[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not if it was repainted IMO.
All original but????
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't get hung up on the term survivor. They defined it and trademarked it in late 70's early 80's. That standard has not changed. As I mentioned above....your definition of survivor is referred to as a benchmark car. If your not satisfied come up with your own term.
In Vintage Camaro we use our own terms, our highest level is legend which is similar to benchmark, however we include inspect/certify the underside via a lift which allows us more access to critical components and hardware. We also have 3 other levels based on how unrestored/original the car is. There are many cars that are repainted yet absolutely untouched in all other areas and they need to be preserved and recogonized.
An unrestored car is so much more than just paint. For example yes Charley's car is mostly original paint (great), but 90 percent of his pics were of components, hardware, finishes , inspection marks, stickers and such (most of the questions and interest were in those areas). That to me is where the assembly secrets are and where we gain the most knowledge of the "factory assembly processes".
I have passion for original paint cars, but only so much can be learned from it. Looking at virgin engine compartment, interior and trunk and underbody is equally as important.
I understand your point Sam, but if we let everyone redefine survivor then we lose THE standard and it becomes too subjective and open to anyones interpretation.
[/ QUOTE ] Steve, I could not agree more, while I wish my car had original paint, looking at a mint 20K mile california frame, with a virtually untouched engine compartment and 100% original interior is also a significant source of information. Should a car like this be restored because it has been painted? I say absolutely not.