Is patina a good thing? Or does that answer depend on what type of car has the patina? Use and signs of wear can actually look good on some cars, in my opinion. However, some cars don’t wear patina too well. Example A: Pagani Zonda. While hearing one tear down a road at full blast is amazing, just looking at one in a showroom also becomes a special event.
What about a car that looks good with wear? Example B: Bugatti Type-35. This is also an extremely expensive car, but it looks good with some wear on its fringes. So, what separates the two? This leads to an interesting thought: is one more of a piece of art and the other a tool? And: can a car be art? Undoubtedly, if you are reading this blog, you more than likely think that cars can be considered art. But can something that can be art still be art after the beating of years on twisty roads and use? I think so; however, the Type-35 does have the honor of being a racing vehicle while the Zonda remains something for consumption. Both, however, remain coveted. Perhaps the design and purpose of the car becomes, then, a determinant on whether or not it a) is art and b) if it looks good with patina.
What do you think? I would like to know! Commence the commenting!