1955 George Barris Treatment to the 1953 Cadillac LeMans

[Charles D. Barnette]

In my humble view, unless you have in your possession at least 51% of the visible, external surface of the original body, you are replicating not restoring the vehicle! Copyright Charles D. Barnette 2010

[Bob Hoffmann CLC#96]

Charles,
51% is an awful high # & in some cases not relevant  I'm sure you're familiar with the USS Constitution docked in the Boston harbor. It was under restoration some years ago. A fire erupted & badly damaged the ship. They repaired it. Is it a replica now???
And yes, the pictures I saw showed more than 50 % of the ship burned.
Bob

[veesixteen]

"Shop Order" v. "Special Order" -- I have never seen an official explanation for the abbreviation "SO" and I would definitely not argue the point with Chuck (Jordan), who was THERE.
On the other hand, I have seen the abbreviation"SFBO" explained as "Special Fleetwood Body Order".
From there, I would rationalise that the "S" in both abbreviations should translate as "Special" and not "Shop".
Can anyone show me a Fleetwood  (por other) job order with the words "Shop Order" spelled out?

[Charles D. Barnette]

Bob, someday we must meet each other and sit and talk. I would enjoy meeting you in person very much. The issue here as I see it is whether the work is returning any man made object back to its former state which is a "restoration" or simply producing a copy of the original which is a "replica". In some states in a tort trial if the plaintiff is found 50% negligent, then the court awards the plaintiff nothing for his injuries. However if the defendant is found 51% negligent or higher then the plaintiff is awarded his full damages. I may be taking a totally legalistic approach to the issue at hand, but I must still stand behind my definition as earlier stated. Charles

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

Ah ha, but what if the vehicle in question was smashed in the rear, in 1958, and the the rear half totally replaced, and put back on the road to become a complete car again.   Then in 1981 it was hit in the front, and again repaired completely.   What is left of the original car?

Nothing.   So, does the 1958 repairs that restored the vehicle back to life come under the category of a "Restoration", and then the subsequent repairs in 1981 turn it into a further "Restoration", or is now the vehicle a "Replica"?

Bruce.

[Bob Hoffmann CLC#96]

Yann,
Thanks for posting. I have never seen the word "shop" used in any documentation regarding production cars with non stock features. It's always "special" order. I have never researched motorama cars so  the "SO" in that case may? mean shop or work order. The shop that built those cars had NOTHING to do with production cars. As I said before, some cars that were modified were taken off the production line. That car might not have a SO data plate but might up up with a supplemental "shop" SO tag. I hope I'm clear on that.  LOL! The SO data plates I'm referring to started in the mid 30's, way before Chuck Jordans time. Although  I would be interested in talking to him in person regarding this issue. Again, my research has been on PRODUCTION  cars that were ordered , produced & sold thru normal dealer networks.
Bob

[Bob Hoffmann CLC#96]

Charles,
Thanks for the nice reply. I would enjoy meeting & talking with you also.
I realize that this restoration issue is complex & many people differ on the issues. I think you answered you own question about trying to legalize your opinion. However, there are many restored cars that have much more than 50% of their parts replaced.
So... here's my opinion.
#1 I don't condone cloned cars.
#2 If you're restoring a car, it OK to do whatever is necessary to do the job. As long as you start with one car & no additional cars are created.

   Lets talk about the LeMans. I know that restoring #1 would be a expensive & time consuming challange. But... I feel that if Mr Frank could round up ALL the existing parts including the motor,that's important, he could call it a restoration. If he uses none of the original parts & calls it #3, it's a replica. Bear in mind a total burn is the hardest restoration of all. And yes I realize that all body tags would need to be recreated.
I would certainly like to see this car in person when done & congratulate him for his efforts. I sent him an email but he hasn't responded.
Bob

[David Temple]

Mr. Frank's recreation was built from a steel car while the four Le Mans show cars were constructed with fiberglass bodies. So, in order for Mr. Frank to restore the original car he would need to have a fiberglass body made - not simply put the existing Le Mans parts on his current project. If the frame could be located and all the other Le Mans specific parts in existence could be acquired by one person and the body accurately replicated (using number three as a source) then one could make the case for a restored car. Of course such a project might violate Barnette's law!    By the way, as for a car being claimed to be completely original (in terms of major components) how can anyone really be sure? I just learned today my 1996 Firebird does not have all of its original body parts and I am the sole owner of the car. My mechanic noticed the front fascia had been replaced - either at the assembly plant or by the dealership. He explained, "Robots don't paint this way," pointing to the give away - the unpainted area covered by the hood. In this case someone knew an important piece of information, but that will not always be the case. If my car had been repainted completely no one would ever know. How can anyone be absolutely certain a door or fender wasn't replaced decades ago if it was a job done to high standards? There are some exceptions - Mopars had the serial number stamped on the inside of every body panel for a while - but such may be a rare occurrence. I used to adamantly believe the original body along with the VIN was the "car" and everything else was merely an attachment - lose the body and the car is gone. Now I am not so sure of that. Has anyone heard of the Bour-Davis? It was a short-lived auto manufacturer in Shreveport, LA. The frame, wheels, and some other parts were found in Shreveport (or nearby) 20+ years ago and now the car is restored; it's the only one in existence. The body for the Bour-Davis was almost identical to a Studebaker of the same vintage; Bour-Davis probably had the same body supplier. Is it restored or a replica? This discussion could be had about vintage aircraft as well. Many of the flyable P-51s for example have little of their original airframe - maybe only 15% and you can certainly forget about "numbers matching." Are they restorations or recreations? If one had only the parts of a car upon which the serial number appeared (perhaps as little as a cowl tag and VIN plate), gathered all the other missing parts, then assembled them is that a restored car? If you splice two bodies together which car is it then? (I suppose it's the front half where all the serial numbers are - probably by law.) Clearly, building a car that looks like a car which no longer exists or copying an existing car is building a replica. But in the context of our discussion there seems to be a line somewhere between restoration and replication that is gray, fuzzy, and about a mile wide. Whether 51% of the body must be present or only 5% is a question I cannot answer with substantive arguments. I only know my preference - a 100% original, rust-free body with the original frame and drivetrain!

