Yes, I'm still alive.

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Wed May 12, 2010 1:03 pm

Malcolm Campbell was once stopped by a traffic officer, an action which irked him no end. "What's your name?" barked the God of Speed. "Balls" replied the man. Incandescent with rage Campbell sped off and immediately used all his influence to drag the poor man in front of a disciplinary hearing.

After an exhaustive investigation the panel concluded that Constable E. Balls did nothing wrong.

FIN.

You object to my harshness Jaap? To bad, I am just too involved with winning The Great Bugatti Jihad to care much.

J.J.Horst · **Posted:** Wed May 12, 2010 1:19 pm

Wooh! Johan, the Fundamentalist Bugatti Terrorist!

Need some pounds of TNT, to blow up overrestored Bugattis?

He has a small van, with "Get rid of those bad Bugs" painted on the side!

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Wed May 12, 2010 1:29 pm

No, no, no Jaap, there's no such thing as a bad Bugatti, just bad owners. I could never, ever harm a Bugatti. I repeat, I could never, ever harm a Bugatti

J.J.Horst · **Posted:** Wed May 12, 2010 2:17 pm

So, what defines a bad owner?

An overrestoring overrich owner?

Somebody selling a replica as real?

Somebody who owns so many cars, that they never get to stretch their wheels?

Didn't we agree that it is all about the fun one can have with Bugattis, either driving, owning, (over) restoring, writing about, collecting books or miniatures, investigating, flying even. Each of us enjoys (hopefully) the bugs in his (mostly, only occasionally her) own way.

Yes, it's fun to have you back.

Herman · **Posted:** Wed May 12, 2010 3:00 pm

J.J.Horst wrote:

...

So, maybe you can pray for the bankruptcy of Peter Mullin, so than the cars can fall property to California....

There is no need for bankruptcy to claim ownership of cars. But we will have to wait for the book of Ard op de Weegh for that.

And about the museum only open on appointment: I know many shops, musea etc like that. Reasons can be 2 fold: Insurance issues, and selecting at the door. However, it never stopped me from visiting.

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Wed May 12, 2010 5:38 pm

"So, what defines a bad owner?" Nicely done Jaap, your deceptively simple question sent my brain into overload and I have great need to answer in some detail.

Perhaps I can start by waffling a bit ; the motive behind the deed matters as much if not more than the deed itself. Someone who builds a beautiful replica needs talent, brains and a formidable work ethic. I do not believe it to be much easier building a Bugatti today than it was during the thirties. Do you remember that beautiful T43 dual cowl phaeton for sale a while ago? When this car was first advertised for sale the owners claimed it was original. It was not, it was a bitsa with a newly built and stunningly beautiful body.

Within hours of that car going on sale the whispers started, not only on this forum but also on your Bugatti Page and soon we all knew the truth and the seller looked like a chump. In my opinion this qualifies as being a bad owner. But building it, especially the coachwork, is good, very good even. Can you imagine one of these craftsmen seeing 'his' car somewhere, a slow smile spreading over his face at the delight it gives people like us? Yes, me too. The criminality lies with the commissioning of this car, not the execution of it.

Restoration is an even bigger ideological minefield.

Example no 1 : The British Science Museum won a major award for the sensitive recommissioning of a very old (1890's I think) vehicle. They replaced nothing, added nothing and ended up with a well preserved static exhibit. Is this good or bad? The answer is irrelevant, the object stays preserved.

Example no 2 : Paul Russell believes a car can be restored back to original, while it is my conviction that all restorations removes some of the originality while truly atrocious restorations destroys nearly all originality. When Paul restored EXK 6 for Ralph Lauren it ended up with perfectly smooth curves and indecently tight shut-lines. If this was achieved with the help of filler (which can be removed at a later stage) it is simply a matter of taste. But what if this perfection involved the removing of the body panels from the frame and reworking the original metal to a state of 21st Century perfection? To my mind this is simply wrong. Ask any art restorer worth his salt and he will tell you that every single drop of new paint added must be removable with no lasting damage done to the original. Can a future owner of EXK 6 return it to the exact condition it was in during the 1930s? Sure, but as to whether that will make the car more or less original I have no idea.

