Rolls-Royce Springfield Brewster Convertible Coupe: Oily Rag or Matured Restoration?

I well remember this car when it was in the ownership of the late Carter Farrar in Colorado in the early 1970s. He had just had the car restored cosmetically and mechanically, and it appears to be now as it was then. Fabulous car, and well worth maintaining and preserving. Best of luck

All the comments are greatly appreciated. I do plan to keep the car the way it is (and yes, the spare tire covers were thrown out first thing). Regarding how it drives. It drives well at 55 or 60 mph, but as it weighs close to 3 tons it's not a quick steerer. I have the name of the original owner and I know the names of the owners from 1952 until today. The last two owners had it for a total of 40+ years.

I do agree with Ralph Cook. Each car should be treated individually. Ultimately they are private property and it is not for me to dictate how another's car should be treated. Unless you put it on a website and ask for others' opinions!

I'm not sure about Ian Haggers concern to leave restored cars as they are. True it's part of the cars history, but your restoration would be that also. My car had a poor non- original coat of black paint- its third- and I restored it to original factory colours. Similarly I had the red leather professionally conserved and recoloured- but not replaced because that was original. If I had not it would have crumbled away. Its the old argument about restoration and conservation and every case- like this Rolls- should be assessed individually.

No, I do not agree with Mr Awini Ambuj Shaker's opinion that the headlights ought to be changed.  These conical headlights made by C. M. Hall Co., replaced the earlier fitted drum-shaped lights of Rolls-Royce design as a standard fitting to all Springfield made Phantoms starting with chassis #2126. Hence these headlights are original to the car and definitively ought to stay there.

Marshal and Zeiss headlights are also beautiful one's but made in Europe, and hence mostly fitted to cars from this part of the world. The typical oval Woodlight headlights made in the US, do not match the classical R-R radiator design, and I have never seen a Springfield Phantom fitted with these.

Otherwise I completely agree with Mr Awini Ambuj Shaker's opinion that the car ought to stay as it is. It's character, charm and value is highly defined by the car beeing and old object showing it's true age. Hence it still could and ought to be driven as it was ment to be.

Or put it light this: Patina wich enhances the value of an old car should not be mixed up with damage wich does not. The difficult but important thing to understand and to accept is this difference. And then to keep your fingers off...

Re the headlamps, these would be totally origional, being C,M Hall type as fitted to Springfield cars. leave as is but dump the spare tyre cover .

Oily rag!- To my mind this fine car is anything but. The trouble is that California is awash with horribly over- restored cars, complete with gaudy colour schemes, white wall tyres (actually quite rare pre- war) and masses of non- original chrome, so you think your car must be an 'oily rag. Really it's a good older restoration, evidently quite faithful to the ideas of those who made it. Personally I don't mind replacement of obviously non- original items and the soft top on this car is certainly that- otherwise, please keep it much as Rolls Royce, Brewster and the original owner wanted it.

Finally something beyyer than dumb Fiats

AND it runs..... Peter what we you thinking???

Looks good

I have a lagonda v12 rapide that was last painted in the early 50s and now much of the paint has flaked off. But I resist the temptation to repaint it because after spending so much on paint I would be wary of driving it. Plus I can claim to own the scruffiest v12 rapide in the world. I really like this rolls but if I owned it I might have changed the lamps. I would have installed either Marchal, Zeiss or Woodlite headlamps. Lovely car.

Definitely keep it as is, and drive the hell out of it. Looks amazing and definitely begging for a drive. Do not lose that lovely charm!

Nice as it is, dont spoil it

"Oily rag" is of course a term (like "classic car") with no fixed meaning. I have always taken it to mean a car in orginal condition. I am in a similiar position with a Riley Gamecock. It was 'smartened up' rather than restored in 1968. So the paint is not factory paint and the hood is vinyl. But I don't have the heart to change it because: its an old car and should show its age (the paint my not be original but every bump or dent is!), and secondly, because that's the car I fell in love with. Keep it as it is, even if it is restored, the restoration is part of the car's history.

"Oily Rag" is an old motorcycle expression. It refers to an old bike in regular use that is well maintained but the spit and polish cleaning is confined to the occassional wipe over with a rag. Given the way old bikes threw oil about the rag quickly became oily and the wipe down spread a protective oil film over everything.
Bob, owner of several ancient 'oily rag' bikes.

If this is an oily rag, than it's ragtime for me! Keep her going Peter

Very nice car. Peter how is the driving experience?

Peter, She looks really good. Keep it
like it is!

Kenn

Peter is right! Patinated cars these days are much more attractive than over restored shiny cars as they never were when new.
"Oily rag" sounds really weird but they just reflect continious history
Keep it greasy!

Now there is posh- a dickie seat with a door!!
Tony.