[Charles D. Barnette]

Interesting discussion. Setting aside my strict definition for the moment, the best answer may be (as to whether a project is a restoration or not) similar to the published response by a U.S. Supreme Court Justice when called upon to define pornograhic material. His learned response was as follows: "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it!". Charles D. Barnette 

[Charles D. Barnette]

I have gone through my photos collection and selected my favorite photo of each of the four LeMans which helps depict each of their unique, historical differences. LeMans number one picture was taken in 1953 by GM during the 1953 Motorama days of the car. LeMans number two pic was taken in 1953 during the Oil Progress Parade in Oklahoma. LeMans number 3 pic was taken in 2008 at Capitol Cadillac dealership in Maryland while being loaded onto a flatbed truck. LeMans number 4 pic was taken also in 2008 at Capitol Cadillac while being loaded into a transport truck. I guess it is fitting for one and two to be in black and white while the photos of three and four are in "surviving", living color! Each time I look at these photos there is a tug on my "automotive heart strings". My legal assistant Carla Tynes will post these pics in the next post or posts on this thread to follow. Charles D. Barnette

[Ctynes57]

Here are the  pics of LeMans 1, 2, and 3.  Carla Tynes

[Ctynes57]

Here is the pic of LeMans No. 4  Carla Tynes

[David King (kz78hy)]

I took a bunch of photos of #4 during an open house of the Heritage Center a few years ago.  Some came out pretty good, but the lighting was low where the car was positioned, so some of the photos did not come out very well.  I took some up close shots for detail on some of the exterior and interior features.

David King

[Charles D. Barnette]

David, if you would like to please post your pics here on LeMans number 4. Thanks, Charles D. Barnette

[veesixteen]

As I wrote to Lou Commisso, privately, yesterday, I believe there are possibly TWO valid interpretations of the "SO" code:

-  "Shop Orders", IMO, these were unique jobs, like experimental cars and show cars (such as that Motorama Buick), created specially for a show or as a proto, involving metal work and parts fabrication.
-  "Special Order", IMO, these would be regular production models but with a customer-ordered modification such as paint, trim, accessories (but no metal work or fabrication).

Any "Shop Order" tags out there for something as simple as a custom paint job.  I don't think so.

[Ctynes57]

Just for fun here is a composite picture done by Charles and I of the 1953 LeMans No. 4 grille v. the 2003 Cadillac Sixteen grille.  Carla Tynes

[Charles D. Barnette]

The "just For fun" picture posted on this thread was made from 2 separate photos. The natural colors of the two vehicles are distorted from the lighting that was available when the pictures were taken. The 1953 LeMans picture was taken at Cobo Hall at the 1999 Detroit Auto Show when LeMans number 4 was on hand for the debut of the Cadillac Evoq Concept Car. The Cadillac Sixteen picture was taken when the Sixteen Concept Car made its 2003 debut at the Detroit Opera House as part of the Detroit Auto Show for that year. Charles D. Barnette

[David Temple]

http://mynetimages.com/album/cokeresq/1955_BUICK_MOTORAMA?img=f150960e90
The link above will show the SO tag on the prototype 1955 Buick Century four-door hardtop. It clearly says "SHOP ORDER." I strongly suspect this car was built from a Century two-door hardtop.

[Charles D. Barnette]

I know of no scale models of the 1953 Cadillac LeMans except I have accumulated a photo of one pedal car of the LeMans (I will have Carla post that photo Monday). The show cars 2003 Cadillac Sixteen, 2002 Cadillac Cien, and 1999 Cadillac Evoq appear in model form along with the 1954 Cadillac LaEspada (GAD), 1954 Cadillac ElCamino (GAD), and 1955 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham (Structo). The LeMans, 1959/1960 Cyclone, and 1956 Cadillac EB Town Car do not. Bruce Arnold, who has produced the 1953 Cadillac Orleans show car in (1/43rd) scale, has promised to also do the LeMans. We shall see! By the way, if you should find the present whereabouts of the LeMans pedal car, have pity on my bad case of "LeMans fever" and call me first! Charles D. Barnette

[Bob Hoffmann CLC#96]

That's exactly what I proposed in response #25 & Yann repeated in his  post #34.
So... David, do you agree with those proposals???
Bob