Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Barrett-Jackson

24

Comments

  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,350
    Personally, I think those skirts make the car look horrible.

    The only thing worse would be a continental kit.

    The hubcaps are wrong and it doesn't have air conditioning.

    And it's probably the worse color it could be.

    16,000 plus the 10% buyer's fee?

    Don't think so.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,590
    Hmmm, I missed the fact that it didn't have a/c. I guess I just took it for granted that, being a top-line Mercury, it would've had it installed. I keep forgetting how a'la carte everything was back then. Somehow I guess I just lucked out in that every 60's car I ever owned had a/c. Now it didn't always work, but at least it had it! :blush:

    What color IS that car, anyway? On my screen, it looks like that light silvery green metallic that seemed so common back in the late 60's and early 70's. I guess it could look nastier in person, though.

    Also, looking in my car book, I see the 410 V-8 was the standard engine, with 330 hp. So nothing really special there. My book lists the 427 as only being optional on the Comets, although there was a 428 with 345 hp offered as an option on the full-size cars.

    Not that it really adds to value, but it looks like the '67 big Merc convertibles were pretty rare. My book lists 2673 Monterrey convertibles, 145 S-55's (which had the 428 standard), and only 1191 Park Lanes verts. Meanwhile, Pontiac ran off 10,033 Catalina 'verts, 8902 Bonnevilles, and 5856 Grand Prixes.

    It looks like big Mercurys in general weren't popular by 1967. Most of Mercury's sales seemed to come from the Comet and Cougar. Similarly, most of Dodge's sales came from the compacts and midsizers, while the Polara/Monaco lineup only accounted for maybe 115,000 sales that year. GM truly owned the fullsize market back then, especially in the medium price market.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,350
    I believe that color was called Lime Gold or something like that.

    Just not a good color then or now.
  • parmparm Posts: 723
    OK. I guess I'm in the minority here. I love the sage green color. It's a welcome change from the run of the mill red and white found on most convertibles of this era. Admittedly, I'm not wild about the color of the interior. I think a nice cream or white would've been a better choice.

    I've relaxed my requirement for A/C on car like this. I mean, if it's 90 degrees, you probably are going to have the top up anyway (or just keep it in your garage). Plus, at least for me, a car like this wouldn't be my daily driver and the trips would be limited to pleasure cruises. So, not having A/C wouldn't be that big of a deal. Plus, it's one less thing to keep repaired. LOL!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,590
    IIRC, most of the cars I've seen in that shade of light green have had interiors that match. At least, the GM cars have. Now that I think about it, I believe the GM green was a bit more silvery, but I still find that '67 Merc's color to be easy on the eye.

    As for a/c, it's not essential for me. With a car that old, not having a/c wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, unless it was something in the Cadillac/Lincoln/Imperial league. However, I wouldn't pay a/c price for a non-a/c car. FWIW, the interior of my '67 Catalina convertible is black vinyl, which is probably about as evil as it gets in hot weather. I've driven that car in the dog days of summer, top down, and have found it to be bearable. I'm a bit of a masochist, though. :shades:

    It seems like older cars tend to "breathe" better than the newer ones. Especially with the fresh air vents under the dash, the little vent windows, roll-down windows in back on 2-doors, and less padding and insulation, all seem to combine to make a car that's more bearable in hot weather. In the 70's, they started sealing cars up tighter, which I think made them retain heat more. And with integrated a/c systems becoming more common, they started doing away with those vent windows, fresh air vents, roll-down rear windows, etc. Plus, it seems that once they started making the side windows curve in more, they'd let in more heat from the sun's rays.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,350
    Back in 1967 I guess a lot of people did like that color because it was pretty popular back then. I didn't like it then and it hasn't grown on me. Some people like fender skirts too while I think they just ruin the looks of any car.

    It's all subjective. This is why restaurants have menus I suppose.

    I don't like cars without A/C and a big Merc like that really "should" have it.

    If it were a Cougar it wouldn't be as important to me.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,590
    The only car I ever had with fender skirts was a 1969 Bonneville. I remember pulling them off the car, and even though it gave the area around the rear wheel opening a bit of a ragged, incomplete look, I swear it made the car overall look SOOOO much better!

    Somehow, my mother, at the ripe old age of 17, was able to save up enough to buy a brand new '66 Catalina convertible. I remember years ago, asking her if it had a/c, and she responded "why would it have a/c? It was a CONVERTIBLE!" in kind of a "D'oh" sort of tone. I guess that was the prevailing attitude back then?

    But, judging from the pricing listed in my old car book, a '67 Park Lane was a major step above something like a Catalina. Looks like it was priced above the likes of the Bonneville even, coming in just below cars like the Electra, Ninety-Eight, and Chrysler New Yorker. That was sort of the 60's version of what they call "Near Luxury" today, a class that really should have a/c.

