1962 Cadillac - any driving experiences out there?

Mr_Shiftright

Kruse will sell anything they think will sell, they don't care about quality or authenticity as long as the car is not so radically out of sorts as to create litigation issues. They don't want junk because they can't sell it.

parm

I'm attaching a link to a 1963 Cadillac convertible that's listed for sale. I've known about this car for quite some time. It's been listed on Collector car trader.com since January. Know why? Because the owner is asking $38,000. Do these owners think their silver Cadillacs are painted with "real" silver? This car appears nice, but come on! Another classic example of a car that isn't really for sale unless an uneducated dolt comes along with more money than sense willing to fund the seller's retirement plan.

Like the '64, this 1963 has a silver exterior and a black interior. But, it has a white convertible top. Some might say that's too many colors, but I like the white top on the silver car - much better than a black top.

However, since it's a convertible you can say "who cares?" I mean, the car would only be driven on nice days and the top is going to be down anyway - at least it would if I owned it.

I just think it's funny there are two Cadillacs of similar age and color and both with owner asking prices that are ridiculously high. Can anyone explain this phenomenon?

http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.com/10/1/7/1762417.htm

andre1969

...but I think the black top actually looks better with the silver car than the white! Still, the're both beautiful cars! Only problem I can see with white is that it gets dirty SOOO easily, where a black top, IMO, looks cleaner longer. Funny, but it's just the opposite with the paint job, where white looks cleaner longer and black looks dirty about 5 minutes after you wash it! ;-)

isellhondas

I've seen this in person and it's fun to watch.

The best thing that can happen for a seller is to get several egos involved during the bidding process. Two or more emotional bidders get into battle and become more obsessed with being the victor than concentrating on the value of the car.

I once watched as a Corvair of all things, that was probably worth 2500-3000 dollars get intense bidding from three different people.

It finally sold for 4800.00! Nothing special, just a nice '63 Monza two door hardtop.

At the time, I suspected one of the bidders was a shill which is pretty common.

I wonder how often this happens on E-Bay?

Mr_Shiftright

Sure I can explain it.

Explanation 1

Asking prices are an exercise of your rights under the First Amendment.

I'm selling my 1980 Mercedes diesel for $63,500, just thought I'd mention it.

The Fallacy: This is not the fair market value and everybody knows it.

Actually there is a better explanation.

#2.

Cadillac Person IN Question picks up a copy of Old Car Price Guide and reads the totally ridiculous prices listen there.

Then CPIQ picks up an Old Cars Weekly and sees the headline:

"57 Chevy sells for $85,000 at Barrett-Jackson"!!!!

"Hey" he says "I've got a '63 Cadillac and Cadillacs are worth more than Chevys and it's only 6 years newer so why can't I get, like, HALF that much for mine?"

Of course, CPIQ did not figure out that the '57 Chevy was a perfectly restored, fully documented fuel-injected car in all the right colors with all the right options, about 1,000 times as rare as his car.

The Fallacy: '57 Chevys are more desirable than '63 Cadillacs, and rare '57s Chevys are more desirable than "normal" 57 Chevys, and perfectly restored '57 Chevys are more desirable that ratty or amateur restorations. Also, Old Car Price Guide Prices are completely off the wall.

Another explanation (more cynical)

#3

CPIQ says to himself one evening:

"Gee, I've seen some pretty good prices on Ebay. I wonder if there is someone CRAZY enough to pay three times the market price for MY car? What the hell, it's only $45 bucks to try!"

Fallacy: Collectible cars buyers are not the naive hopeless rubes they were 15 years ago.

Another explanation:

#4

CPIQ is at a Cadillac meet one day and finds out that his '63 Cadillac is one of the few with pink sun visors AND a napkin dispenser. Only 34 of these were ever made!!

It is a kind of "Skewed Collector Car Logic", which goes something like:

1. "If a rare '57 Chevy is worth three times a normal one, then a rare '63 Cadillac is worth three times a normal one"

2. "Since my car is only one of 34 with pink sun visors and napkin dispenser, it is therefore RARE"

3. QED, my Cadillac will sell for 3x the market price.

The Fallacy: Nobody cares about stinkin' pink sun visors. They care about HORSEPOWER, a/c styling & history.

badgerpaul

Or perhaps his wife wants him to sell it. So he offers it at such a ridiculous price that no one in their right mind would pay it. That way if it doesn't sell he can say 'well I tried' and if it does sell, 38K will go a long way to ease his sadness.

parm

I agree with these thoughts, especially Shiftright's explanation #3 and badgerpaul's idea.