Example no 3 : Restored to race. The good thing about historic racing is that not only are the cars used but they are seen to be used. Historic racing spectators are growing in number which is a very good thing. Some owners have spare engines used exclusively for racing thus sparing the original engine. Others use the original engine and are prepared for the risks. Here again it is not so much what gets done but the manner in which it is done. Ronald Barker once wrote words to this effect : "Those enthusiasts who cannot win by natural talent spends money on their cars untill they can hardly fail." (I'm paraphrasing a bit) This was written in the late 80s and I think he was referring to R4D. Try this for an experiment, invite a few friends around for a chin-wag and ask for their opinions on Anthony Mayman and Bart Rossman. The smart-mouthed ones (people like me in other words) may point out that Bart Rossman is still alive and Mayman not. But after the laughter has subsided I am fairly sure the majority will describe Bart Rossman as a gifted racer/engineer and Mayman as a cheat who offed himself. When a man dies the world should be a better place due to the way he lived. Mayman made the world a better place by killing himself.

We have to remember that historic race meetings, just like the concours circuit moves with the times, just like fashion in many ways. What was considered acceptable in the 1950s are frowned upon in the 21st Century. Shortly after WWII Bentleys (Cricklewood) would have their limousine bodies removed, the chassis shortened and would then be driven to near destruction by enthusiastic BDC members. Today there are so few left with coachwork intact that to turn one into another VdP replica will get you excommunicated from the club.

And herein lies my problem with Peter Mullin, his restorations are stuck firmly in the 70s and 80s. His restorations are probably on par with Bill Harrah's, but Harrah restored his cars in keeping with the times. Have a look at the Mullins collection, in particular his Bugatti T46, his red V12 Delahaye and the black and yellow Voisin with Figoni body. And ostrich leather interior. And Chrome wires. Now compare this exercise in vulgarity with the Williamson Atlantic. You still think Mullins is the right owner? I suspect it is only a matter of time before one of the greatest Bugattis extant will be severely compromised by this man. He has neither the intellect nor the value system to appreciate this car. He will put his own stamp on it and something indefinable will be lost forever.

I'd like to end by ruminating a bit on the question of rights. An owner has the right to do with his property as he sees fit, but he is entitled to neither my, nor anyone else's blessing. It is Peter Mullin's right to destroy 57374. It is my right to protect 57374. It is not my right to break the law. It is my right to shame Peter Mullins into passing her onto someone better, preferably before he restores the soul out of her. I do not have the right to steal his property. It is my right to believe 57374 is on the brink of the abyss. I do not have the right to force my opinion on Peter Mullin.

Chances are I will achieve the sum total of bugger-all. Chances are this car will be destroyed soon. Chances are I will comment on said destruction on this very forum. Chances are I will become an object of derision once again. Bring it on.

God I'm loving this. Thanks Jaap.

With Much Gratitude
Johan Buchner

barttore · **Joined:** Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:38 pm **Posts:** 642

Great debate guys !

Somehow I sense a possible need for a "Bugatti-inquisition" section on this forum... :twisted:

Greg Morgan · **Joined:** Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:10 am **Posts:** 334

Good god Johan, how you managed to abstain so completely from this forum and then to return again with such emotion is beyond me. The sex (or whatever) must have been good, thats all I can say.
What I will timidly add to your arguement, however, is that the ex Williamson car spent the majority of its life as a rather ugly attempt at modernisation. What we see today of this car may be how we think she looked when leaving the factory, but take my word for it, to get there involves a huge amount of brand new material, probably not far off what went into Mr Laurens motor actually.

Shame though that you didn't want to sell your Bugatti books though...

