Thank you, Jonmac. My point exactly. There are those of us whose hobby it
is to restore old sports cars and there are whose of us whose hobby it is to
drive old sports cars. I know which group I want to be in, thank you :-)
kg
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-triumphs@autox.team.net
[mailto:owner-triumphs@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of jonmac
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:41 AM
To: Triumph List
Subject: Originality
I take the view that as the remaining vehicle parc continues to steadily age
and diminish, there will come a time that the cars we currently cherish will
become such rarities that *departures* from original spec will become less
and
less important. This is not based on looking into the future - but seeing
how
it is now. Many run-of-the-mill cars built pre-WW2 are so rare that while
it's
nice to see an example that is *probably* original, no-one worries too much
if
it isn't. Triumphs are run-of-the-mill cars that typify an epoch. There's
nothing particularly special about them. The important thing is the damned
thing is still running, being used - and most important of all, being
enjoyed.
If the fitting of certain more modern (unoriginal) components ensures this
can
happen, is a slavish adherence to originality all that critical? As an
example, our own Veteran Car London to Brighton Run each November sees cars
of
amazing antiquity taking part - the youngest I believe not made after 1905?
I'd wager all of them are now using parts (or mods to keep them running)
that
were never there when new.
However, if you want your Triumph to appear as if encapsulated in acrylic
and
stay in a hermetically sealed time warp, take it everywhere on a trailer and
never drive it in case something breaks or it gets dirty, originality should
be allowed to prevail.
Jonmac
|