Beautiful Cars Appreciation Thread

[oldshurst442]

Pablo Escobar's

 

I just think it looks really dope!   (pun intended)

 

[balthazar]

[oldshurst442]

Oldsmobile had that beat a decade prior

[balthazar]

I prefer the G6 tho obviously they were 'cast from the same mold'.
Olds has some slight funkiness to it IMO; tails a bit oversized, and the front clip feels slightly undersized vs. the rear clip. G6 is more harmonious to me, and I really like the belt line curve.

[oldshurst442]

I prefer the Alero as you could tell. LOL

But I do agree that the front clip on the Alero looks small and odd.  I like the way the back end looks. The over all shape of the Alero coupe appears  to be more sleek then the G6 so I do prefer that.  However, they both seem to have the same roofline. Or very very similar.  I like both equally in that regard. 

When I saw this (Alero) concept I fell in love with it immediately. Hence why I bought one in 1999. 

I prefer the way the front end clip ended up being in the actual production car.  It doesnt look weirdly small. But I was disappointed that the actual car did not look like the concept. 

It became bulkier in the back with a higher belt line. (Or the illusion of being) 

I preferred the sleeker, slimmer look of the concept (Or the illusion of being).  But I do think the actual production Alero was one of GM's best designs of the 1990s.  

 

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by oldshurst442

[G. David Felt]

In thinking about this, we really should relabel this Beautiful Auto's as this is more than just cars.

I think lots of folks would like a AT4 Canyon!

[oldshurst442]

5 hours ago, David said:

we really should relabel this Beautiful Auto's as this is more than just cars

If you can rename it. Do it!   

 

[balthazar]

Except, car or truck; there’s nothing ‘beautiful’ about that truck- it just ‘is’.

could rename the thread ‘just stuff I like’…

[surreal1272]

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

Except, car or truck; there’s nothing ‘beautiful’ about that truck- it just ‘is’.

could rename the thread ‘just stuff I like’…

The titles are literally one and the same. Cars and trucks you think are beautiful are also just stuff you like and this is a car appreciation site, after all.

[Robert Hall]

There is no set definition of beauty, it's objective and in the eye of the beholder.  Some vehicles may be beautiful to some and not to others.   

[ccap41]

8 hours ago, David said:

I think lots of folks would like a AT4 Canyon!

I think it's a really cool looking truck but far from something I'd call beautiful. 

[balthazar]

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

Cars and trucks you think are beautiful are also just stuff you like

A daisy is a flower but a flower is not necessarily a daisy.

[Robert Hall]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

I think it's a really cool looking truck but far from something I'd call beautiful. 

'handsome' might be a better term for the truck..

[G. David Felt]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

I think it's a really cool looking truck but far from something I'd call beautiful. 

See and most cars are just pretty, but nothing special to me. Trucks and SUV's have some very beautiful looks to me IMHO.

This is a BEAUTIFUL SUV to ME!

No different than how I love the look of the Rivian's, Mach-E or Hummers by GMC.

These are all BEAUTIFUL to ME!

[ccap41]

39 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

'handsome' might be a better term for the truck..

I could go with that. It feels more appropriate for this truck. 

11 minutes ago, David said:

See and most cars are just pretty, but nothing special to me. Trucks and SUV's have some very beautiful looks to me IMHO.

Very opposite of most auto enthusiasts, imo. 

12 minutes ago, David said:

This is a BEAUTIFUL SUV to ME!

Outside of the bro-wheels and tires, love it. 

12 minutes ago, David said:

No different than how I love the look of the Rivian's, Mach-E or Hummers by GMC.

Not saying I don't love it. I can love something that I don't exactly find beautiful. I can think it looks cool, awesome, gnarly and love all of them but not quite beautiful. 

[oldshurst442]

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

A daisy is a flower but a flower is not necessarily a daisy.

Every weed in the desert is still a flower, tho

Yellow Daisy (considered a beautiful flower?) 

(Is that Audi considered beautiful?  Because I know plenty who do...but those same folk dont like the NSX, yet they look awfully alike.  Kinda like that Marigold Desert weed...and the yellow daisy. )

Its all about perception .  And perspective. 

Lets throw in a piss en lit in there for kicks and giggle.  A dandelion just for you anglophones out there. Just dandy!   

