Hi,
My grandparents had a 61 Dodge Seneca and I really have no intention in
owning one. A study in ugly is not the word for it. I grew up with a
family that purchased Fords, Dodge and Plymouth products and never had the
urge to own one. I did not even remember what a 61 New Yorker looked like
and don't remember seeing them when they were new. The first time I was
shown one of the three that I now own I fell in love. I purchase cars by
what I like not by what I grew up with. The market is not this way for most
people though. Neal is right when he states that most of the collector car
market is ruled by what people remember and not what is more interesting or
collectible. This makes the mundane cars value go up and the limited
production cars suffer for this when they should be considered for their
beauty and innovation. I personally don't see this ever changing as I have
been collecting cars for over thirty years and still see the same practices
that have been going on for all these years. The first thing that I do when
considering a car for sale is look at production figures. If there were
less than 5000 cars produced that is when I am interested in that car. I
don't want to show up at a show and have ten other cars like mine there. My
cars usually draw a croud because they are interesting. They are still
looked down upon because they are not main streem cars but the few that see
the beauty in them are the people that really matter to me.
Ken
>From: "Neal Herman" <chrycordoba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: IML: Skewed values of Imperials
>Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 12:46:38 -0500
>
>Observing people's reactions to my cars and what they think they are worth,
>it appears to me to be a result of what they're familiar with. Many more
>people could afford Chevys and Fords through the years than could afford
>Imperials or Cadillacs. If they later have an interest in old cars, I
>think they tend to consider why, and realize that they want cars that they
>grew up with in the simpler times of the Eisenhower or Kennedy/Johnson era.
>Since daddy had a Chevy, that's what they seek, no matter what the cost.
>Since Mr./Ms. Collector's first car was a Mustang, that's what they want.
>If daddy had an Imperial, then that may be what they'd try to find. Fewer
>people owned Imperials then, so fewer want them now - a simple case of
>supply & demand. I have a friend whose family owned what I half-kiddingly
>call low-rent grandma-mobiles: Valiant, Dart, Fury 4-door post sedans with
>few options. He now can afford Imperials, but he gravitates toward these
>plain-Janes. Even when he was finally persuaded to get a gorgeous
>low-mileage '61 New Yorker, he's now decided that he's not comfortable with
>it (too big, too many options to go wrong - even though they don't), so
>it'll be the first to go when he finds the next '61 Dodge Seneca (a study
>in ugly, IMHO!)
>
>The guy from whom I bought the Aquitania is another case in point. He
>inherited the Imperial from a very close friend, but when he had the
>opportunity to acquire his parents' '57 Chevy that he grew up with and took
>trips in, the Imperial was put on the block so he could get and restore the
>Bel Air. At the time, this concept mystified me, but I understand better
>now.
>
>Those '50s families who had Chevys and Fords likely one day dreamed of the
>day they could move up, and the perceived pinnacle of status was the
>Cadillac, not the Imperial, alas. The current crop of collectors remember
>this, and even though they may finally have that Bel Air, what more obvious
>statement to say "I've arrived!" than to buy a '59 Cadillac, the '50s
>symbol of excess. Nowadays, a pristine Eldorado would go for twice as much
>as a comparable Imperial convertible, LeBaron, Continental or even post '57
>T-bird.
>
>Those who owned a Mustang in high school, college, or shortly afterward may
>have also wanted a Super Bird or Trans Am or something of that (icky)
>muscle car ilk. An Imperial is just some big car the country club
>Establishment owned that the boomer had to maneuver past to see the Hemi
>Orange 'cuda. Unfortunately, I don't ever see that a late '60s or newer
>Imperial will ever attain the price levels commanded by the muscle cars.
>If there's any good news in that, at least Eldorados, Lincolns, Mark
>III/IVs, Electras, Toronados, and even my boattail Riviera aren't going to
>do much if any better.
>
>I was approached last weekend by a maintenance worker for the apartment
>building where I garage my Imperial and Riviera. He had never seen the
>Imperial uncovered, and asked what it was worth. I told him realistically,
>maybe $10,000, and, God willing, $15,000 when it's all restored with new
>interior, etc. He was flabbergasted that it wasn't the $40,000 that he
>thought. If someone offered me $40,000, I'd probably be the only one in
>history to MAKE money on an Imperial!
>
>People like the seller on eBay with the '55 Imperial Newport hear from
>folks like the guy in my garage, and get this inflated opinion that their
>Imperial, or Lincoln or Buick Limited is worth beaucoup bucks. "Since it's
>more luxurious and exclusive than a Chevy Bel Air, and people tell me I
>should get $40,000, then it MUST be worth that." Well, if it were a
>Cadillac, maybe, but it's not. I wish things would change, because each of
>these three are fine, unique cars, but I don't see that ever happening, at
>least for many years.
>
>Hoping to be proven wrong, have a Merry Chrysler and an Imperial New Year,
>everyone!!
>
>Neal Herman
>1959 Imperial Crown 4-door Southampton "Aquitania", an acknowledged
>loss-leader, and I DON'T CARE!!
>1972 Buick Riviera "Bianca d'Azur", a pristine, well-maintained original
>which I might break even on, if I ever sell her
>1983 Chrysler Cordoba "Christine", which will never be a collectible, but
>will be an interesting nostalgic Reagan-era car in all her plastic glory
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network