    I'd imagine that Mercury really had a tough time competing in this field back in the day. Olds and Buick, with their C-body Electra/Ninety-Eight, were essentially de-contented Cadillacs, so they seemed to have a definite advantage. And even though Chryslers were on their corporate "C" body, they were heavily modified from the smaller Furys and Polara/Monacos, with a body that was beefier and roomier. In contrast, the big Mercurys were just guzzied up Fords. Even though they were bigger than the Fords, it was in a fashion that made the cars longer without really giving you any more interior room. They'd stretch out the frame but use the same body, meaning you'd end up with a longer hood or longer rear deck, but not a roomier car. Although in some cases, you'd end up with a bigger trunk. Pontiacs Bonnevilles had some of the biggest trunks around back then, because they were the longest version of GM's corporate "B" body. They were longer than the Catalinas, and also longer than the Olds 88's and Buick LeSabres. However, all that extra length was in the trunk.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,424
    Here's the brochure for the '67 Mercury, "The Man's Car", as they call it:
    1967 Mercury Brochure

    Lots of pages of car models that I don't even remember - they sure did have it tough competing with GM!
  • The color and the lack of AC will always hurt the value of a big 60s splashy convertible....in this case, I think the car was over market but eventually the market will catch up to it in a few years----because really, any open car from the 60s, even an unpopular, unattractive one without any real "muscle"---will continue to creep along with inflation. I don't see cars like this "taking off" however. These are not '57 Chevys and '67 GTOs---they are land yachts that were not all that popular when new.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,350
    The quality and workmanship of Ford products of that era fell far short of GM.

    As and example, a Riviera was SO MUCH better of a car than a Thunderbird.
  • It's true. I've seen original unmolested Ford products from 1958-1968 and the GM cars are much better in every way.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,590
    Speaking of color, if I ever decided I wanted to sell my '67 Catalina, would its pale, creamy yellow color be a detriment? Probably a moot point, since I couldn't see myself wanting to sell it.

    I always perceived it to be sort of a generic color. Not something that would make you all lusty, like a red, or a nice blue, but at the same time, not something that's vomit-inducing. If anything, I think the black interior and top make a nice contrast to it.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,590
    How would you say Chrysler products compared to the Fords and GM's? I've never owned a Ford product, but when comparing the GM and Mopar products I've had, I'd say the workmanship was better on the GM's. Tighter fit and finish, panel gaps, etc. Fewer squeaks and rattles. But the Mopars just had a solid feel about them, like the sheetmetal was twice as thick, and like they could slice through a GM car like a knife through hot butter.

    I think another thing that, in my mind, at least, might make the Mopars seem a bit more solid is that GM went a bit more modern on the interiors before Mopar did, with more plastics and such. For instance, the knobs and switches in my 60's Mopars were good old fashioned metal, just waiting to impale you in an accident. But on the GM cars, they were plastic, just waiting to get brittle with age. I don't think Chrysler learned how to chrome plastic as early on as GM did.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,350
    Andre, I think that yellow would help that car.

    It was popular at the time and most people liked it.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,350
    Just my opinion but I would rate Chryslers of that era somewhere between GM and Ford as far as quality and workmanship.
  • I was looking over the write-up on that 1965 GTO convertible that sold for 81,000 (!!!) including auction commissions. Given that the 2005 restoration was already going off with various wear and tear indications, I think whoever bought this "base" engine car just threw $20,000 bucks out the window.
  • 1stpik1stpik Posts: 495
    The other day, they sold a '69 Corvette with 600 miles on the odometer. All I could think was "what a waste." Almost 40 years of just sitting around.

    I don't remember the sales price, but it wasn't too much. I'm all for the idea of holding on to a car that you enjoy, then selling it decades later for a chunk of change. But no one enjoyed that Corvette, so what was the point?

    Meanwhile, I watch a lot of goats and hemis sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the odometers indicate that the owners DID enjoy them. That's more like it!

    Like many of you, I question how an old car could be worth that much to people. But then I watch "Leggende e Passione" and see old Ferraris sell for $2 and $3 million, and I quit asking questions.

    .
  • I guess everyone has a different attitude. If I spent millions on an old Ferrari I'd bang it around the race track, as God intended and if I had an old Corvette I'd burn rubber, slam gears and take it out on vintage rallyes.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,071
    Geeze, for $16K, I'd at least expect it to be one of those Park Lane convertibles with the funky wood panelling.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,350
    Oh, Gawd! I had forgotton about those!

    Talk about UGLY!
This discussion has been closed.