The frustrating part is trying to get the seller to confess, recognize or simply acknowledge any of these possibilities.

As a commercial real estate appraiser, I don't have the luxury of saying "This property is worth $xxxx simply because I say so." I have to support my opinions and conclusions with reliable market data involving properties of comparable quality and appeal.

Some people just don't get it that the market tends to seek it's own level and that buyer's are usually only willing to pay so much for a car (usually what the market says it's worth), but no more. And, that buyers determine market value - not sellers.

Obviously, what complicates things is that, generally speaking, no two cars are exactly alike. Thus, what Car A sells for may, or may not, be an indication of what Car B should sell for - and therein lies the problem. At that point, cool and reasonable thinking is required which is apparently a precious commodity in short supply with some sellers.

Unfortunately, we're all preaching to the choir, so to speak. Most of us in here "get it" with respect to fair and reasonable values - give or take a few thousand here and there. This forum ought to be required reading for anyone considering selling their classic car.

On the other hand, if all seller's looked at the value of their car (or in my case, their property) in a rationale, analytical and reasonable manner, Mr. Shiftright and I would be out of a job.

By the way, just so I'm not missing anything, does CPIQ refer to something specifically or was this just a random identifier for the illustration?

ghulet

......looks nice, though I don't like the white top with silver, at least not with a black interior. Also, the ridiculous price might be a bit more, I dunno, palatable if the buyer had paid attention to details like correct-year hubcaps (I don't know what year they're from, but it isn't '63).

parm

The eBay auction of the red '62 Cadillac convertible just ended with the high bid being $20,600. So, Mr. Shiftright's earlier assessment that this car was worth $20K-$22K was right on the money . . . . again! Uncanny!

That's about what I was thinking as well (easy for me to say know), but I still think there's some problems lurking underneath that sexy paint job.

So, the high bid was $20,600 which is probably what this car is worth. However, the seller's reserve was not met. What a shock.

speedshift

I think it was Shifty who first introduced the Random Fool Theory. Seller waits for a buyer who has had his head stuck in a drainpipe for twenty years and consequently doesn't know value. Sounds like a long wait, and usually it is, but I just saw it happen in my own business.

speedshift

http://www.bayberryclassics.com/Pages/vintage/59Cadi.htm

parm

Well, this certainly looks like a nice '59 Cadillac. However, these aren't my cup of tea. I find these to be rather gaudy and ostentatious. They're fun to look at, but I wouldn't want it parked in my garage.

Good thing for me too, because these usually sell for big bucks in that the '59 (and also the 1960 model) represent the height of chrome and fins.

Now, if you can only find me a nice 1962 or 1964 Cadillac convertible? - and yes, I'd like fries with that ;-)

I might even consider a '66 or '67 as well.

speedshift

Gaudy? Ostentatious?

ghulet

......I think most Americans have a fondness for the image of the '59, but I don't think it's worth a 50-100% premium just to have those fins. I'd rather have some of the modern niceties of a mid '60s car. I like the subtleness of the '63-66 much better, too.

Mr_Shiftright

I think it's the most horrible creation on 2 wheels next to maybe a '58 Buick. I actually get a physical pain in my chest when I look at one. Fortunately I regain my sense of humor and just laugh at it.

badgerpaul

The '59 just helped to make the '60 so much better looking in comparison.

speedshift

I'm shocked--shocked!--that someone would think the '59 is gaudy.

;-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-)

Mr_Shiftright

True, very true, you need UGLY in this world so that you can point to the BEAUTIFUL. Your point is well taken. So in that sense the '59 Cadillac serves a good purpose.

speedshift

Shifty, you mention the '59 in another thread as a car that will never be a serious collectible. Let me play devil's advocate and suggest that a car can achieve a fairly high level of collectibility by representing the pinacle of bad taste for an era.

I also suggest that there's a part of our collective psyche that positively relates to towering tail fins. The '59 Cadillac didn't happen by accident. It met a need then and it continues to meet it.

andre1969

...the '59 Caddy probably outsold the '59 Lincoln and the '59 Imperial by a margin of 10:1 or more. Neither of those other two cars will win any beauty contests either, although in a twisted sort of way, I kinda like the Imperial.

The Caddy might have been the pinnacle of tailfins, chrome, and overblown gaudiness, but I can think of a few cars that I'd consider uglier. Strip off a lot of that chrome and what's left really isn't that bad, although I like the '57-58 and '61-62's much, much better.