Because one man's weed  (from ugly duckling to swan analogy as well)

 

could also mean entirely different things as...that may be just as beautiful to them. 

 

Mustangs and Hellcats

 

As opposed to Mustangs and...Hellcats

 

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by oldshurst442

[balthazar]

I liken it to music; theres stuff I fully acknowledge is appealing, technically professional and has mass appeal. Let’s throw in Elton John’s ‘benny & the jets’… but I hate that song. Switch it off immediately if I can. 

Call it a conscious recognition of personal opinion vs. ‘recognized industry standards’ if you want.

’65-ish GMC above is cool, tough, nothing stylistically ‘wrong’ or awkward…. I like it just fine…. but it’s not a ‘beautiful’ design by any legitimate criteria. It has no ‘art’ or passion in it’s design.

[ccap41]

6 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

(Is that Audi considered beautiful?  Because I know plenty who do...but those same folk dont like the NSX, yet they look awfully alike

They have mid-engine proportions and that's about it, imo. 

[oldshurst442]

3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

They have mid-engine proportions and that's about it, imo. 

As far as mid-engined cars go.  I got tired of the boy racer, shock and awe approach of Lamborghini styling for mid-engine cars. Ferrari done ugly there for awhile too. They are still  not out of that ugly funk of theirs. 

The latest generation Ford GT is at about the limits of what I could stomach on boy racer mid-engine styling.  The Corvette C8 falls into this category as well.

No Koenigsegg, no Pagani no Bugatti for me.

I like that generation R8 with the new NSX because they look "classy".  As if James Bond (the German and the Japanese version of James Bond) would be driving. 

I dont like the McLarens because they are just a tad too bland.  And try real hard to emulate Ferrari styling while still trying to forge their own styling.   Its like they want to do the original NSX take on it, but ironically, their original McLaren F1 accomplished JUST that.  Ironically, the 1st gen R8 and NSX have the right mixture of boy racer and subdued styling that is unique to solely to them.  Something the McLaren F1 already had accomplished waaay back in the mid-1990s. 

[G. David Felt]

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

I liken it to music; theres stuff I fully acknowledge is appealing, technically professional and has mass appeal. Let’s throw in Elton John’s ‘benny & the jets’… but I hate that song. Switch it off immediately if I can. 

Call it a conscious recognition of personal opinion vs. ‘recognized industry standards’ if you want.

’65-ish GMC above is cool, tough, nothing stylistically ‘wrong’ or awkward…. I like it just fine…. but it’s not a ‘beautiful’ design by any legitimate criteria. It has no ‘art’ or passion in it’s design.

This is a perfect example of personal interpretation. Each of us find ART or Passion differently in it's design. I honestly have no interest in going to some Museums as I get nothing from looking at paintings, carvings, etc.

I enjoy Airplane Museums and Auto Museums, but for the most part would rather be outside hiking, skiing living life than in a museum as I find the world beautiful. As such, I think it also affects my view on the auto's I find beautiful, Trucks and SUVs.

I totally respect and understand that old cars have a beautiful art and passion to you.

We respectfully appreciate what each of us brings here to the discussion of the auto world.

[balthazar]

They don’t have to be old to be ‘beautiful’; just look to the last pic I posted.

[balthazar]

But most are  : 

 

[G. David Felt]

3 hours ago, balthazar said:

But most are  : 

 

Nice but the lower grill area reminds me of a small mouth bass. Rest is lovely.

[surreal1272]

On 10/7/2021 at 11:34 AM, balthazar said:

A daisy is a flower but a flower is not necessarily a daisy.

Which is not the same thing as what I said but okay lol. Point being what does it mater the name of the thread?

[balthazar]

It's 2021; surely you're aware that labels transcend ALL.

[oldshurst442]

[oldshurst442]

[Drew Dowdell]

1 hour ago, oldshurst442 said:

That first iteration in STS trim and in black was gorgeous!

[oldshurst442]

9 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That first iteration in STS trim and in black was gorgeous!

I agree one thousand and one percent! 

Especially with those mags. Chromed of course!  

[oldshurst442]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[oldshurst442]

 

[balthazar]

Now I'm really confused.

[oldshurst442]

38 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Now I'm really confused.

