<VV> 5997 - originality vs. restoration vs. repair

[Dave Leonard]

I'd move to take the discussion in a different direction.  I totally agree
with Tim and James regarding Allen's car - I sure would love to have it, but
I'm happy with #2470 for now.  And I am very happy to hear it has been, and
will likely continue to be, well preserved.

My question is around when to restore/replace vs. when to maintain
originality - as illustrated by the comments on the worn weather-stripping.
Personally, I would rather have the original, even if somewhat tattered,
rather than a possible imperfect replacement.  As they say, it's only
original once.  I don't feel the same way about mechanical
repairs/replacement, but in my opinion, there should be a lot of value
ascribed to "it's only original once".  I always cringe when I see a
"restored" car where the claim is that it was a perfect, low-mileage
unmolested original.  Why not leave it in that state?

Of course it's an interesting judgment call on when something really has to
be replaced vs. repaired.  My '69 driver seat has a section where the piping
is worn through, but the thought of replacing the seat covers with
reproductions to make it "perfect" seems silly.  

When is a car too original or too significant to "restore"?  Certainly 5997
seems to be in this category.

Dave