Interestingly, I don't think the mid-line cars in '59 were all that bad. It seems that the bad taste seemed to gravitate more toward the low-end Chevy/Ford/Plymouth models and high-end Caddy/Lincoln/Imperials. In comparison, cars like Pontiac/Olds/Buick, Dodge/DeSoto/Chrysler, and Edsel/Mercury (okay, maybe the Edsel blows this theory ;-) looked pretty tasteful. To me, at least...

Mr_Shiftright

speedshift

Hi, I believe I said that the '59 Cadillac would never become a "classic". It is already a collectible, so I don't think I would have said that. If I did, that was a mistake, I meant that I didn't believe it would ever be regarded as a "classic" because classics by definition have to be beautiful and....well, most people, or at least the ones who decree "classic" status (the people who restore, sell, judge and collect important cars) wouldn't consider this car atttractive.

Outrageous, yes, and a real crowd-stopper. But then, a traffic accident is also a crowd stopper.

parm

The yellow 1962 Series 62 Cadillac convertible sold on Ebay yesterday for $10,300 which is about what I expected. Actually, given that this car has factory A/C (even though it doesn't work) I would have expected around $11,500.

This was a no reserve auction, so the $10,300 represents a bona fide sale price. I was glad to see this value as it is very supportive of the value I'm offering for the '62 Eldorado convertible in my area.

I just printed off this auction result from Ebay's website and mailed it to my seller. This is just one piece of a mountain of market evidence I've supplied to the seller that supports my offer price. Anyway, I'll just have to see what happens now.

By the way, I chuckled uncontrollably with our congenial hosts' analogy equating a '59 Cadillac to a traffic accident. One thing about a '59 Cadillac though, is that it's actually big enough to hold the crowd it stops!

speedshift

Sorry, you're right, you said it would never be a classic, not that it would never be a collectible.

Actually I wasn't defending the car. It just strikes me as such a remarkable example of balls out John Wayne bigger than life conspicuous consumption that it's deserving of recognition. Not applause, just recognition--maybe a moment of stunned silence.

I think the '59 is a motif for the over-the-top optimism that's in the subconcious of every American. The '62 is the same motif but with a fig leaf. It's part of what makes us great but it can be a little embarassing in its purest form.

speedshift

http://www.fleetwood.demon.nl/cf/co00/coe.html

I'll take the '58, no contest.

The '63's rear "jet exhaust" treatment is interesting. In '64 they took off the fender skirts--hubba hubba.

andre1969

...that's a good thing!

jsylvester

I like the 58 or the 64. I don't like any of the 70's models - they all just look big and boxy.

andre1969

...it'd be a hard choice between the '58, '61, and '62. I like the way the '58 has that low, sloped, rounded-off rear deck that almost makes it look like a big sportscar. The '62 looks a bit cleaner than the '61 by virtue of the slightly smaller fins, although I find them both very attractive.

As for the '70's Eldorados, now normally as a design ages, they tend to look tackier and tackier. However, I think the '75-76 Eldo looks better than the '71-74! Just something about the way it was squared off, I guess, but the earlier ones just look bloated and ponderous, whereas the '75-76 just looks more chiseled and sleek. Well, relatively speaking!

ghulet

.....has always been my favorite Cadillac. My neighbors had a '66 Fleetwood Brougham (triple black) when I was a kid (we had an orange Datsun 510). I never understood why we didn't have a Cadillac!

jrosasmc

My favorite Cadillacs have always been the 1973 models.

badgerpaul

My Dad always looked forward to buying a Cadillac and bought a new '73. While it was a great looking car, it certainly wasn't the quality car people at the time had come to expect from Cadillac. All the pollution plumbing under the hood kept it from running right until it was well warmed up, just about the time you got to where you were going. From the first, the paint around the side trim blistered. The interior hardware wasn't attached very well and might come off in your hand. When it was traded off for a new Lincoln I don't recall a single tear being shed.

andre1969

...I used to drive past a 1974 Sedan DeVille that was sitting for sale in someone's front yard. It looked to be in pretty good shape, but was a really odd-looking green. Almost like someone took all the metallic out of the olive green, and mixed a little gray into it. I was tempted a few times to stop and see how much they wanted for it, but then it finally got moved.