 

oh-kay

The (mostly) economical, fun to drive and fun to be seen in,  sporty coupes of the mid '80s (that I posted) are an appreciation of cars that are not offered anymore by any of the OEMs of today. There are virtually no offerings of these kinds of vehicles.  It be cool if OEMs offered 2 door coupes of their CUVs, but (sadly?) OEMs and the public dont want anything to do with that kind of vehicle.   The songs that I posted are an ode to these long forgotten cars. In your case, long and forgotten maybe a good thing?  But in my case, I miss seeing these on the roads even if they didnt set any car designs on fire.  But they were fun little cars. Maybe if OEMs took their time to design fun elements in their CUVs today, including having 2 doors,  I wouldnt be lamenting on the loss of these... Because I certainly didnt like these when these were new.  Except for the Toyota Supra.   I liked that one. 

EDIT 

PS:  Some OEMs HAVE tried to bring back fun and funky styling in the last decade to small cars and CUVs, but the public largely ignored them. 

I seen a Crown Vic a few weeks ago.  Although it hasnt been that long since it cease to exist, I miss it already. The cop cars are an appreciation of that Crown Vic and how it lived its life during its final days.  These cop cars happen to be my favorite cop cars. 

It is an appreciation thread after all.

Beautiful could mean MANY things.  

It was a beautiful time, the 1980s.   Car design may have been at some of the lowest in history, hence the term malaise era (among other things) , but at least (American) pop culture was at its peak and  when we were living in it at the time, we had a BLAST indulging at ALL the things the 1980s gave us!  

Hence those posts. 

 

Edited October 10, 2021 by oldshurst442

[balthazar]

Perhaps a 'Malaise Appreciation' thread is in order...

[oldshurst442]

Your wish is my command.  'xcept imma do it in here instead.

1986 RWD (non muscle) Personal Coupes. 

Why...cant these be loved?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2021 by oldshurst442

[balthazar]

Perhaps a ‘I just love this vehicle for no obvious reason’ thread is in order.

Seriously; anyone can love anything, and they do. ‘Appreciate’ and ‘love’ are fine.

The qualifier here is supposedly ‘beautiful’. Subjectivity not withstanding, when a ‘74 Monaco police car is dubbed ‘beautiful’, one wonders if there is any ‘line’ at all. 

[oldshurst442]

22 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Subjectivity not withstanding, when a ‘74 Monaco police car is dubbed ‘beautiful’, one wonders if there is any ‘line’ at all. 

 

And there could NEVER be a line, because WHO is to determine what is and what isnt beautiful?  Keeping in mind that little thing you called subjectivity.  

A 1974 Monaco, especially in a police uniform, to me, is QUITE the beautiful car. Now, you could vomit all you want with that statement, you cannot be judge, jury and executioner to tell me that a 1974 Monaco is not beautiful.  

Is what it is. 

 

Edited October 10, 2021 by oldshurst442

[oldshurst442]

29 minutes ago, balthazar said:

The qualifier here is supposedly ‘beautiful’.  Subjectivity not withstanding

Yes. 

And you mention it yourself while denouncing it at the same time...

33 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Seriously; anyone can love anything, and they do. ‘Appreciate’ and ‘love’ are fine

And beautiful is a different standard and is viewed differently for different people.

Sure,  multiple people could view the same thing you view as beautiful and the same people could view things as ugly as you view things those same things.

But, ugly, also is a different standard and is viewed differently for different people. 

Sure, multiple people could view the same thing you view as ugly and the same people could view things as beautiful as you view those same things. 

And...

The things you view as beautiful and ugly, there are as many people that have the total opposite view as yours.

And the many (trillions upon trillions) of different combinations of what the different human minds there are and have existed view and have viewed and will continue to view as beautiful and ugly.

You dont get to decide, NOBODY gets to decide what ANYBODY could post in this thread if they deem to share it as a beautiful car.

The IDEA is to APPRECIATE it, NO MATTER if its beautiful or ugly to you, or to me. 

 

 

 

 

[oldshurst442]

Each and EVERY car I post in this thread, I see a certain beauty aspect to it.

Be it a paint job.

Be it the angle of the shot with the lighting and the background that is represented with the specific car of choice or just the picture itself regardless of the vehicle. 