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Wed May 12, 2010 10:07 pm

Due to you being correct way more often than not (your research on the T41 prototypes' dimensions is superb - and I still have a printed copy of your elephant mascot article) I've learnt not to dismiss a Greg Morgan statement lightly and this sentence in particular struck me :

"What I will timidly add to your arguement, however, is that the ex Williamson car spent the majority of its life as a rather ugly attempt at modernisation. What we see today of this car may be how we think she looked when leaving the factory, but take my word for it, to get there involves a huge amount of brand new material, probably not far off what went into Mr Laurens motor actually."

I neglected to tackle the issue of when it is acceptable to restore a car. Let's take the King Leopold T59. Today this car still looks original, and so it should, the coachwork and interior are all original but the engine needed some serious work due to a brutal engine rebuild inflicted much earlier. Before the tender ministrations of Dutton's this car was near undrivable I believe. And if the owner decided to refresh the paint and upholstery at the same time it would have been perfectly understandable. But he chose not to. Which means this car is in safe hands. He has the intellect and the value system needed to make difficult decisions.

I received an e-mail from the owner of a particularly original T44 and I had a wonderful time reading about his quest to have the mechanism of one of the dials restored without having the time-earned patina wiped away. The talents of the master craftsman who did the work did not come cheap, but here is another car in safe hands. As long as this car is owned by this man it will never be restored. Insert the last sentence from the previous paragraph here.

When Dr. Williamson bought 57374 in 1970 it was not, as you remarked, original. There were the body modifications you mentioned and like most T57S' she was not originally supercharged. The engine needed serious work a number of times, so Dr. Williamson had her restored to original specs. But first he did a little research, some 20 years of research before he selected Jim Stranberg and Scott Seargent for the restoration. And yes, they had to let in some new metal, cut some new louvres above the doors, move the headlights and so on. Dr. Williamson's research plus the talents of Stranberg and Seargant resulted in a car where the value lies not only in whatever originality remains but also the quality of the work done. If you look at this car today the shut lines are not as tight as EXK 6's, the body not as smooth. If you look carefully you can still see the imperfections of her creators. All you can see on EXK 6 today is the dazzling brilliance of Paul Russell. I submit that even though both have been restored only EXK 6 have lost all trace of her age, her era, her history - all gone, finito, destroyed. This car has nothing to fear from the next restoration, the damage has been done. The Williamson Atlantic on the other hand is less shiny, less perfect, the ideal justification for the new owner to have the work redone. Peter Mullin is not fit to make such a decision, this car will be reduced to the condition of EXK 6.

Is my insistence that owners step up to the plate and accept their responsibilities really that naive? No really I'm asking.

Goodnight.
Johan

PS. No I won't sell my books but I am prepared to swap my library for that fake T43 with the new body I metioned in an earlier post. Your choice.

Greg Morgan · **Joined:** Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:10 am **Posts:** 334

I guess another thing that should be brought into this restoration debate is to ask the question; after a ground up restoration what is more contrived, a bright shiny thing that looks brand new, or one that has been made to look like it has just been pulled out of some long forgotten barn in rural France, despite the fact that all the paint is brand new.
I sort of feel that 99.999% of all these cars have been seriously tampered with over the decades, so whatever you do to them, you can never put them back to being original, it would be like regaining your virginity (I mean that objectively, not subjectively).

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Thu May 13, 2010 12:47 pm

"I guess another thing that should be brought into this restoration debate is to ask the question; after a ground up restoration what is more contrived, a bright shiny thing that looks brand new, or one that has been made to look like it has just been pulled out of some long forgotten barn in rural France, despite the fact that all the paint is brand new."

"I sort of feel that 99.999% of all these cars have been seriously tampered with over the decades, so whatever you do to them, you can never put them back to being original, it would be like regaining your virginity (I mean that objectively, not subjectively)."

