant damage to the fiberglass. The left tailight area is attached with screws!
Dan, you are correct – it was looking pretty busted up back there. Still, I found this Corvette a fascinating subject.
Growing up I lived with my dad off & on. He had
two ‘53 Corvettes. Two because he wrecked the
first one (rear-ended a Buick). Used to pick me up in it. Later he had 56 & 57 T-Birds. Last Corvette was ‘58 dual quads power glide.
Nick.
Idaho
I’m late (again) to comment on my own piece, but I’ve enjoyed reading the pros and cons expressed to restoring this vehicle. I will say that I do like this Corvette as-is, even looking as tired as it does. Perhaps one day, if and when it is restored, it will shine and glisten, but I am taken with its originality.
Of all the cars I photographed at the festival last week, this ’53 Corvette was one of the most compelling.
“Having been in diapers in ’76, I’m trying hard to imagine what the ’53 Corvette might have seemed like in the era of the polyurethane-bumpered C3, disco, and “Charlie’s Angels”.”
Well, being around 14 and really into cars in 1976, and having the experience of a neighbor restoring a 1954 Corvette at that time, I don’t have to imagine, I remember. Most people didn’t like the original Vette, as it was a wimpy 6 cylinder automatic only as opposed to what the C2 and C3 had become. Plus, they were all white, and once you had seen one, you had seen how they all looked. Few considered the historical relevance of these originals, and few wanted them as they were not really sports cars. The baby birds were more popular, and if you wanted a classic Chevy, you wanted a tri-five 2 door hardtop or convertible for cruising or a 2 door post for racing. To me, that original Corvette was an enigma wrapped up in a riddle. What was appealing about this old car other than its fiberglass body? With a powerglide and 6? It was just another old car from the early 50s to me then, and I would not have thought twice about owning one, especially compared to a new Corvette. It was truly a Grandma’s car, not a hot ride for a young gearhead.