Hello All:
I have been watching with interest the interaction between the American and
European list members as they discuss the principles of defining "classes"
of vehicles.
I must admit that being a Canadian, where we are often described as living
with a foot each in both the North American and European camps, is sometimes
useful.
It's somewhat odd to see the Americans (land of revolution and immigration)
promoting the idea of tightly defined differences, while the Europeans
(lands of social stratification and class struggle) argue that they are not
necessary. One is forced to wonder if one group has forgotten some of what
the other seems to have learned, but that is another story...
I think this desire to put precise definitions on what constitutes a
valuable/classic/antique car is unlikely to produce anything but dissention.
I've always been taught the following definitions were good enough to
promote general understanding:
Classic: An outstanding example of a particular way of designing or building
something. This should generally be interpreted to indicate a level of
quality or conception that integrated the best ideas related to a specific
type of design. Classical music is named so precisely because it embodies a
specific set of "classes" of instruments intereacting in defined ways. Thus
a "classic" piece of music is seen as one that has executed particulary well
a known formula comprising a defined combination of components and
methodology.
Antique: At least one generation removed from today. Since so many of the
last 2 centuries of modern technical achievements have been accomplished due
to the invention of new materials, antique has often been interpreted as
"old and built with yesterday's materials". Hence we would viscerally value
a 200-year-old wooden spoon above an aluminum knive of the same age. That
despite the fact that Napoleon was known to give aluminum knives out as
gifts to state visitors. They were worth a king's ransom at the time due to
the extreme rarity of the metal.
Exotic : Using great sums of money and time to produce something where the
principles involved have been pushed to their limits, usually to the point
of absurdity. Hence F1 machines that use piston engines to push a one-ton
wheeled conveyance along the road using 1000+ horsepower are a prime example
of exotic. Actually absurd is better, but most people seem to admire them so
they are seen as exotic ideals.
I surely think of my TR6 as a classic becuase it is so indicative of what a
typical sports car had; a noisy engine requiring much care, rattlesome
suspension, many leaks, tremendously cheerful looks and great fun feeling to
drive.
As far as car show judging goes, please excuse my naievety, but surely all
this exactitude is just either exclusionary, or an attempt to play king of
the mountain.
I can easily see an award for "greatest improvement during the past year" or
some such concept. A real appreciation of the effort of the owner. But then
the testing should involve a general appreciation of the vehicle and
specific points about the methods used and determining if the owner actually
did the work himself.
However I must admit that I find this whole concours thing of taking a
machine that was designed for a mass audience, produced in thousands with
many compromises imposed by circumstance and then deifying the end result
somewhat strange. As an example, I have heard many people on this list moan
about a car where the owner had eliminated the factory overspray of paint on
the wiring or whatever as being "unoriginal". The fact that the actual
designers may have been bitterly resigned to the fact that they were not
allowed to spend the money to eleminate said overspray is never considered.
The actual builder might shake you by the hand a say, "Thank God you cleaned
it up, I used to be haunted at nights by the lousy job I was forced to do".
But if it makes a group of people happy to have a precise goal to strive
for, them more power to them. All I ask is that they don't look down their
noses as I happily roll along the road on my unoriginal tires listening to
my new radio above the rumble of my twin exhaust system.
Anyway, that's my not-too-exacting take on the definition situation. The
only real thing I consider is "does she look good" and "how happy am I
driving her?". Still have some work to do on question one, and internally
grinning from ear-to-ear whenever she fires up for question two.
Mark Hooper
P.S.
John: Sadly, if you look at the mess in France lately it seems that they
aren't so inclined to "la difference" as in other times.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Macartney
To: Don Spence
Cc: Triumph List
Sent: 11/05/02 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: Definitions
Don Spence wrote:
I am truly amazed at what you brits call a "Classic". If I am to go
by the contents of popular British magazines, any occasionally self
propelled automotive device( yes, I once owned a non-lamemted Marina)
no longer in production, and preferably achieving the most plebian
level of design and engineering, is a bone fide "Classic". In North
America we are, or at least have been, IMHO, a bit more discerning.
The collector car hobby/business generally recognizes "Classic" as
defined by the Classic Car Club of America.
Well, Don - with the very greatest respect to you (and The Classic Car
Club of America), what you do in your backyard and what you choose to
call it, is your business and it doesn't trouble us one jot. The fact
that the CCCA may have different classifications and names thereto is
of no real concern to us in the UK - and is there any reason why it
should be? You're surely not suggesting we should adopt CCCA age
profiles just because you are at variance with our popular terms and
may disagree with them?
What we have in the UK is a combination of habit and tradition which,
like an old jacket or a comfortable pair of slippers, suits us very
well and is proven to co-exist without too much difficulty. We
understand our terminologies and the periods to which they relate but
if you hold a variable view, then of course that is your prerogative.
Not all cars appeal to all people - but thankfully some cars appeaI to
some people which collectively adds up to 100%. That's why we call
them 'Classics.' They may have had many shortcomings in terms of
appearance, design, reliability and relative longevity - but they are
still part of a past. If an enthusiast aspires to a Marina or thinks
or a dog-bone Escort is the pinnacle of desirability and is prepared
to care for it, enjoy it and prolong its active life, who is anyone to
challenge his or her rationale or the name of the group into which
that vehicle fits? I think the bottom line here is to encourage the
CCCA to keep its classifications within United States territorial
limits on the understanding it doesn't expect us to do the same,
purely for the sake of harmonisation. We're doing rather too much of
that with international politics in the European Union at the moment
and its all a frightful nuisance, rather tiresome and doesn't
currently seem to be achieving anything, except dissent and even more
confusion in all the countries involved.
As they are inclined to say in France, "Vive la difference."
Jonmac
1950 Ferguson TED20 152318
1970 Triumph 2.5PI MG4305DL(O)
1974 Triumph 2000 ML2294DLO
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe triumphs
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
|