Are you familiar with this old saying? : "Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it." I did ask for a debate didn't I?

Just the first paragraph alone had me muttering "yes, but. yes, but" to myself all morning. For example : I agree with you about patinating (I really hate this word, and according to the dictionary it is not even a word.) paint and upholstery. But. Let's say the front seats of your classic needs upholstering, the back seats being serviceable if a little worn. What do you do? Upholster the front only and let the passage of time bring patina to the new leather? Upholster everything? Do only the front ones but add a bit of patina to make it look as old as the back? It's taken me all morning just to come up with questions - I do not have a clue as to answers.

The second paragraph. Dear Lord. I'm going to be rude and answer a question with a question : Should a 60 year old restored car's condition show the entire 60 year journey or do we accept the restoration is a rebirth and therefore should look new?

I hope you understand the question, it's quite possible I don't. Something else I've just thought of, when we speak of patina we are only referring to things like body panels or upholstery right? I mean the last thing you need is a crankshaft with patina. I think.

I repeat, I'm loving this. Thanks Greg.

Kind Regards
Johan Buchner

J.J.Horst · **Posted:** Thu May 13, 2010 1:53 pm

It seems to me there are two honest ways of restoring a car:
The first (which I like best), is what was done to the Roi des Belges T59, and to 40816; you restore the car mechanically, to be able to drive it well safely. Everything that is not needed to be restored, is kept as is.

the other correct way is to restore all to as-new condition; as if it left the Molsheim factory yesterday. Patina should than come with time.

Adding patina to a newly restored car is cheating, almost like selling an Argentinian T43 as a real one, how beautiful it may be.. You don't add artificial wrinkles either to your old wife's recently botoxed face! Old is old, new should look new.

And I agree, you can never put a car back in original state. What if somebody buys the King Leopold T59, and restores it back to the condition it was before it was changed to a roadster; this would be historically correct, but would it be accepted. I have that same feeling about EXK6; it should be blue, just as it "always" was.

sleevevalve · **Joined:** Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:44 pm **Posts:** 23

I couldn´t agree more. Of course, if you are lucky enough to own a fully original car, local repairs should be done in a way to fit the overall condition of the whole vehicle. Most owners and restorers now follow this sensitive approach. Full restorations however are different. My old French vintage car (neither as common as a Bugatti, nor as valuable) was re-painted and re-upholstered by a former owner in the 1970´s, and rather poorly in what probably was a do-it-yourself job. No need to preserve that. The only viable solution was a full restoration to 1928 standards – using correct cloth, fittings and trim items. The bloke who perfectly restored the interior advised to use the car frequently because it needs to show signs of use quite urgently (my children will happily take care of that). Artificial „patinating“ of a freshly-restored car is a ridiculous exercise and I really hope these methods will be outfashioned soon.

Speaking of certain US collectors: many fell victim to the over-restoration fashion until a few years ago but this really has changed. Mr Mullin has plenty of unrestored cars in his collection and does not intend to as much as clean them. In fact the US customs worried about his Arletta Bugattis because of the insects inside! And I believe the ostrich interior (and paint job, and chrome wheels) of the Figoni-bodied Voisin was the work of a previous owner – done at a time when the notorious „Pebble bleach“ was the way to go !

Regards
sleevevalve

J.J.Horst · **Posted:** Fri May 14, 2010 9:19 am

Look here for an example of how it should be done: http://www.bugattirevue.com/revue41/old.htm from the latest issue of the Bugatti Revue

I do agree with you, sometimes a full restoration is needed, but then, as you say, leave the car as new as it is restored!

T44lover · **Joined:** Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:43 pm **Posts:** 10

Johan,
You already know I'm glad you are still alive!

I may have missed it somewhere in this thread and if so I apologise but you need to know that it is not Peter Mullin who has bought the Williamson Atlantic. Unfortunately I don't know who it is but it will surely become general knowledge before too long.

Yes, I'm still alive.

Who is online