Be it the memory of a car regardless of so called beautiness.  Cars do bring out nostalgia and that in itself is beautiful.

Or simply, a truly beautiful car.  A UNIVERSALLY beautiful car. 

But again, who is to decide what UNIVERSALLY beautiful really is.

Universally, a 1960s Jaguar XKE is deemed to be THE most beautiful car EVER created.  I dont think so. I, in fact, think its ugly. Well, ugly maybe too strong of a word, but I dont find it appealing in the least.  

There are many facets and standards of beautiful. And especially in a thread of "beautiful" cars.  To each his own.

If you dont appreciate the last couple of cars I posted. Its OK.  You dont have to. 

Ill eventually post something you might find beautiful. 

I hope you could continue to use this thread though! 

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by oldshurst442

[balthazar]

1 hour ago, oldshurst442 said:

A 1974 Monaco... is QUITE the beautiful car.

All right, go ahead; be specific about the design of the vehicle (not the lighting, not the background, not the photographic angle, not the purpose, not the intended use, etc); just the car itself.  What do you specifically find beautiful RE a '74 Monaco.  Shine a light.

[surreal1272]

On 10/9/2021 at 4:52 PM, oldshurst442 said:

Not an Audi fan but that (along with the Taycan) is one good looking car, EV or otherwise. Very aggressive styling for them.

15 hours ago, balthazar said:

Perhaps a ‘I just love this vehicle for no obvious reason’ thread is in order.

Perhaps just leaving the title be is in order here.

[oldshurst442]

On 10/10/2021 at 8:59 PM, balthazar said:

All right, go ahead; be specific about the design of the vehicle (not the lighting, not the background, not the photographic angle, not the purpose, not the intended use, etc); just the car itself.  What do you specifically find beautiful RE a '74 Monaco.  Shine a light.

LOL

 

 

1. '69 

2. '77

I previously quoted you on '74 myself, but I never did post a '74.  But that is an unimportant detail.  

I aint gonna 'defend' why I think those cars are beautiful in a sexy black and white dress.  I just do.  

The 'design' of a '69, '74 and '77 will never ever catch the art world on fire.  But do they have to in order for anybody to post any car in this thread?    

That is not the purpose of this thread anyway. 

Beautiful means different things to different people.   And as such, any car deemed beautiful by anybody, could post a pic of that car in this thread. 

We could criticize the choice.  Art critiquing has been around as long as art itself has been around. That is always fun.   

But to cease posting 'ugly' cars (to somebody) is not very helpful in sharing thoughts and ideas, in my opinion. 

[oldshurst442]

[trinacriabob]

I should be checking out this thread more.

It's cool so that one doesn't have to create a new thread nor feel they have to put something in Random Thoughts

- - - - -

"ODE TO THE FIRST GM COLONNADES"

This "catalogue" is all about how much I like this series of intermediate cars sold by B-O-P and Chevrolet from 1973 to 1977, with special emphasis on 1975-1977, which aged like a fine wine. With their long hoods, shorter trunks, and opera windowed greenhouses, set off by landau or full vinyl roofs, not to mention the typically creased backlite, I thought these were a stroke of genius.  With rear wheel drive, weight coming in at close to 4,000 pounds with V8 engines, many exterior colors to choose from, and many interior schemes in terms of seating arrangements, dash configurations, and such, they conceptually seem like dinosaurs today.  But for anyone who experienced these cars, and even got to drive them, they probably have a place in your heart and are a source of good memories.  They were also, for the most part, reliable, and people kept them for a long time.  Today, buying one in good condition does not come cheap.

* the photos were obtained from the internet - with some of them coming up toward the top of searches - and are fully intended for fair use to share with our small community of like-minded folks *

Mostly, I am focusing on the coupes with 112" wheelbases, which had sedan versions running on 116" wheelbases

CHEVROLET

Malibu Classic, Malibu, and Laguna

The 1977 Malibu Classic was probably the best looking of the coupes, which looked better after receiving rectangular headlamps in 1976.  The 1977 head the cleaner vertical grille over the diamond pane effect of 1976 grille.  Chevy did a good job with handling the stacked lamp effect on these cars.

