warrenmj

Give me a break. A Vette, any Vette is a "object" that is owned by a person (or organization) at any given time. It is either purchased or inherited, but it is still "owned".

Jbabek

The test of ownership is if you can sell it and convert its value to something else of value, like cash.

Stewardship relates to preserving some resource for the benefit of society or a subset of society.

Once you open the concept of stewardship, you give others the right to tell you what to do with something you own. Just ask someone who 'owns' a house that is deemed historic. Society, through activists, prevents you from bulldozing a woodshed on an otherwise valuable property because Washington peed on the tree outside. So who really owns the property?

I would prefer to think changing the stacks on the Porsche from fiberglass to aluminum is a decision of future value, not one of satisfying some altruistic need.

rfn026

Jb hit on the key concept."preserving some resource for the benefit of society."

When it comes to transportation is any car of historical value? Does any car help us understand the history of our country?

Or, is any car just one more car? Is there anything such as a "historically significant Corvette"?

Richard Newton

fyreline

Despite some attempts to misunderstand (or disunderstand) the OP's question, the spirit of the discussion is whether you consider yourself to be an "owner" or a "steward" of your Corvette. All of us are owners. Some of us are also stewards, in varying degrees. That doesn't necessarily mean we allow others to decide for us what we will or won't do to, for or with our cars . . . it simply means we understand the significance of the car and feel at least some sense of responsibility for its preservation. Others have no such compunction,and that's fine, too - after all, it's their car. Some value originality, some value personalization, others want as radical and awesome a modified machine as they can create. None of these approaches is incorrect or unwarranted. Again, it's their car, and their money. I can appreciate them all, without necessarily agreeing with the philosophy of their creation. Some folks feel that anyone who doesn't hold the same outlook that they do is "wrong". That attitude certainly applies to much more than Corvettes, especially lately.

My grandfather used to tell me, "It's a good thing that men like different things, or every damned one of 'em would be after your grandmother".

Bill Pilon

That about says it all, well done.

Bill

Poorhousenext

There is a case for both views. In corvettes favor for originality, we all owe the NCRS a huge debt for their effort to save the original aspect of the Corvette. Without them there would not be all those reproduction parts an assorted other industries that allow C1s, C2s, C3s, etc. to be restored as close as possible to as "Delivered from the Manufacture Condition".

But restoring a car to it's original makes one a Stewart, not and owner, and just as with all rarely driven or shown Classics and So call Classics to the General Public, shown only at special shows.

Even at those shows, people gloss over the non rare engine options cars, as well as the non rare paint and interior color cars as those cars are the only one that really stand out, in a field of same "O" looking cars one after the other after the other. You can see that 1st hand at Carlisle as well as other Corvette only shows (This goes for all other Makes of Cars too) if you watch people as they walk around and see the cars that get their attention.

Then you have the "Onwer Type", you know the Type, "While the car belongs to me it represents "My personality an likes so I make Mods/Changes to make it Mine". I've seen that from the time I first got interested in Cars, an I see it in the youth of Today, taking today's cars and making them there on, just some of us did in our youth as well as in our old age.

I think everyone pretty much knows which class of Owner I am...LOL Restore a Car to be Driven foremost, with Body Mods unlikely to be seen on another car of it's age and manufacture, by trying to make the changes look like they belong on the car to enjoy the time spent with with the car when it's parked.

So be which every one of the two you want, just don't think the other person choice is wrong! I respect both, I do the one that provides me the most enjoyment while I'm here. I'm sure someone who takes the other path did it for the same reason.

rfn026

fry nailed it.

I think being a Steward is feeling a sense of responsibility. You actually care about your Corvette. It's more than just a device that gets you to work.

btw - Restoring an historical artifact if frowned upon. Once you remove the original surface of an artifact (or Corvette) you've destroyed it's historical value. That's why people feel that "Restoration is Destruction". That's a discussion for another day though.

Richard Newton

1955 copper

Nether owner or Steward everything we have will be passed on to some one else or thrown away

warrenmj

Respectfully disagree. I'm an owner and "actually care about my Corvette".

tuxnharley

I've owned my '67 for 45 years, made many mods to my taste that have made it a better car than when it rolled off the assembly line. I too " actually care about my Corvette". Stewards are the only ones who care? That's highly presumptuous.......

rfn026

I've been maintaining for a while now that Stewardship is a feeling of responsibility. It doesn't meant that you have to have an NCRS approach. It simply means you have to care.

Richard Newton

Jbabek

I have never seen a hearse towing a U-Haul trailer...

tuxnharley

Hmmm, well then it would seem like the line between ownership and stewardship is mighty thin and blurry. Does just changing the oil and doing routine maintenance qualify as caring/stewardship?

rfn026

That's a really interesting question.

The goal is to always preserve an artifact. Every artifact comes with a history.

Restoration is the destruction of that history. Conservation is an attempt to preserve the history of the object.

Stewardship then becomes a desire to preserve the car. In that regard changing the oil and doing routine maintenance is an important part of stewardship.

A restoration that is not needed could very well be an example of poor stewardship. That would be an example of destroying a car's history for no good reason.

I always go back to the Daytona Coupe in the Simione collection. Fred believes he is being a good steward by not restoring the car. Peter Brock, who built the original, thinks Fred is out of his mind. Peter will go on and on about how that car desperately needs a total restoration.

Richard Newton