What's better, very original, fully restored or a nice 'driver'?

[JamesL]

Mine's a driver. I think it should win all manner of awards for originality and beauty, despite a restoration about 15 years ago. It turns out not to be that good a restoration either but I STILL think it should win a concourse event

But in reality it's a pampered driver.

[john.mancini]

It's getting harder to find original, unmolested, never hit, never rusted, collector cars. Period! When you see an original SL (that's been well maintained),sitting next to a fully restored SL, you can usually see the difference immediately. There's nothing like the original thing.
John

[49er]

This is my first post and am happy to have found this forum. I am the original owner of a 69 280Sl that has recently been awaken from a nice long 25 year old nap. The car is all original and 100% complete and 70K miles on the odometer. After much nagging from friends and family, and locating a reliable mechanic, the car is back on the road again. We got the hard top off a few days ago and was amazed to see what great condition the soft top was in. Even the rear window was still crystal clear. Since we got her back from the shop I have put about 200 miles of driving the back roads here in the foothills where we live. What a joy it is:-) I will post some pictures as soon as figure out how.

49er

[mdsalemi]

IMHO, there is a fundamental fallacy with the question.  Why does one have to be better than the other?

There is something nice about very original cars.  There is also the very real issue that with the majority of parts original, some are going to fail at one point or another and that will be a problem.  It causes you to not want to drive the car, because by doing so you will eventually, just by keeping it running, make it non-original as time and miles go by.  In fact, the truly original cars are probably driven less than fully restored, if just to protect it.

Fully restored is nice--I have one--but it is restored.  Depending on the level of restoration, you generally have minimized the worry of failure somewhere, but you also have a car that you can't or won't park in a mall parking lot, or similar.  The most highly restored ones are trailer queens not really suited for any long driving.  I drive mine around without undue fear of breakdown, but would never park it at a mall for example.

A nice driver is great--broken in, maintained, generally reliable--but I have yet to meet anyone 100% satisfied with a driver.  The better the driver is, the more careful people have to be with where they park it.  The worse the driver is, the owner is always updating that list of "what to do next", and having to prioritize because of cost.  People who own them that have non-original work on the car, generally lust for some more originality.  They look at those door dings each time they get in the car.  There is always something to do, something to aspire to.

Each of these three "conditions" has their own merits and problems.  I cannot say that any one is better than another, and think the question is flawed.  If the question is asked simply on which car to buy, it all depends on intended use and $$$ available.  If you want to drive rallys like Peter van Es, don't think about fully restored.  If you want to go into car shows and win prizes, a daily driver isn't going to cut it.  There is a place for all conditions and thus none is fundamentally better or worse than any other...IMHO, of course.