The Malibu had the safest dashboards and interiors, and the dashboards were very logical.  They could be boring with the strip speedometer (seen here), but circular gauge packages were also available for this same pod. A large clock, or blank, was also seen in the top RH bezel in the dash.  Seating was usually bench seating, though this one indicates the novel swivel bucket seats that were available for a few years.

PONTIAC

Grand Le Mans, Le Mans sport coupe, Le Mans, and Grand Am

This is a sleek 1976 Grand Le Mans coupe sporting the trademark Pontiac rally wheels.

I'm showing this 1975 Grand Le Mans coupe because, for being the last year for round headlamps, it sported a nice front grille with those inset turning lamps.  Every discernible car in this photo is a GM product!

This is a 1977 Grand Le Mans coupe, with a similar rear fascia to the M.Y. before.  The Le Mans series had fastback lites, as did the Malibus, leaving the creased ones to their slightly larger Grand Prix and Monte Carlo cousins.  You either liked the pinched rear trunk effect or you didn't.  The same would apply to PMD's unique offering of optional rear wheel opening skirts on these intermediates (shown above).

Pontiac probably had the most interesting dashboards of the quadruplets.  This vehicle was up in Canada and has NO A/C.  Check out the climate control panel, but it does have a rear defroster toggle.  This one has the instrument gauge cluster, with a tach that would otherwise be a clock, or blank.  Here, a clock was placed low, right above the shift lever and the cursive emblem "Grand Le Mans."  The top of the console is slightly slanted toward the driver.

Here's a full view of the dash.  It's shared with the Grand Prix, where the telling feature might be the steering wheel and especially GP's larger armrests that carry across and sweep upward on its larger coupe doors.  Bench seating and 60/40 seating was available.

This is what the most up-level seating in the Grand Le Mans looked like.  Here, the armrest implies 60-40 seating.  This same scheme, in different colors, could also be had with very "plump" bucket seats up front in the GLM model.

This is really interesting:  base Le Mans and Le Mans sport coupes were treated to a more sedate dashboard.  There would be no strip gauge, but much less of the circular effects.  Many of these option choices could have been viewed as wasteful.

OLDSMOBILE

Cutlass Supreme, Cutlass Supreme Brougham, Cutlass Salon, Cutlass S, Cutlass 4-4-2

While not a great color, in my opinion, and '77 not being my favorite year, this photo really captures the great stance of the Cutlass Supreme (this is a Salon) that made America fall in love with them.

This is a 1976 Supreme and the year in which over 500,000 of these were sold.

For 1975, designers worked some magic with the grille of the Cutlass Supreme and Salon (this is a Salon) so that it leapfrogged the 1973 and 1974 models in terms of looks.  The turning lamps inset into the grille look great.

This is a 1976 interior for a Salon coupe with its bigger and more comfortable bucket seats.  The tiny seat belt warning pod atop the dash meant this had the full instrumentation package.

This is also a 1976, but in a Supreme coupe, where a bench seat with an armrest was the norm.  There were many velour and vinyl choices.  White vinyl seating was seen with many trim colors, including the once only lime green of 1976.  It would appear that the swivel bucket seats might have ended in Cutlass the year before, in 1975.  These don't swivel.

This is a 1977 with the Brougham interior.  You can see the cushions attached to the seats.  Broughams were set up in 60/40 mode up front.  With all the money they made the year before, I guess they had enough in the piggy back to make some final year changes to the dash - you see rectangular A/C vents for the passenger, as well as the clock placed between them.  There is also a bull nose type ridge defining the top of the IP for the driver.  I'm not so sure I liked these changes. I liked the 1976, and 1975, Cutlass Supremes more.

BUICK

Regal, Regal Limited, Regal S/R, Century, Century Limited, Century Special

Here's a 1976 Regal coupe (no fender badge, so 350 V8) from a still from a movie from the '70s.  The front end was simple and nicely done, as were the subtly finned rear tail lamps possibly taking cues from the Eldorado. This was a big enough departure from its 1975 predecessor.

I'm only showing this because of the V6 fender badge.  Throughout this series, the use of V6s was the out-of-the-crate "odd firing" versions.  It was always fun(ny) to see these, especially when on an even larger sedan.  Some people bought them - I don't know who well they fared.  Had they been converted to "even firing," they would have been much more compatible with this caliber of car.  Outfitting the car with a V6 shaved off about 200 pounds.