Last time I noticed, they had another car there for sale...a light brown 1980-84 gen Buick Electra with a LeSabre front-end clip (only difference is the grille and the lack of portholes). One thing I remember about Cadillacs of the '70's is that the soft-touch material on the door panels and armrests, while it looked good when it was new, fell apart really quickly. Not to mention dashboards cracking, pull-straps coming off, etc.

ghulet

I feel fortunate, based on what I've heard, that I've never owned a '73-75 car; it sounds like they were both slow and gas-guzzlers, because of the really bad smog stuff. I did come kind of close to buying a '74 Cadillac when I bought my '71 Deuce. Naturally, that car was a gas guzzler, but it was pretty 'gutsy'. My '77 Caprice wasn't fast, but it was a relatively efficient big car.

Mr_Shiftright

Also keep in mind that these cars are very expensive to fix and restore, and you've just rattled off what could easily amount to thousands of dollars in fix-ups.

Museum cars are among the worst types of car to buy by the way.

parm

Well, the other shoe finally dropped and the 1962 Cadillac Eldorado convertible I was trying to purchase was sold to someone else. This car was very pretty and had received some appreciable restoration work about 10 years ago or so. The exterior didn't need hardly anything and looked nearly new from 10ft away. There was some chrome pitting, but not overly so. The interior was also nice and had new seat leathers when the restoration was done.

However, this car lacked A/C (which is surprising for an Eldorado) and also had a lot of niggling electrical problems. Plus, the brakes needed work and there were some issues with the engine. And, there may have been issues with the transmission as it didn't shift as smooth as it should. Furthermore, I would've had new foam rubber installed all around as the seat cushions were lumpy and uneven.

In 1996, this car sold for $16,000 at the Fall Kruse auction in Auburn, Indiana. However, for the last six years or so, the car had been sitting in a club museum in Kokomo. The owner admitted to me he paid too much for the car back in 1996. In January of this year, the owner donated this car to the museum under the condition that they sell it to raise money.

I was offering $10,000 and provided a mountain of market evidence that convincingly supported why this car isn't worth more than $10,000. I could have purchased it for $13,000 and would've if it didn't have the strikes against it I mentioned. I found out that the board just sold the car for $12,500.

I'm disappointed not to get this car as I've been working on this deal for about 4 months. However, I'm not depressed as anything over $10,000 was too much. As pretty as this car is, it has too many things going against it with the lack of A/C and the electrical problems being the biggest offenders.

I had to deal with a board of directors which didn't help facilitate making a deal on this car. You can't look a committee in the eye and it was hard to communicate with them. As an example, I was never given their initial asking price. I was told to just "make us an offer". After I offered $10,000, they said I could buy the car for $13,000. I elected not to counter with anything more. I just found out that they were initially thinking $17,000 which is laughable. Still, I had no way of knowing they had come down $4,000. I sort of feel like I greased the skids for the buyer at $12,500.

So, that's the second 1962 Cadillac convertible I've lost out on in 4 months. Ironically, the first one just showed up on Ebay this week and I referenced it a few months ago in this forum. I'll provide the Ebay link in another post.

Back in Feb./March, this car sold in a private sale for $18,000 which, again, is more than it was worth. I was more in the $12,000 range. This car lacks A/C as well, but it's a Series 62 which isn't as surprising. Seeing the buyer now listing it on Ebay after having owned it for just a few months is kind of strange. The photos he's using are from the previous owner and shows snow in the background. You think he would've at least used new photos taken on a nice sunny day.

I've communicated with the current owner and he told me he's put a high reserve on it. Thus, I doubt it will sell. I told him I'd be interested in it, but that I'd only be willing to pay its value - as determined by the market.

Maybe I'm just too cheap. Of course, the fact I'm on a limited budget also drives what I'm willing to offer. Thus, I haven't crossed the line where you start thinking with your heart instead of your head. Perhaps someday I'll be able to afford to. But, for now, I can only afford to think with my head.

Oh well. Collector cars are like buses. If you miss one, another will surely come along.

parm

Here's the Ebay link to the car I mentioned above.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1829021769

I know quite a bit about this car and it is nice. But, the seller's reserve is no doubt in the $20K+ range which is way over-priced.

speedshift

Parm, for what it's worth I have clients who tell me the same thing--"it's only worth X". And usually diligent buyers have a good feel for value. But if you say it's only worth X and then it sells above X, and if that happens more than once, then I'd begin to think the market is telling you something.

I've found that the analytical types--accountants, engineers, stock brokers--are at a disadvantage in a hot market or with hot properties. They buy with their head, not their heart. Unfortunately the hot properties inspire emotional bidding, something the analytical types can't and don't want to compete with.

