GD since I don’t think there is a factual answer and I know the Ship of Theseus will appear here but it’s more than that methinks. So of course there are the SoT issues like replacing rivets that need to be cut off but what about when you replace the wood handle of a knife or replace the 100 year old wiring with modern (safer) wiring? One issue I have is when I see powder coating on an item made before 1945. Repainting something a different color that the original may or may not be restorative, but to use something that wasn’t even invented when the item was made … I just cannot say that the item is restored now. So what are the limits before the item is no longer restored but rather a new item using some old parts?
The real question is what the goal of your restoration is. Very few restorations are 100% absolute 100%.
I would say replacing the keel of Theseus ship or the frame of the Camaro constitute a new ship or car.
Very true which is why this is GD territory. For example, IMO if you change the shape of a knife it is no longer a restoration. I just saw one video where the guy cut off the beautiful and working curved edge of a cleaver to make it have a straight cutting edge. At that point (to me) is it not a restored item but a new one using most of the old blade. I think that is the restored item looks significantly different than the old one it is not a restoration but then does that include a new paint color? What if the fabric looks different but is the same material like cotton? What if it looks the same but is a different material like linen? Or even worse, polyester?
If the intent of the project is to bring the item back to the condition it was in when it was new, as closely as possible, then that’s a restoration, IMO. It may not always be 100% possible to do so, given that some parts or materials may simply be no longer available, or legal (e.g., items made from ivory), but I think it’s the intent that’s important.
If, OTOH, the intent is to take something that’s old and damaged, and make it useful today (which often means incorporating anachronistic features or parts), then that’s not a restoration, that’s a renovation.
I see this distinction a lot in work that gets done on cars, and it depends on who’s doing it, and why they’re doing it.
Yet again, kenobi_65 explains what I wrote better than I did. I think I’m up to owing you half a dozen beers now. Thanks.
As for cars, did Boyd Coddington (or his employees) ever do a true restoration or were they all renovations? I’m watching Tavarish rebuild a McClaren P1 but at a certain point with him wanting to change the engine spec (in the name of God why?), and interior, I have to ask: will the result really be a McLaren P1?
The cars that I’ve seen from Coddington seem to be renovations; it seems to me that he’s primarily (maybe exclusively) using old cars as a basis to create hot rods and customized cars.
Compare what he does to Wayne Carini (host of Chasing Classic Cars), who is usually trying to restore old cars – the show often features the cars on which he’s worked being displayed at classic car shows, like the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance, where the goal is to have the car as close to what it looked like when new as possible.
There is needless confusion in the vintage or classic car hobby terminology for sure. There are some people who are very, very good at performing what some call “restomods”, keeping the original appearance more or less, but completely replacing engine, brakes, suspension, steering, transmission. For my money, if I want a new truck, I’ll buy one. It is interesting to see original or “survivors” that weren’t raped over the years by incompetent or even competent mechanics.
I’d say that it depends on what you’re trying to restore. Are you trying to make it look like it did originally? Or to make it function like it did originally? Or make it as much like it originally was, even in ways that one can’t tell the difference?
For that matter, what even is “original”? If some ancient artifact is found, and nothing more is done to it than cleaning, and it’s then put in a museum where it’s admired for decades, and then a vandal smashes it with a hammer, do you restore it to what it looked like in the museum, or restore it to what it was thousands of years ago? Or maybe just leave it as is, because now the sledgehammer is also part of the history it represents?
If all existing original and still useful components are included it’s a restoration. Does one original gear from a clock make a restoration if all the other parts are newly made? Yes, if that’s the only part from that particular clock that exists. It may be a rather pointless restoration, or it may be the best that can be done with a unique and important clock. And sometimes it’s a better idea to display the remains than attempt the restoration.
I like @kenobi_65’s taxonomy.
But I’ll suggest that the standards for the various categories of restorations, renovations, restomods, historical duplicates, etc., will vary wildly whether were talking about a car, a knife, some clothing, a sword, etc.
Each major practice area of treasuring old stuff will have their own ideas of what constitutes acceptable alterations before it ceases to be a restoration.
If you’re fixing some Middle Ages leather saddle, must you use only vintage chemicals to tan the new cowhide, or will modernly-tanned cowhide do? Must you somehow “antique” the modern stuff to look old, but not crumbly, so it matches the appearance of age of the rest of the saddle?
Etc.
Surely no bright line distinctions can be made.
I can’t remember where I heard of this, but there are some temples in Asia that are thousands of years old. They’ve been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times, sometimes even burning completely to the ground, such that none of the original material at all could be rebuilt… but none of that changes the notion that it’s still the same temple. It’s still in the same place, still has the same name and dedication, still serves the same purpose, and so on, so it’s still the same temple.
The White House was in sad shape by the late 1940s, the condition was alarming to structural engineers. If you look at some of the pictures, they pretty much gutted the whole thing and left the walls standing. They saved a lot of the trim and things, but I doubt it could be called a restoration.
It’s like my grandfathers ax, I’ve replaced the handle twice and the head once.
When I was in USAF in the 1980s a lot of the infrastructure was WW-II era “temporary” wooden buildings. Now 40-50 years after they were hastily built with amateur labor and wartime parts shortages, they were duly falling apart or rotting through. And were all too small for the modern bureaucracy and modern complexity. Of course USAF could not get budget from Congress to build new buildings. But they could to maintain old ones.
So the standard maneuver was to essentially remove the building from the inside out, leaving just the outer siding and coat of paint. Then build a new identical building inside the shell. Then peel off the old siding & paint and install new siding & paint. Viola! Your building has been maintained. Not restored or renovated. Certainly not replaced. Maintained, Lieutenant. Maintained. Yes, Sir.
It cost 4x what building a proper 1980s permanent concrete, steel, & glass building would have. They were still cramped, badly insulated, lacking in HVAC, and all the rest. But they were able to be done within the congressionally mandated budget hoops. Sigh.
One of several features of USAF I do not miss.
My hometown had a wind-powered gristmill built in the 1880s. Over the years of rain and rot, the whole thing was so decrepit that they decided to build an exact replica next to it, then demolish the original windmill. I don’t think any of the original structure was incorporated into the new building. I always wondered if this was a restoration. If they had a few boards from the first building, then I’d give them more credit.
In this county, for some reason, there is a big difference in the permitting between renovating a dwelling and knocking the whole thing down and building from scratch, the former being cheaper/easier. This is not restoration, per se – historical dwellings are a whole different kettle of fish. This is simply the property owner having a home of no particular interest tired of one bathroom and tiny closets and doing something about it.
A neighbor renovated the place across the street and left the framing of one interior wall standing. Not the wallboard, mind you, just the 2x4s for the wall.
That’s common in California. Something to do with property tax reassessment rather than permitting. People will leave up one wall from the old dwelling and build from it.
That reminds me something something to do with Greece, back when they were in the news for camoflaging swimming pools to hide from aerial photography. A building under construction is taxed differently, so they are never “done”, there is always something going on.
Sometimes it’s not a matter of permits but the building/zoning code. If I knock my house down and build a new one, I have to comply with the current codes but if I leave enough of the old building standing , it’s a renovation and I won’t have to comply completely. For example, I live in a one family house with no driveway or garage . Renovate and it can stay that way. Knock it down , and the new house will require at least one off street parking space , and since the lot isn’t wide enough to fit a driveway next to the house the front yard will have to turn into a driveway/parking space.