While this may be a 1975, this is a sweet photo.  Again, the front grille is nice enough, with the Regal crest in both the hood ornament and the front fender.  This has the Limited interior and the landau roof works great with this car and its rally wheels.  Their use of enamel dove gray showed it was the division right below Cadillac, and Buick was the only one to have a finely upholstered gray velour 60-40 interior showing that, again, it was the closest to Cadillac.

Compared to the Cutlass Salon, very few Regal S/Rs were made.  The idea was the same as the Salon, as seen from its nicer, bigger bucket seats, steering wheel, and console.  Kudos to this car for the very unique trestle shifter in the console.

In the very basic Regal and Century, the base dashboard was a little weak for a Buick.  It was closer to the one in the Chevrolet in both finish level and statement it was making.  Compared to Chevy, there was more chrome and some nicer switches.  It detracted from the car's being a Buick.

- - - - -

SEPARATE MENTION

More so than intermediates, the next two cars were more personal luxury coupes than conventional mid-sizes.  Since Olds and Buick had Toronado and Riviera, respectively, these could be seen as more reasonably priced Chevy and Pontiac personal luxury coupe options - on 116" wheel bases - to put a "pocket Toronado" or a "pocket Riviera" into the driveway of Chevy and Pontiac buyers.  These two cars had even longer hoods and could only be had with V8 engines.

CHEVROLET

Monte Carlo

This is a 1977, which I thought had slightly nicer details in grille than 1976.  They didn't cost much more than a Malibu and, for the money, were a substantial car.  Whether or not you bought one had to do with whether you were comfortable with a Chevrolet or instead wanted one of the higher priced GM marques.

PONTIAC

Grand Prix

This is a 1976 Grand Prix LJ and, in its changeover to rectangular lamps, did a fairly provocative job with its front end.  In my opinion, it looks a fair bit better than the 1977 Grand Prix, where the turning lamps are inset between the two rectangular lamps.

An interesting fact is that 350 V8 engines (by the four divisions!) were the norm in all the 112" wheelbase mid-sizes and the Monte Carlo.  Grand Prix was a latecomer to this stable, finally bringing on a 350 V8 in 1976 and even going with a 301 V8 in the similarly sized 1977 version.  There were never 6 cylinder engines in these 2 cars from 1973 to 1977.

- - - - -

The V8 engines in these cars:

All divisions produced a 350 V8 for their respective cars.  From 1975 onward, bigger V8s for Chevy were the 400 and the 454.  For Pontiac, they were the 400 and the 455.  Oldsmobile had the Rocket 350 and the Rocket 455, with the Rocket 403 only available in 1977.  Buick never had 3 V8s for these cars - just the 350 and the 455.

In terms of smaller V8 engines, Chevy brought in the 305 in 1976.  Oldsmobile brought in the smallest of the bunch, the Rocket 260, in 1975.  Pontiac shared the 260 that Oldsmobile produced, putting it in some LeMans models.  Pontiac added their own 301 V8 in 1977, and it was available in both LeMans and Grand Prix models.  All of these smaller engines stuck around for downsized models that would be forthcoming.

The six cylinder engines in these cars:

Some divisions stuck to their roots.  Chevy used only 250 c.i. inline 6s in their Malibus.  Buick used only their 231 c.i. V6s in their Regals and Centurys.

Oldsmobile and Pontiac paralleled each other with engine usage.  They both used the Chevy inline 6 as the base engine in 1975 and 1976 for cars as nice as Cutlass Supreme and Grand LeMans, but they switched over the 231 V6 for 1977. 

- - - - -

There's a lot here because this covers half a decade, hundreds of thousands of GM cars sold, and models of cars that strongly spoke to Americans at that time.

I hope you enjoyed the photos and verbiage in this chronicle of the colonnades that initially took America by storm and for which Americans quickly signed on the dotted line.

Edited October 17, 2021 by trinacriabob

[balthazar]

[balthazar]

[balthazar]

[oldshurst442]

I was never fascinated by keeping and preserving patina on restored vehicles.  I do understand and applaud this type of restoration. Im just not enamored by it.  

Do I think its "beautiful"?

 I guess it depends on the vehicle itself  and how the patina ended up being and how the overall restoration and build was done. 

 

 

 

 

[balthazar]

[balthazar]