Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

[Guest]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

The likely buyers/collectors of the 2002-2005 Thunderbirds may be of a generation not even born yet.

No one can predict what trends in fashion, cars, furniture or art might be popular 20,30, 40 or 50 years from now.

[jayred1]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

The retro may be a while nearing 6 figures, but Phil is dead-on about the history and the numbers. They appear to have bottomed out and in a holding pattern.

We've heard the "bottoming out" comment pop up for the past 10 years. I guess you might be correct - now that the values are in the teens for most TBs, the annual depreciation is "only" a few $100/yr rather than $1-2K/yr. But don't kid yourself, it's still downward and seeing the curve turn back positive may never occur for anything with 5 digits on the odometer.

Some here predicted six digit values within 10 years ... over five years ago. Now even they are saying it might be 50+ years.

[Guest]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

At prices of $ 10,000 or less, Retros may well be worth more for parts than the asking price for an operating vehicle. If you've looked for and/or priced replacement parts, you know what I mean.

As for future values, skeptics might want to consider the value of 1955-57 Thunderbirds, now 60+ years old. True there are fewer of them than the Retro, however, they were offered for only three model years vs. the Retro's four model year run. Production numbers are roughly comparable when you factor in the additional model year.

1955-57 Thunderbird sold for around $ 3,500 when new (more or less based on options, etc.) and now even 'average' examples bring $ 20,000-30,000, EIGHT times what they cost new. Complete, ground-up restorations can bring $ 80,000-100,000, 22-28 times what they cost new.

For a Retro to reach six figures, it would only have to bring roughly 2 1/2 times what it sold for new. Considered from that perspective, is six figures that difficult to envision?

A 20-fold increase in value for a fully-restored Retro would indicate a value of over $800,000. Yeah, I know, sounds insane. So does a $ 3,600 Dodge Challenger that now brings over $ 100,000, or a rare Hemi-Cuda that brought nearly $ 1 million.

No one ever conceived of values like that for those relatively 'common' cars back in 1970, and they were built in much larger numbers than the Retro.

[RustyFrye]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

December 4th, 1988 article... just thought it was interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/04/ma...pagewanted=all

[4LOWBIRDS+7]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

December 4th, 1988 article... just thought it was interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/04/ma...pagewanted=all

Thanks for clearing that up, I think.

[jerrym3]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

The likely buyers/collectors of the 2002-2005 Thunderbirds may be of a generation not even born yet.

No one can predict what trends in fashion, cars, furniture or art might be popular 20,30, 40 or 50 years from now.

Phil, they wouldn't even know what a Thunderbird is/was.

I don't get excited over a Model A or T. Old Packards, Hudsons, and Nashes are interesting cars to look at, but I don't want one.

I've said this before, but neither of my daughters or my son/in/law want the car, and their ages range from 35 to 50. My son/in/law wants a muscle car. My younger nephews don't get excited about the retro either.

I get positive comments on the street, but "nice car" comments don't equate to "want to sell it?".

Factor in inflation, storage, maintenance, and insurance costs, and I doubt if our heirs would come out ahead in the decades to follow.

[Guest]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

Phil, they wouldn't even know what a Thunderbird is/was.
I don't get excited over a Model A or T. Old Packards, Hudsons, and Nashes are interesting cars to look at, but I don't want one.
I've said this before, but neither of my daughters or my son/in/law want the car, and their ages range from 35 to 50. My son/in/law wants a muscle car. My younger nephews don't get excited about the retro either.
I get positive comments on the street, but "nice car" comments don't equate to "want to sell it?".
Factor in inflation, storage, maintenance, and insurance costs, and I doubt if our heirs would come out ahead in the decades to follow.

Model A's, Model T's, Packards, Hudsons and Nashes never excited me either. I'd seen and heard of them, but I didn't find them exotic and never wanted one.

I'd never heard of an Auburn 'Boat tailed' Speedster either, until I saw replicas of them being recreated for 'modern' buyers. Man did I want one of those! I like the Cord replicas also, the the Corvette framed Ferrari 'Daytona' Spyder was one of the more popular replicars ever built.

