Barrett-Jackson
isellhondas
Member Posts: 20,342
I've been watching the ongoing Barrett-Jackson auctions the past couple of nights and I'm just amazed at the prices some of these cars are bringing!
But I'm sure in many cases, the restoration costs far exceeded the prices bought.
A lot of these cars are over restored far beyond they way they left the factory.
But I'm sure in many cases, the restoration costs far exceeded the prices bought.
A lot of these cars are over restored far beyond they way they left the factory.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But in some cases, the bids are just not smart, and the bidder would find it nearly impossible to re-sell the car privately for what he paid. I've seen some cars drop 30%.
Of course, the PREMIUM cars with HIGH DEMAND are holding steady but that's the cream of the crop. The rest of the crop is going soft.
Lots of European bidders by phone I'd bet. They're sick of old MGBs and little Alfas, they want to top-notch expensive stuff because they are shopping with Euros, so essentially they are only paying perhaps 70% of what you see the price listed at in USD.
In any event, none of the cars have sold with a reserve. B-J has strictly been a no reserve auction for the last five years or so.
Thanks, that's good to know, makes it more interesting, rather than a bunch of fishing exercises.
In addition to the prices paid, there is a 10% bidders fee to be considered too.
And, some of those cars, I keep thining, "what if something breaks".
A 1929 (I think) Nash went through last night. What in the world would a person do if somthing irreplacable were to break?
Not like a 1955 Chevy where they reproduce everything.
Well, that applies to lots of the pre-war stuff, there are shops that can make many of these parts from scratch - they are pretty lightly stressed. Not cheap, that's for sure. Also, there is some commonality in axles, engines, transmissions.
Restoration Advice
Host
Sometimes (now and then) I'll see a family bickering over deceased Dad's old car which they think is worth $50,000, only to find out that it's worth $6,500.
Talk about jaws hitting the floor. I just tell 'em "don't kill the messenger. That's what appraisers are for...we have no interest in the car, no mad passion for it, no desire or payoff attached--we just call 'em as the market directs us".
Or a divorce where hubby sunk $35,000 in a car worth $8,000. Wivey wants half, which is only fair, but it's going to be half of the market value, not half of the restoration costs.
B-J really distorts reality because we are viewing unusual merchandise sold under unusual circumstances----which is NOT the legal definition of fair market value.
I've had people come up to me and tell me the fintail must be worth 50K, as they see a new MB costing this much. They are shocked when I tell them 5K would be a very fair price for it.
Some of them are museum pieces and I can't imagine there are that many buyers with museums!
Do they drive them on nice days on city streets with their irreplacable
parts in harms way?
One thing is apparant, there are people with a LOT of money to throw around!
Did anyone see the 30' Miami Vice speedboat with 1150 horsepower that came with it's own custom Hummer and trailer?
What in the hell would anyone do with such a thing yet it brought (I think) 600,000!
A prototype UGLY 1963 Corvette went for over a million!
Amazing....
PERHAPS for these extremely rare &/or well-preserved/restored iconic cars, there will always be enough millionaires around to buy them.
Yes, the Miami Vice boat/trailer/Hummer sale was kind of nuts. But, the thing that gets me is the purchase of these non-vintage race cars. Where in the hell are you going to drive something like that? No where. Perhaps if you own a car dealership or a sports bar, you might buy something like that as a draw. But, for the price paid for these cars, you'd need to sell a heck of a lot of hot wings and beer.
Actually, one of my favorite cars at the B-J auction was this '67 Parklane convertible and it sold for only $16,000. Yes, I'm sure some will argue that $16K is ridiculously high for this car. But, where are you going to find another one - let alone SEE another one driving down the road? This car sold on Tuesday which is when grunts like me are in attendance. ;-)
I'd probably leave the fender skirts on. Yeah, they may be somewhat hokey, but they lend a bit of panache IMHO.
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.
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.
Just not a good color then or now.
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!
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.
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.
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.
1967 Mercury Brochure
Lots of pages of car models that I don't even remember - they sure did have it tough competing with GM!
As and example, a Riviera was SO MUCH better of a car than a Thunderbird.
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.
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.
It was popular at the time and most people liked it.
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.
.
Talk about UGLY!
BTW, today I saw a photo of '67 S-55 fastback coupe. Pretty cool car. The article I read on this car said that in '67, they quit making them about as soon as the production line started. The result? If you have one, it's a rather rare car.
If anything, at Chrysler, the Valiant and Dart were probably the best products!
It also seems as though Chevrolets after 1964 show a decline in build quality.
As for how Chryslers compare to Fords - in the old Popular Mechanics "Owners' Reports," it seems as though a larger percentage of Mopar owners complained about sloppy workmanship and build quality than Ford owners did, especially after 1965.
Per the 1965-66 Chevrolets, didn't they have some kind of problem with the motor mounts? I seem to recall my Uncle Charlie having some kind of front suspension problems with his 1965 Impala. Still, the 1965 full-size Chevrolets were beautiful cars. My favorite Chevrolet is the 1970 Impala/Caprice which uses the same platform as the 1965 model.
Yes, the Chevy V-8 motor mount defect was DIABOLICAL.
If the mount broke "just right", the engine would fall slightly to the right, yanking out out the power brake vacuum hose, resulting in the feeling of a very hard pedal and hardly any brakes; THEN (wait, it gets better!) if the engine fell further, it would lay on the steering arm, resulting in locked steering.
THEN (yeah, it gets better than that!) as the engine was falling to bind the steering arm, it would PULL THE THROTTLE OPEN....
So you had no brakes, no steering and a floored gas pedal.
Is that sweet or what? You couldn't PLAN to kill anyone better than that. :P
would the engine mount on the '65 Chevy tend to fail catastrophically right away, taking out the steering, brakes, and throttle at the same time, or would it be a gradual thing? So perhaps, if you knew what to look for, you could catch it before it got scary?
My '68 Dart crushed the engine mount on the passenger side twice. The first time, the engine dropped far enough that it interfered with the steering, and one of the grease nozzles actually ripped the exhaust pipe off. It fell down onto the steering, and made it bind up a bit. It's been ages now so my memory's a bit fuzzy, but I think I was still able to turn left normally, but it really hindered my ability to make a sharp right turn.
The second time it did it, I caught it before it got too bad. It was just starting to scrape.
**Edit: turns out that Olds 88 was a '63. I guess you really can find everything on the internet!
The "fix" was a clamp over the mount, so that WHEN it broke, the engine couldn't move too far.
Even in California, they would rust out by the rear windows.
It seems like GM tended to roll their sheetmetal thinner with each redesign back in those days, so perhaps that made the '65's more rust-prone than the earlier models? I guess '65 was also a rough year in general for quality, since there was so much out there that was all-new. With the exception of Imperial and perhaps Lincoln, all the Big Three standard sized cars were all-new. Plus, there was the Mustang, Gen II Corvair, and a heavily revised line of Mopar intermediates. It must have been really exciting at the time, seeing that much all-new stuff appear at once. I don't think there's ever been as much of an "All New" year since then.
The gen II Corvair was a lovely car, but it was already doomed.
Then of course there was the fabulous E-Type Jaguar, which was THE car to own, and which was really top dog in the eyeball department in 1965.
1965 was also the year that Mopar got serious about offering big cars again, and they definitely benefitted from it. Chrysler finally got off that small 122" wheelbase which was where a Dodge really belonged, while Plymouth offered its first full-sized car since 1961, while Dodge greatly expanded their full-sized lineup.
About the closest thing we'd get these days to another 1965 would probably be if the Big 2.5 all redesigned their full-sized trucks and a new Camry and Accord all got released in the same year.