Mr_Shiftright

Buyers determine the market, that's true, but you do need a fair sampling to decide if there really is a trend upward, especially on common cars. If the car were incredibly rare, then almost every sale would be a partial determinant, but when there are thousands out there, you can't really declare a change of value in the marketplace based on 4-5 sales.

Dealers know the market very well because that's how they pay the rent; not only by what price they sell at, but what price they buy at.

Another issue is that every used "classic" is a different car. The ones shown on this board might in fact have a significantly different level of quality.

speedshift

Oh sure, one transaction doesn't make a market. And as you say, collectibles aren't commodities--identical units--so it's harder to categorize their value, especially the ones that deviate from the norm.

But Parm seems to have an eye for the exceptional cars, or at least the ones in exceptional condition. I just have a feeling that these cars may take longer to sell, since they're priced above where they "should" be, but that their outstanding appeal will eventually generate an emotional offer above what the prudent buyer would pay. And Parm is what I'd call a prudent buyer.

Of course a car can't be priced too far above the norm or it won't have any credibility but in Parm's case an exceptional car sold for an apparent 25% premium.

And selling by committee can't be the best way to extract the maximum sales price--or can it :-)? Maybe this is a variation on the "I have to talk to my manager" theme.

parm

Buying a hot car/property based on emotion is fine until things cool off. Then you're left with an expensive paperweight. I'd much rather be accused of paying too little for a car than too much.

$12,500 wasn't terribly out of line of the car in Kokomo, but it was more than I was willing to pay. Now, if this car had either factory A/C or more solid electricals, then I would've paid the eventual purchase price.

Mr_Shiftright

If a collectible car is truly exceptional in every way, of pristine show quality and as good as the day it was made, well then you can throw the price guides out the window. But if it's a car that is driven daily, probably the price guides are right in the ballpark. Collectible car markets do change of course, but not very quickly. Even a 10% jump in value in a year is quite exceptional and '62 Cadillacs are not super "hot" commodities.

speedshift

Parm, my point is not that you should be an emotional buyer. My point is that it seems like the cars you like attract emotional offers, offers that are higher than what your cold hard facts say they "should" be.

But the guy making the offer that "shouldn't" be made drives the car home, enjoys it and gets on with his life. Ultimately that's the point of the exercise and to some people it's worth a premium.

Is it too high a premium? Look at it from his point of view, which may not necessarily be your point of view.

He wanted (and got) a car he can show his family and friends without embarassment. Even more than that, he wanted (and got) a car that makes him look and feel cool. He doesn't care that a few options don't work. He's looking for image and memories, not perfection.

He won't throw his money away, but he's not driven by data. Some people care more about feelings than numbers. These people hit home runs in competitive markets because market history doesn't matter to them.

That's your competition.

I see this all the time in my business, one in which emotion also plays a large role.

And emotion plays a huge role in the purchase of any collectible car. In fact, it's all about emotion.

Two other possible reasons someone is paying more than you're willing to pay. First, they may be more committed to '62 Cadillacs than you are. For you it's just an alternative; for them it may be their dream car. Second, prices may have started going up. Your data may reflect where the market was several months ago, not where it is now.

parm

I couldn't afford to pay any more than $10,000 for this car knowing I needed to put more money into it once I brought it home.

I don't disagree with your arguments, but where the rubber meets the road, at least for me, is "what can I afford to pay" and still be able to meet my other financial obligations. End of story.

So, my decision to only offer $10,000 was based more out of necessity than cold, hard, analytical thinking. Though, I must admit that my market support/evidence was damn convincing and anybody who simply read through it would at least say "yeah, I see this guy's point" - and that's the best I could hope for.

Believe me, I'm emotional about '62 Cadillacs and I could've extended myself and bought if for $13K, but didn't want to put myself under that kind of pressure. Caving in to $12,500 or $13,000 would have been the easy thing to do in the short run. However, I prefer to give myself credit for having the discipline to stick to my guns.

If you don't have it, you can't spend it.

I look at missing out on this one as an opportunity in that it gives me more time to increase the size of my "war chest" so that when the next one comes along (and it surely will), I won't have to be quite so sharp with my analysis.

As a commercial real estate appraiser, I'm trained to think more as a buyer/investor &/or the bank who's making the loan. But, when you're talking about what it takes to close the deal on a classic car, you probably need to give more consideration to the seller's point of view - if you can afford to that is . . . . .

speedshift

Right, your background is to analyze and look for value. With duplexes there's no emotion--the bottom line is "does it cash flow?". This makes investment properties more like commodities and therefore easier to compare. Rational buyers are making rational business decisions based on cap rates and multipliers. There's nothing else to corrupt the data so value is easy to determine.

