<VV> Claypool's parts car

[Chris & Bill Strickland]

>such a thing as the limit of practicality. If some people choose to exceed it, so be it. But at some point, you simply don't have enough left of the "original" item to call it the original item. You get my point?
>

And, to whom are you speaking?  Perhaps, to me?

If so, the point is that the limit of practicality is different for 
different people and different locales -- Take Widman's 1960 --  on the 
west coast, it is a hopless crushable basket case --  I sold a better 
body shell for scrap as no one wanted it for free -- In Bolivia, with 
their import laws, labor rates, and Richard's desire, suddenly it 
changes to a doable project.
   http://www.widman.biz/Corvair/English/English.html

You can't impose your standards of practicallity onto others -- it is an 
individual thing dependant upon individual situations, individuasl 
resources, and individual desires.

And, I believe you are introducing a new argument in regards to the 
original post -- "originality".  Your words, "restored to 'as built' 
condition" only refers to condition, not originality, so now, you want 
to talk "originality"?  Well, Original and restored can not, by 
definition, sit side by side -- only unrestored cars are "original" -- 
once you start restoring, you can aim for your "original condition", but 
the process itself destroys any "originality".

Cars are only original once, and any change to said vehicle destroys a 
part of that originality, even though "routine maintenence" requires 
it.  So, what is it you want?  "Original", "maintained as original", or 
"restored to original condition" -- the end result may be similar, but 
they are not the same thing. 

Regardless of any organization's rules which may attempt to define such 
otherwise.  Calling a rose a fish doesn't make it so.

Apologies to Richard for mis-speaking his surname in an earlier post.

mo, and I'm stuck to it.

Bill Strickland