botox or not?
Here in UK we call it OILY RAG. Most enthusiasts now prefer unrestored, though in reality maybe it's simply just a perverse version of our usual vintage vehicle one-upmanship? - because so many vehicles have now had the restoration treatment, unrestored has become rarer.
As previous posts already commented, neither is better. Unrestored is more practical to use because of 'first scratch syndrome.' But also surely Hollywood has several points to answer for here?
1. New Hollywood films that re-create old times invariably illustrate old vehicles as being in pristine condition. In colour. I gew up in 1950s Britain. It was dreary and mostly full of pre-war vehicles. The only colour scheme was black. There were no new vehicles - new vehicles were only exported to repay the postwar foreign debt (to USA
. I realize it was different on your side of the Atlantic - the dream of wonderful 1950s US vehicles is what kept us all going thro hard times. But what i'm trying to say is that if younger folks only see restored vehicles they get a false impression of older times.
2. Hollywood also seems to be responsible for this whole idea of face-lifts and botox. I'm not sure which came first, over-restored vehicles or over-restored people? Personally, I'm happy with a craggy face and my craggy vehicles. But I still always take time to admire a beautifully restored vintage vehicle (and I have more than a few of them, among the oily rags). And who could possibly not admire a beautiful aging actress, 'well restored' or not?
My favourite Oily Rag, 1914 Golden Sunbeam Tricycle: