Attached is a link to a Cadillac magazine ad (listed for sale on ebay) that shows a 1960, 1962, 1963 and 1964 Cadillac.
Click to enlarge the photos and hone in on the 1962 and the 63/64 (the '64 is the white convertible in the foreground). Is it just me, or does the '62 look kind of dorky compared to the newer models? Keep in mind this is "me" talking (Mr. 1962 Cadillac convertible).
By itself, I think the 1962 looks very elegant and sleek - especially in convertible form. But, in a side-by-side comparison, I'm starting to think the 1963/64 (the last good Cadillac styling years IMHO) looks more graceful and refined while the 1962 appears rather hokey and just plain out of style - though the latter comment is admittedly moot considering we're talking about a 40 year old car. Forget about the 1960 which, like me, looks tired and frumpy.
I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but was wondering if anyone else got the same "vibe" from this comparison photo which I've seen (or similar one's like it) several times before.
As with almost everything, this photo was shot with an agenda. Although I don't think it says anywhere, this photo was undoubtedly the work of Cadillac's ad agency--who else would do a professional shoot of Cadillacs? The purpose is to sell the most current model, the '64, by creating a vague feeling of dissatisfaction among owners of late-model Cadillacs about the attractiveness of their car's styling. The '64 is shot to best advantage while the previous years are shot to less advantage.
How? If I knew the tricks I'd be a commercial photographer but I imagine it has to do with picking less flattering angles for the previous years. Every car has them, they're just usually minimized or eliminated in ad photos. The photographers may have also played with the lighting.
Remember, these guys are good--very good--at subtle manipulation.
You can't kill this stuff. It reached out from the grave after almost forty years and dang near sold another '64 Cadillac :-).
Keep the faith Parm. I think the '63-up Cads are cleaner but more generic. The only point in buying and living with an old car like that is the styling statement it makes. A '62 Cad isn't styled in quiet good taste but it makes a heck of a statement. That statement may be good or bad but it's never indifferent.
I've always liked the [to me] cleaner front ends of the 61-62 Cads better than the 63-64, which, to me, just look like a rehash of the 59-60, only a little more squared off. I remember when the 63s came out, I though "what a throwback" to the 59-same headlight pod theme,the busy grillework, etc-where the 61s and 62s I thought looked more like they started with a clean sheet of paper. The 61-62 grilles are, to my eye, cleaner than those years just before and after. I remember reading somewhere that Harley Earl didn't like the 61-62 grilles as well because he thought they lacked the massive Cad identity or something, so they changed and made them more traditional for 63-64. Also, to me, the 64's rear deck looks way too long [especially in the coupe]. I've always thought the 61-62 were the best looking Cads of the 60s, mainly because they were a little different-sure, those lower fins were criticized-but overall, I thought they were a much fresher, original design than the typical giant Cads before and after them. No, parm-I still think you should go for a 62. Or a 61-when they came out, I remember thinking [they were slightly leaner too] what a fresh piece of clay after such wretched excess in 58-59-60. The 62s were a refinement of that fresh new 61 design. But 63-64, to me, looked like they were trying to get back to 59-60 again, and just make them longer than ever. Anyway, my two bits. Happy hunting!
...the similarity between the '59-60 and '63-64. You could almost erase the '61-62 generation from history, go right from the '60 to the '63 in the grand scheme of things, and it wouldn't feel like anything was missing.
I wonder if the '61-62 was a response to the smaller-for-61 Lincoln. Even though they both came out the same year, I'm sure the folks at Cadillac knew what Lincoln was doing, and vice versa. Then maybe Cadillac felt they were losing some of their traditional customers, so they went back to their more formal, massive style for '63.
As for overall length, the '60's were 225" long and rode a 130" wheebase. The '61's only had a marginally shorter 129.5" wb, but overall lengths were down to 222", or 215" for the short-deck Deville Town Sedan model. For '63, they were still on a 129.5" wb, and length was still 215" for the short-deck, and 223 for the regular models. I guess it just shows what you can do with styling tricks. Even though the '61-62's really aren't much smaller, they're just styled to look sleeker and less excessive.
The 63-64s are styled to just look long, long and more traditional Cadillac, where the 61-62s have a more sculptured, angular, and [to me] fresher approach. This is why I like the 61-62. They still look like Cadillacs-no doubt-just a newer, fresher look for the time, I thought. In that ad, to me the 62 is the best looking Cad in the picture. Especially in the coupe or sedan versions, to me it's no contest between the 62 and the two later years. The only other Cad sstyling I liked from the 60s was the 66. I think the 61-62s were more the work of Bill Mitchell, who had taken over some of the styling from Harley Earl at GM. Lots of interesting stories about the styling wars that went on between those two. Since Bill Mitchell had a big hand in the 63 Corvette, it's no wonder the 61-62 Cads were a little more sulptured and sleek looking than the usual overlong boat look.
I think Harley Earl retired 12/31/58. Virgil did him in :-). So he definitely influenced the '59-60 line-up, although I get the feeling someone (probably Mitchell) toned down the '60s at the last minute. But after '60 I think it was all Bill Mitchell.
All other things being equal, the values of 1962 Cadillacs (I'm talking about convertibles) are generally greater (per most value guides) compared to the same model in 1963/64 and in similar condition. I think most in this forum would agree to this as do I.
That's a good thing if you own a '62, but a bad thing if you're looking to buy one. At least, this has been my experience thus far. I've been considering a 63/64 as a fall-back position in that it appears you can get a nicer car for the money. A #2-#3 quality 1963 would probably be about the same money as a #3-#4 1962 (assumes both are the same model - an Eldorado convertible as an example).
Between the 1963 & the 1964, I think a better price can be negotiated for the '63 as I view it as kind of an odd duck. The '62 had the great styling and the '64 had the new Turbo Hydro transmission in combination with the new for '64 smaller/lighter 429. Plus, the '64 had the smaller rear tail fins which in my opinion was a more desirable, understated look. The '63 was stuck in the middle with the older Hydromatic and a revamped 390 (that wasn't quite the 429) and still had the larger rear fins.
Anyone else feel the 1963 Cadillac is kind of in no-man's land?
I don't think that after 1959 the buyers are all the discriminating about year to year values. The general trend seems pretty clear that the older the Cadillac convertible the more it is worth and you pay close attention to condition. This is probably due to the fact that most buyers in this price range (collectors who are not so affluent) don't really see all that much difference between 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 etc. , so they pay according to age. What I mean is, they KNOW the differences, but don't vote for them with their wallets. They go by year and condition. Makes sense for a car like this.
A 1959 of course and the 50s cars in general stick out as quite unique from a 60s car and are priced considerably higher than a '60.
I have a friend who really has the hots for a 75 or 76 Eldorado convertible. There seem to be a never ending supply of them on Ebay in various states of disrepair.
I told him that those years were about the worst that America ever produced. Primative fuel injection systems and relatively strict smog laws that made for undriveable cars. And what could be more complicated than a 70's Eldorado.
Don't you have the worst of all possible worlds. Black boxes without the reliability of more recent black boxes. And where do you get parts. Can a Cadillac dealer service the thing?
We finally sold the 76' Eldo and gave the proceeds to charity. Got $8,500 for it, and it was outstanding in every way, so that's about market correct for a gem I'd guess. It took six months and lots of adverts and we do know how to sell collectibles, so I'd guess we got all the money there was.
Assume he puts only a few thousand miles on it each year. What are the chances that something, say a black box breaks. What are the chances that the thing will never run again, or woould take a Hurculean effort to get it back on its feet. Where do mechanics get parts. I imagine that the parts are very expensive.
Or put it another way, do you know of people who use a 76 Eldorado as daily transportation?
...1973 Eldorado 'verts in my neighborhood. Since they're parked, one behind the other, at the curb, I'd guess the same person owns 'em both. I know this goes contrary to what most people probably think, but I think the '75-76 looks much better than the earlier, '71-74 models. Somehow the square headlights, bulkier bumpers, and longer rear quarter panels just give it a classier look, I think.
I don't think there's really a whole heckuva a lot in an Eldorado of that era that would make it impossible to get back on its feet and running, unless the car was simply allowed to deteriorate too quickly. Even though they're FWD, they share a lot mechanically with the RWD B- and C-bodies of the time. They had a lot of wiring and electrical junk, I'm sure, but probably not too much in the way of mysterious "little black boxes", like what cars today have.
There's a '63 Cadillac convertible speaking to me . . . . . But, we're still too far apart on price. But this time, I'm not the one out of line. I'm willing to pay the CPI book value for this car (based on a rating of "good"). Of course, the seller is thinking he's more in the "excellent" category (gee, what a shock).
This can really be a problem. The dealerships don't want to see them. Most of their techs weren't even born when these were new and don't even know what a carburator is. Parts will be scarce.
The independants don't want them either. They fear the car will tie up a stall for weeks while they wait for parts or try to figure out how to repair a forty year old electrical system.
Sadly, the old timers are retiring or dying. when they leave the business, their knowledge and skills leave with them.
Unless a repair is pretty straightforward, this can be a real problem and certainly something to think about before jumping into an old car purchase.
That's why I joined the Cadillac LaSalle Club. Most classic car marques have clubs where all kinds of technical/repair information is readily available.
You have to remember a P1800 Volvo is about 1930 technology. It's a very simply car. The only real challenge on it would be repairing the overdrive, which I can attest to is very tricky but certainly doable by any good mechanic. You have a pushrod engine, simple SU carbs, points, plugs, drum brakes, a generator, one fan belt!!
Far cry from a '76 Eldo, which has very scary 70s "bad tech" (clunky bend to fit technology installed in desperation by GM).
Well, I wouldn't be afraid of it if I had the right books. It's not rocket science, just obsolete, so you have to hunt for information and for parts. Modern cars are much more complex.
It's not hard to understand, just a royal pain in the butt to deal with.
That's what I was thinking. A P1800 is a simple car even by '60s standards. It's "decontented" to sell at a price a '60s buyer would pay for a "small car". And like most sports or sporting cars, it's decontented to achieve a certain performance level with a small lightweight engine. Even a '60s Cadillac or Buick would have a lot more stuff and therefore a lot more complexity. Hang on some poorly-engineered smog and safety components, and maybe a few more features, and you've got a '70s luxury car.
Over the weekend at a local cruise-in, I talked to a Cadillac collector and we discussed my preference to find a Caddy with A/C. He said it's actually more comfortable to drive a non-A/C Caddy because they had plenty of floor ventilation (ie., coming from lower vents near the firewall) which are apparently removed when factory A/C is installed. He said his wife's feet actually got chilly riding around the other day in his non-A/C Cadillac when the temperature was in the 80's.
He feels that factory A/C isn't worth the maintenance hassles and doesn't really do a worthwhile job.
He's right, cars that came without factory a/c did have vents in the kick panels and I recall that they would move a big volume of air when you were moving. If you're sitting in traffic or driving slowly, then that's a different story. I've found that when driving a convertible with the top down that has factory a/c, you get little or no air circulation down around your feet and legs.
I guess what I meant to say was that a car that doesn't have factory A/C has better air circulation in the footwells, than does a car with factory A/C when the A/C is turned off or even when operated in the vent position.
My Fire Dept operated five 1962 Cadillac ambulances built up by the DivCo Wayne Corp of Ohio. Great rigs. A little short on brakes but the power train was almost bullet proof. My uncle owned a '62 Coupe de Ville and it too, was a great performer. While I didn't know it then, we had a 1962 GMC 9000 series fire engine chassis built by the Van Pelt Corp in Oakdale, CA. that had a V-8 that I suspect was also a Cadillac engine. It literally "hauled [non-permissible content removed]." I'd be interested to see how many '62's are still out there.
Yep, you're right, they were made in Oakdale from 1925 to 1987. My notes say they made 3,000 fire engines, so it wasn't exactly mass production. But then, how many fire engines can you sell. They seem to last a long time.
There's what appears to be an extremely nice '63 Eldorado convertible on Ebay right now (auction ends 8/11/02). This auction started a couple of days ago and as of 9:00 am Central Time today, the bidding was around $6,000. As of 3:30 pm, it's up to about $15,000. Thus, the value on this thing has some legs.
I'd dearly love to bid on this, but A) I know the bidding will top out way beyond my budget, and I don't really trust Ebay as a venue for buying cars. Too many unknowns, not enough time to arrange for an inspection and the risk that you're actually bidding against the owner.
This car was on Ebay several months ago by the same seller I believe. I suspect the reserve is in the stratosphere and the seller may not be particularly motivated to get rid of it.
I just hope he's more realistic than the guy in Arizona with a low-mileage '64 Cadillac convertible (it's not even an Eldorado) who's asking the preposterous sum of $59,000!! His ad is routinely in Old Cars Weekly and the Cadillac LaSalle Club monthly magazine.
I suspect the number of bidders on this '63 Eldorado will dwindle down quickly now that the price is $15K+. Given that Fall is not too far way (sad, but true) my guess is the bidding will top out around $20-$22K and won't meet the seller's reserve.
The wood veneer on the dash is the nicest I've seen (though it's not the correct type of wood for a '63). Nice car though. If only I could leap frog into a higher income bracket. Gee, if I could figure out a way for my wife and kids to exist on bread and water and live in a hut . . . .
Definitely desirable on any RWD Eldo of later vintage ('59-66). I don't especially like the wires and Vogue tires, mainly because I'm a bit of a 'purist', because they do actually look nice. Did you happen to see the lavender '62 Eldo on eBay right now (in Chicago)? He only has one picture, which I think is dumb. Anyone trying to sell a car (a risky proposition to begin with), especially an antique or expensive one, on eBay should at least make the effort to post some detailed pictures, including interior shots.
Ebay gives me the willies. I would never bid on a car without an in-person inspection and a rigorous examination of all documents. I've heard too too many horror stories. I'm sure there are some honest deals on Ebay but I'm sure there are lots of really bad cars being sold, too. I mean, if the car is good you don't need to sell it at auction unless it were a real specialty piece that needed a world market (like a right hand drive car, etc.) seems to me.
And given some of the bids I've seen, I'm sure there is shill bidding going on. So what if Ebay catches you? They just kick you off and you get another Ebay name. It's not like the Ebay police come to track down the perpetrator and bring you your money back. You don't even know who took your money.
The car would be too nice for me, I'd would not enjoy driving it, as I'd constantly have to worry about the paint, interior, etc. Maybe for shows, but not if I wanted to drive it every weekend.
But if you have the money to have that many nice classic cars, maybe you pay someone to clean it every week.
As of 4:00pm EST, the bidding is up to $19,200 and the frequency of bidding is declining. By the way, in checking the bidding history, none of the bidders names are shown. Instead, it shows this is a private auction with the bidders identities protected. I wonder if protecting the identities is done by the seller or by bidders? Either way, this makes it that more difficult to determine if the seller is bidding up the value of the car.
From reading the ad and from communications I've had, the guy sponsoring this auction is not the owner/seller. So, he's acting as an agent/broker. Consequently, it's impossible to tell just who's cars are in the background of the photos.
I'll not bore you folks with the details, but as nice as this car looks, it suffers from several glaring in accuracies. The wood dash inserts are the wrong type/grain of wood. The side dash A/C vents should have wood surrounds. The side dash A/C vents on this car has black surrounds. The rear bumper grill should have black paint in the indentations instead of being 100% chrome as it appears in the photos. Obviously, the wheels and tires are not correct (but I think they're pretty neat). I could go on, but you get the picture.
With regard to these restoration flaws, for a weekend cruiser or for a local car show entry, one could say "so what!" and I wouldn't argue. But, when you're in excess of $20K (which I'm sure the bidding will get to shortly), then I'd expect a car that is more faithful to being dead stock and thus able to enter Cadillac shows without the judges raking it over the coals.
Furthemore, Mr. Sylvester is right. The price is approaching (if it's not already there) a value where you'd have to really think "should I be driving this car?" and that would be a shame.
On the whole, this car is very pretty and should be taken out and driven for others to see. Problem is, the seller is probably way upside down in terms of his cost versus what the car can actually sell for in the market (assuming the buyer is not a dope). Thus, as Mr. Shiftright has so eloquently pointed out in this and other discussion threads, the car is probably not really for sale - at it's market value. Instead, I'll wager the seller is merely trolling hoping to hook someone with more money than brains.
As support, I was told by someone familiar with this car that it was on Ebay several months ago (using the same photos in the ad - so it's probably the same seller) with a ridiculous reserve of around $34,000. That price deserves an audio sound clip with the stereo-typical valley girl uttering, in slow motion, the immortal phrase "Oh, my, god".
The car's bidding has already exceeded the price for Pebble Beach concours standards, so if it's not the best '63 Eldo in the world it is already somewhat overpriced. Hard to say without actually seeing it. But at $19K the buyer will catch up to the market in a year or so, he's not too far ahead on the car. Certainly no bargain here, but it "seems" like a very nice car, except for the wheels and tires. Wires look terrible on cars like this.
I just drove past a '64 (burgandy with white interior, QUITE lovely) Eldorado convertible, sitting on Belmont, near my house (I think it's the bar owner's car). It also has wire wheels, but thankfully without Vogues. Somehow I don't see him letting that car go for $19k.
Shifty, you would know better than me (or is it "I"?), but a '63 Eldorado convertible in Peeble Beach concours quality & condition should represent one of the best examples on the planet. Having said that, I would've guessed the value in concours condition (which the black '63 Eldo on Ebay is obviously not) to be more in the range of $25K to $30K. I hate to sound like an out-of-touch owner, but $19K just seems low to me. Do you have any comparable sales of similar cars to back that up?
To ghulet: So, are you saying the owner of the '64 Eldorado in your area probably thinks his car is worth more than $19,000? Don't suppose you happen to know if he's ever considered selling it? :-)
I think $19K is market correct for an partially restored car, or in the Ebay case, a car that obviously had a body-on restoration (since there are no chassis photos and the engine is not rebuilt, we presume it is not body-off). Cadillacs of this type are incredibly expensive to restore and a person could never recover their money in a restoration unless it was a partial.
Also keep in mind that one or two sales of a fairly common car like this do not determine the market. You will see one sell at $25K in "auction fever" and you will see one go too cheap at $15K, but over all the averages for very sharp cars should sit around $19K. I just saw some very nice ones described in Hemmings for this amount.
Just because a person won't "let the car go" for $19K doesn't mean it's worth more, LOL! All that means is that the person doesn't want to sell it!!
You are correct about the wood paneling. They actually used real wood on those. My '65 Riviera had the same thing. The real wood would blister and crack after a few years so a lot of people would improvise.
I was exaggerating about Pebble Beach. Any car that could show at Pebble would, by definition, exceed the usual price guide listings; however, there is still a limit to what someone would pay even for the best car in the world. What happens is that if you start asking too much for a '64, you start running into the price level of very very nice 50s cars or totally correct '65 GTO converts, etc. You have to be a certified Caddy nut to be paying $25K and up for a 60s convertible, but I suppose there are a few who need that one car to complete the collection, etc.
Any truth to the idea that a handful of buyers will pay a substantial premium for a "no excuses" car?
Not that the car in question is that good, but I sure see that premium in real estate. There's an immaculate six-unit apartment building in a great part of town, what's called a "pride of ownership" property, that has a serious offer well above what the recent sales would indicate. The buyer is offering a 17.5 multiplier ($17.50 for every dollar of current gross annual rent) for a building that should be selling at maybe 16 times. And he's an experienced investor. The building has no deferred maintenance and would be relatively easy to lease and manage because of its premium location, and it has strong appreciation potential.
I'm not saying the Cad on e-Bay is a good deal (the consensus is that it's not) but sometimes "good deal" is a relative term based on what the buyer is looking for.
Well, buyers will pay a premium but they won't pay the moon for a serial production and plentiful car.. Most serious collectors today are pretty savvy, they know the limits of the market.
Now if there are only 1 or 2 of these cars in the world, and 1 of them is no excuses, well, the sky might be the limit, yes.
Sure, once you go above market value for a car you're straying into the next highest tier of desirability--cars that most buyers think are better and value accordingly. It was just a general question, not a suggestion that Parm pay more than market. But it's interesting to see the nuances of a market.
Comments
Click to enlarge the photos and hone in on the 1962 and the 63/64 (the '64 is the white convertible in the foreground). Is it just me, or does the '62 look kind of dorky compared to the newer models? Keep in mind this is "me" talking (Mr. 1962 Cadillac convertible).
By itself, I think the 1962 looks very elegant and sleek - especially in convertible form. But, in a side-by-side comparison, I'm starting to think the 1963/64 (the last good Cadillac styling years IMHO) looks more graceful and refined while the 1962 appears rather hokey and just plain out of style - though the latter comment is admittedly moot considering we're talking about a 40 year old car. Forget about the 1960 which, like me, looks tired and frumpy.
I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but was wondering if anyone else got the same "vibe" from this comparison photo which I've seen (or similar one's like it) several times before.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2116232022
How? If I knew the tricks I'd be a commercial photographer but I imagine it has to do with picking less flattering angles for the previous years. Every car has them, they're just usually minimized or eliminated in ad photos. The photographers may have also played with the lighting.
Remember, these guys are good--very good--at subtle manipulation.
Keep the faith Parm. I think the '63-up Cads are cleaner but more generic. The only point in buying and living with an old car like that is the styling statement it makes. A '62 Cad isn't styled in quiet good taste but it makes a heck of a statement. That statement may be good or bad but it's never indifferent.
I wonder if the '61-62 was a response to the smaller-for-61 Lincoln. Even though they both came out the same year, I'm sure the folks at Cadillac knew what Lincoln was doing, and vice versa. Then maybe Cadillac felt they were losing some of their traditional customers, so they went back to their more formal, massive style for '63.
As for overall length, the '60's were 225" long and rode a 130" wheebase. The '61's only had a marginally shorter 129.5" wb, but overall lengths were down to 222", or 215" for the short-deck Deville Town Sedan model. For '63, they were still on a 129.5" wb, and length was still 215" for the short-deck, and 223 for the regular models. I guess it just shows what you can do with styling tricks. Even though the '61-62's really aren't much smaller, they're just styled to look sleeker and less excessive.
I think the 61-62s were more the work of Bill Mitchell, who had taken over some of the styling from Harley Earl at GM. Lots of interesting stories about the styling wars that went on between those two. Since Bill Mitchell had a big hand in the 63 Corvette, it's no wonder the 61-62 Cads were a little more sulptured and sleek looking than the usual overlong boat look.
That's a good thing if you own a '62, but a bad thing if you're looking to buy one. At least, this has been my experience thus far. I've been considering a 63/64 as a fall-back position in that it appears you can get a nicer car for the money. A #2-#3 quality 1963 would probably be about the same money as a #3-#4 1962 (assumes both are the same model - an Eldorado convertible as an example).
Between the 1963 & the 1964, I think a better price can be negotiated for the '63 as I view it as kind of an odd duck. The '62 had the great styling and the '64 had the new Turbo Hydro transmission in combination with the new for '64 smaller/lighter 429. Plus, the '64 had the smaller rear tail fins which in my opinion was a more desirable, understated look. The '63 was stuck in the middle with the older Hydromatic and a revamped 390 (that wasn't quite the 429) and still had the larger rear fins.
Anyone else feel the 1963 Cadillac is kind of in no-man's land?
A 1959 of course and the 50s cars in general stick out as quite unique from a 60s car and are priced considerably higher than a '60.
I told him that those years were about the worst that America ever produced. Primative fuel injection systems and relatively strict smog laws that made for undriveable cars. And what could be more complicated than a 70's Eldorado.
Don't you have the worst of all possible worlds. Black boxes without the reliability of more recent black boxes. And where do you get parts. Can a Cadillac dealer service the thing?
Personally I separate Cadillacs into four groups: '59-60, '61-62, '63-64 and '65-up.
The '59-60s are the most desirable because they're the most over the top. This is wretched excess at its best.
The '61-62s still have those great spaceship/jet fighter styling cues but in a trimmer package.
The '63-64s are much cleaner and more elegant but compared to the earlier ones they're boring.
The '65-up are even cleaner, more boring and getting way too big.
Or put it another way, do you know of people who use a 76 Eldorado as daily transportation?
I don't think there's really a whole heckuva a lot in an Eldorado of that era that would make it impossible to get back on its feet and running, unless the car was simply allowed to deteriorate too quickly. Even though they're FWD, they share a lot mechanically with the RWD B- and C-bodies of the time. They had a lot of wiring and electrical junk, I'm sure, but probably not too much in the way of mysterious "little black boxes", like what cars today have.
The independants don't want them either. They fear the car will tie up a stall for weeks while they wait for parts or try to figure out how to repair a forty year old electrical system.
Sadly, the old timers are retiring or dying. when they leave the business, their knowledge and skills leave with them.
Unless a repair is pretty straightforward, this can be a real problem and certainly something to think about before jumping into an old car purchase.
Far cry from a '76 Eldo, which has very scary 70s "bad tech" (clunky bend to fit technology installed in desperation by GM).
It's not hard to understand, just a royal pain in the butt to deal with.
Still, if Shifty's 76 Eldo developed a problem with that primitive fuel injection system or the dash harness decided to fry, it would be no fun.
I'm not saying these cars can be impossible to fix, it's just finding someone willing to work on it.
He feels that factory A/C isn't worth the maintenance hassles and doesn't really do a worthwhile job.
Anyone care to comment?
"Just more stuff to break"
Still, if it's 90 degrees outside, the car will be much more comfortable with A/C.
I'd dearly love to bid on this, but A) I know the bidding will top out way beyond my budget, and
This car was on Ebay several months ago by the same seller I believe. I suspect the reserve is in the stratosphere and the seller may not be particularly motivated to get rid of it.
I just hope he's more realistic than the guy in Arizona with a low-mileage '64 Cadillac convertible (it's not even an Eldorado) who's asking the preposterous sum of $59,000!! His ad is routinely in Old Cars Weekly and the Cadillac LaSalle Club monthly magazine.
I suspect the number of bidders on this '63 Eldorado will dwindle down quickly now that the price is $15K+. Given that Fall is not too far way (sad, but true) my guess is the bidding will top out around $20-$22K and won't meet the seller's reserve.
The wood veneer on the dash is the nicest I've seen (though it's not the correct type of wood for a '63). Nice car though. If only I could leap frog into a higher income bracket. Gee, if I could figure out a way for my wife and kids to exist on bread and water and live in a hut . . . .
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1848987112&r=0&t=0
And given some of the bids I've seen, I'm sure there is shill bidding going on. So what if Ebay catches you? They just kick you off and you get another Ebay name. It's not like the Ebay police come to track down the perpetrator and bring you your money back. You don't even know who took your money.
Think there were enough photos of that Caddy?
Mighty nice except I didn't care for the Kelsey wires either. Same with the ugly Vogues.
Parm...it'll be interesting to see what you finally end up with!
The car would be too nice for me, I'd would not enjoy driving it, as I'd constantly have to worry about the paint, interior, etc. Maybe for shows, but not if I wanted to drive it every weekend.
But if you have the money to have that many nice classic cars, maybe you pay someone to clean it every week.
From reading the ad and from communications I've had, the guy sponsoring this auction is not the owner/seller. So, he's acting as an agent/broker. Consequently, it's impossible to tell just who's cars are in the background of the photos.
I'll not bore you folks with the details, but as nice as this car looks, it suffers from several glaring in accuracies. The wood dash inserts are the wrong type/grain of wood. The side dash A/C vents should have wood surrounds. The side dash A/C vents on this car has black surrounds. The rear bumper grill should have black paint in the indentations instead of being 100% chrome as it appears in the photos. Obviously, the wheels and tires are not correct (but I think they're pretty neat). I could go on, but you get the picture.
With regard to these restoration flaws, for a weekend cruiser or for a local car show entry, one could say "so what!" and I wouldn't argue. But, when you're in excess of $20K (which I'm sure the bidding will get to shortly), then I'd expect a car that is more faithful to being dead stock and thus able to enter Cadillac shows without the judges raking it over the coals.
Furthemore, Mr. Sylvester is right. The price is approaching (if it's not already there) a value where you'd have to really think "should I be driving this car?" and that would be a shame.
On the whole, this car is very pretty and should be taken out and driven for others to see. Problem is, the seller is probably way upside down in terms of his cost versus what the car can actually sell for in the market (assuming the buyer is not a dope). Thus, as Mr. Shiftright has so eloquently pointed out in this and other discussion threads, the car is probably not really for sale - at it's market value. Instead, I'll wager the seller is merely trolling hoping to hook someone with more money than brains.
As support, I was told by someone familiar with this car that it was on Ebay several months ago (using the same photos in the ad - so it's probably the same seller) with a ridiculous reserve of around $34,000. That price deserves an audio sound clip with the stereo-typical valley girl uttering, in slow motion, the immortal phrase "Oh, my, god".
To ghulet: So, are you saying the owner of the '64 Eldorado in your area probably thinks his car is worth more than $19,000? Don't suppose you happen to know if he's ever considered selling it? :-)
Also keep in mind that one or two sales of a fairly common car like this do not determine the market. You will see one sell at $25K in "auction fever" and you will see one go too cheap at $15K, but over all the averages for very sharp cars should sit around $19K. I just saw some very nice ones described in Hemmings for this amount.
Just because a person won't "let the car go" for $19K doesn't mean it's worth more, LOL! All that means is that the person doesn't want to sell it!!
Not that the car in question is that good, but I sure see that premium in real estate. There's an immaculate six-unit apartment building in a great part of town, what's called a "pride of ownership" property, that has a serious offer well above what the recent sales would indicate. The buyer is offering a 17.5 multiplier ($17.50 for every dollar of current gross annual rent) for a building that should be selling at maybe 16 times. And he's an experienced investor. The building has no deferred maintenance and would be relatively easy to lease and manage because of its premium location, and it has strong appreciation potential.
I'm not saying the Cad on e-Bay is a good deal (the consensus is that it's not) but sometimes "good deal" is a relative term based on what the buyer is looking for.
Now if there are only 1 or 2 of these cars in the world, and 1 of them is no excuses, well, the sky might be the limit, yes.
If you get into a bidding war, it's good to keep in mind what happend in 1990-91. Some folks took a horrible beating on collector cars.