When future generations look back at autos of the 1980's - 2000's, there won't be a lot of standouts ... so many lookalikes. I still think the Retro will be among a few cars from that era that will be remembered, appreciated, and collected by future generations. Maybe it will be considered one of the last cars from the 'non-driverless' era. The last 'throwback' to the original Thunderbird introduced in 1955. The C7 Corvettes may also be in that group, but they are being built in much larger numbers.

Unique, low-prodcution, 2-seat convertibles will always stand out from larger production, non-distinct sedans.

[Rondor]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

A good look at car history over past 70 years tells a lot but not all. I have noticed that many of the desirable American cars of 30's and 40's are starting to fall back in price yet a recent surge in 50's. So it' is and always has been a crap-shoot. I certainly would hate to build a retirement around money tied up in cars. But a few toy's to play with aren't bad.

[AZTB]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

Had a chance to buy a 1941 Dodge business coupe when I was just 16, but it never happened...intact and ready to roll (my dad thought it was a bad idea to begin with).

[EllisonCal]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

I read La Phil's comments about increases in value from the 1955-57 era and today. It has less to do with the car's increasing in value and more to do with the inflation of the '70s and the loss of value in the U.S. dollar. Phil, you're in the Real Estate business you know that.

If we get double digit inflation again, everything will go up in price, but no one in their right mind wants that.

The cumulative effect of inflation since 1955 through Feb. of 2016 is 795.5%. Add another 2.1% for the last 12 months and you have almost an 800% increase in price. Put another way, that $3500 Tbird would cost around $32,000 in today's money. Likewise, a $35,000 house would be probably $320,000.

[jerrym3]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

Speaking of Nash, I never knew this:

In 1954 the Nash Ambassador was the first American automobile to have a front-end, fully integrated heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning system.[19] The heating and ventilation system was called Weather Eye and now could be equipped with Nash-Kelvinators' advanced Automobile air conditioning unit.[20] While other manufacturers in America at the time offered A/C on some models, their air conditioning units were driven by a large and heavy, trunk mounted expander and heat exchanger that carried the air into the car via clear plastic tubes and out through ceiling mounted vents. Nash's unit was inexpensive, compact, fit under the hood,[17] and could either circulate fresh or recycled air. With a single thermostatic control, the Nash passenger compartment air cooling option was described as "a good and remarkably inexpensive" system.[21] The option was priced well below systems offered by other carmakers (in 1955, Nash offered it at US$345, against $550 for Oldsmobile or $570 for Chrysler);[22] other makers, such as Ford, did not even offer optional air conditioning.[23] (At the time, even a heater was not always standard equipment.)[24]

[Guest]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

I read La Phil's comments about increases in value from the 1955-57 era and today. It has less to do with the car's increasing in value and more to do with the inflation of the '70s and the loss of value in the U.S. dollar. Phil, you're in the Real Estate business you know that.

If we get double digit inflation again, everything will go up in price, but no one in their right mind wants that.

The cumulative effect of inflation since 1955 through Feb. of 2016 is 795.5%. Add another 2.1% for the last 12 months and you have almost an 800% increase in price. Put another way, that $3500 Tbird would cost around $32,000 in today's money. Likewise, a $35,000 house would be probably $320,000.

Good point Cal.

And presuming that the cumulative effect of inflation from 2002 through say 2062 is even HALF the 795.5% you cited for the period from 1955 through 2016, that would indicate a relative value for Retros, based on their cost new of $ 160,000 when they are 60 years old. If inflation is roughly equal to the 795.5% figure, the indicated value would be in excess of $ 300,000.

From a practical standpoint for members here (and I suspect a large percentage of other current Retro owners), this discussion is purely academic because 99.9% of members here won't be around 45 years from now, when the 2002 Thunderbird turns 60. Even the youngest current TBN member will be pushing 80 by then.

[Rondor]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

Right !!!!!! So who cares ????????????????

[007Cruiser]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

Spotted this beauty of a Lincoln today while browsing Hemmings ads.

https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds...l#&gid=1&pid=1

[AZTB]

Re: Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale

Beautiful Lincoln, Gene...mileage on it is incredible (I preferred the '56 simply because of the rear styling and front lamps).