FT Classic Cars supplement interview with James May

porsche959

http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/cfc0ab26-6a9a-11e2-9871-00144feab49a.img

We drive gently out of town – he believes in driving every car in the manner for which it was designed. “All cars have a natural gait, a speed at which they’re happiest. The Corniche is perfect at around 65-70mph. I did a ton in it once, which was completely horrible. Apparently it’ll reach 120mph, but not with me in it.”

In the end, a car’s claim to classic status boils down to three basic qualifications in May’s mind, of which any car must have at least two. “It must be rare and beautiful, beautiful and interesting or interesting and rare. One is not enough.”

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/4aa0b7ac-6a71-11e2-a7d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz2JqnCeJPX

unfit2006

Interesting definition of "classic" status that from May.

Must be rare, beautiful or Interesting....... 2 out of 3 needed to qualify

How many of the classics frequently featured here would qualify under that definition.

kev1.3s

unfit2006 wrote: »

Interesting definition of "classic" status that from May.

Must be rare, beautiful or Interesting....... 2 out of 3 needed to qualify

How many of the classics frequently featured here would qualify under that definition.

But you see what you might find beautiful or interesting could be totally polar opposite to me and James may or no body else can tell us we're right or wrong, that's the beauty of diversity it virtually insures every car has a place at a vintage show.

porsche959

unfit2006 wrote: »

Interesting definition of "classic" status that from May.

Must be rare, beautiful or Interesting....... 2 out of 3 needed to qualify

How many of the classics frequently featured here would qualify under that definition.

Very few I'd wager. Personally I think May's definition is somewhat overly restrictive. I'd include the likes of the Porsche 944 and Fiat X1/9 within the ambit of classic status - but neither would qualify for two or more of his three defining characteristics.

Dades

The terms "beautiful" and "interesting" are both subjective, which renders the definition somewhat meaningless, imo.

What is a classic will always depend on who you ask.

unfit2006

"Beautiful" or "interesting" are definitely in the eye of the individual beholder and as such are far too subjective to be used to define classic status. In a sense every car will be some ones classic and so it should be.

However, whenever a group of classic car enthusiasts are questioned about these same attributes, they seem to produce a fairly consistant list of classic cars which in their view possess those qualities. Are those cars on a higher level of classic car status or are they more "desirable classics" or what ?

I recall reading articles on this subject in classic car mags back in the 80's where it was considered that modern cars of that era that were seen as mundane and ordinary and were complete dogs to drive would never achieve classic status. Those same cars are now some of the more sought after cars in our classic car scene.

I feel that the term classic in the motoring sense has been misconstrued somewhat along the way.