But I think the collectible car market is closer to residential real estate. Homes aren't about cash flow, they're about prestige, lifestyle and self-image, all criteria driven by emotion. Emotion introduces volatility to the market.

You learn that buyers have different motivations and that their motivations are legitimate even if they wouldn't be your motivations. We're all coming from different places.

You also see that certain homes generate extreme responses. You really see this in the market we've had since 1999 where turn-key homes can attract ten, twenty, even thirty offers while marginal properties just sit. Everyone focuses on quality and they're willing to pay a premium for it.

I don't know what kind of buyer I'd be these days. Back when I was wheeling and dealing I was a bargain hunter, at the opposite end of the spectrum from the emotional buyer.

Today I'd probably be one of those guys who pays "too much" for a really striking example. Emotion is behind the purchase of every collectible car, or at least the "non-investment grade" cars we're talking about. But I'm about as analytical as they get and if I paid a premium it would be for a very rational reason: the defects in an ordinary car would drive me nuts. I'd spend time and money I don't have trying to make it perfect.

Mr_Shiftright

I can solve your "investment" dilemma for you.

No collectible car is a good investment in the true sense of the word Not now, not ever.

However, some collectible cars are good "investments" relative to other collectible cars.

isellhondas

I've owned quite a number of old cars in my lifetime. I'm the kind of person who stops to figure out whetehr or not I can sell it and get my money back if I decide to move on.

That's probably not a good thing...For example, for some dumb reason, I love old Chevys from 1949-1954. I grew up with these cars and someday hope to own another one.

So, I find a nice one for, say, 5000.00. I know I would fret about putting another 3000.00 into it to make it "right" knowing it wouldn't be worth 8000.00 after the work was done.

This is why I always say, it's better to spend more money and buy one that is already up to snuff.

Parm, I bit my tongue at the time but I really felt exactly this way about that Cadillac you almost bought. No A/C and a bunch of electrical problems? No thanks...but that's me!

If those electrical woes were an easy thing to fix I think they would have already been taken care of.

speedshift

Electricals can be tough to diagnose but I don't think that would have made that much difference to me with that Cadillac.

When I was fixing cars I found out I could muddle through just about any repair except electricals. Then I discovered most mechanics don't know much either.

Finally I found a guy who not only said he specialized in electricals, he actually knew what he was doing. He didn't give his labor away but he did the job right and in far less time than the average mechanic.

The lack of AC is more of a problem, at least to me. First you've got to find the parts, then make sure they still work after forty years. Then you've got to find someone who's willing to retrofit the car, knows what they're doing and will do a first-class job.

To me that sounds more specialized (and expensive) than electricals. Bolting on the stuff under the hood is straightforward but I hate working on dashes--way too much stuff in too little space--so that's where the challenge would be.

Then there's the buyer who doesn't worry about the "small stuff". He'll "get to it later" and he never does. It doesn't bug him like it bugs us. Cosmetics are far more important to that buyer and the dealers know that. Why dribble away their profit margin on things that don't mean that much to the average buyer?

parm

Don't know if Mr. Shiftright's #245 post was meant for me or not. Personally, I'm not looking at buying an older Cadillac as an investment. However, I don't want to buy a car for more than I would be able to sell it for if I find it's not compatible with me (or vise versa).

I consider this to be good, common sense rather than being over-analytical.

isellhondas

I thought of you today!

Our local drive-in had an old car meet. Lots and lots of cars. Had a great time walking around.

There was a nice '62 Cadillac convertable, not an Eldo and not for sale. Triple black and in a STRONG # 3 condition. Not a show car but just nice from what I could see. No A/C on this one either but it seemed to have everything else including power locks, Autronic Eye etc.

I forgot how damm BIG those suckers were!!

Mr_Shiftright

I think with 95% of all old cars that you will end up buying them for more than you can sell them for, especially any old Cadillac that you put money into. Now and then you get lucky and buy a car right and not put much into it and turn it for a profit (dealers after all do this all the time) but many "classic" car dealers bite the dust, too.

parm

I'm more or less resigned to the notion that I would not recoup any, or at least most, of the funds I would "put into" a car for repairs/upgrades. But, upon resale I'd at least like to get my initial investment (ie., purchase price of the car) back.

That's why it's important for me to "buy it right". And, that's probably also why I'm attracted to cars that are on the nicer end of the scale and thus wouldn't require much in the way repairs, etc.