Well, there goes the neighborhood!

[Guest]

In today's USA Today [Aug.6th]there is an article in the MONEY section, pages 1 & 2 relating to the value of collector cars. Just what the hobby needs. <P>Among other things it says that people are making big money investing in collector cars, like the Los Angeles man who expects to sell his Corvette for $75,000 and clear a $35,000 profit on the deal. Speculators will please form a line to the right. <P>There is also a chart entitled, "Cars with sales muscle," which lists a '67 Corvette as being worth $151,200 and a '56 Thunderbird @ $159,600. <P><B>WOW!</B> - Then aunt Martha's '65 Buick 4 door must be worth at least $100,000 and even more if we can get it to run. And that old rusty '57 plymouth out in the field behind the barn must be worth a fortune.<P>The point I am attempting to make here is NOT that a person does not have every right to sell his car for whatever he can get for it. It is that articles like this attract speculators and some outright crooks. And even worse, it makes every yahoo out there with an old piece of junk automobile believe it is worth a fortune.<P>Just thought I would bring this up to liven up the forum a bit. Basically the article says that muscle cars are really hot sellers at this time and that is the place to put your money. <P>hvs

[56clipper]

Hmmm, I think someone at USAToday ought to call up all the folks selling their '56 T-Birds in this month's Hemmings. All of those guys are asking under $40,000. We certainly wouldn't want them to be cheated out of the balance of their $159,000.

[Dynaflash8]

Speculators? How about the tax man? Typically these articles are written by thrill writers with about as much real knowledge of information as can be put into a thimble. The problem is, it's a free country and so long as the publication is willing to print drivil, it'll be there to print. <P>On the other hand, if someone wrote a counter article saying this was all nonesense and why, those same publications would consider it too boring and not print it.

[Bill Stoneberg]

For anyone who wants to read the article, <A HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-08-05-old-cars_x.htm" TARGET=_blank> Here is the link</A>. I love the guy who bought a rusted Superbird and expects only 20K to totally restore.

[Guest Skyking]

The same thing happened when The Antique Road Show hit the air on PBS. The people that had yard sales thought every item they were selling was a collectable. Prices on some junk were crazy.

[Guest]

Thanx HVS for bringing this to light. An article like this is one more avenue leading to the depletion of available autos for the people who want to use them for the reason they were built!! TO DRIVE AND ENJOY!!<BR>It's a "free" country and people can do with their cars what they want, but what about the little guy who just wants to re-live his or her youth or have an auto for the sheer enjoyment of it. Investors, hot-rodders, collectors, junkyards, people with agoraphobia(right dave?) etc. The pool of driven cars only gets smaller. Yes, we'd all like to get top dollar in the event that we sell a car, but it's spinning out of control. The article alone probably won't have that big of an impact, but it's one more straw that's crushing the camel's back.<BR>With the stock market in a weak phase, I'm sure investors are looking for alternatives and autos are on the list. Sorry to be long winded, but I'm sure other's hate to see the auto pool shrinking away. Had to vent!

[rocketraider]

Well, it's the late 1980s all over again- the stock market is down for whatever reason (corporate crook CEOS?) and the hot investment is again collector cars. And the daze of speculation will drive the value of our cars thru the roof- unless of course we decide to sell, and then the spec artists will howl and moan about our excessive price.<P>Someone once said, "there is nothing new under the sun". I had hoped we'd seen the last of the late-80s frenzy. I guess there'll be another crop of "investors" who drive up the price of rust til stocks recover, and then there'll be another crop trying to unload it for whatever they can get out of it.<P>$20 grand to restore a rusty Superbird... boy, is he in for a rude surprise. Sooner or later you gonna meet up with the truth face to face... Meanwhile, I think I'll go get my old rusty 76 Olds wagon that hasn't run in ten years ready to sell. After all, I should be able to take early retirement from the sale of it.

[Clincher]

And all of this just goes to show, what most of us already know. Ninety-nine percent of what we read in the popular press is total Hogwash! "U.S.A. Today" being probably the best example.

[Guest]

Amen Clincher. That goes for ALOT of other publications too. <BR> Since when has an automobile EVER been an investment???? They r strictly expenditures. I have a 48 indian i paid $50 for 30 years ago. Today its worth about $10-$20K. BUT, if u count my time (at one dollar/hour) , chasing parts, wild goose chases, and the price of parts i'd probably be loosing money. There is only one worse than a lemming and thats a journalist trying to put food on the table.

[Guest]

stay with the Wall Street Journal or NY Times. That USA today and IBD is for soccer moms.

[Guest]

When is an old car an investment? There is only one time.<P>When you drag home another old car and your wife says, "What did you buy that for?"<P>And you reply, "But honey, it's an investment!" <P>hvs

[Ron Green]

To everyone who though the vehicles in the Hershey car corral were priced high last year just wait till this year if alot of people read and believe the article.<P>Now how much do I here for a falcon parts car only 75% rusted?

[Guest JT]

hvs, I think you've hit on something there. I've been trying to convince my wife we need a second old car and this might do it.

[Dave@Moon]

Here's my favorite part of the article: In the chart of "Cars with Sales Muscle" (the one with the prices that're probably in Australian dollars), "1965 Corvette" appears twice with no distinction between them and two different prices. Now that's a well researched piece of information! <p>[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: Dave@Moon ]

[Dave@Moon]

Here's my least favorite piece of the article: Boyd Coddingham's <I>Chezoom</I> was sold for $183,600, which is used as benchmark for what customized '57 Chevys are worth. How much do want to bet 50 more BelAir Sport Coupes are now in line for chopping, channeling and nosing next year? How dissappointed do you think the owner will be after he tried to sell his new Venus de Milo?<P>Ruining a car can now be excused as a get rich quick scheme. What a country!

[Dave@Moon]

And who's the yutz who paid $120K for a Viper? I don't care if Madonna's water broke in the car, there no Viper even close to that yet. New Viper Venom's don't cost that much.

[Dave@Moon]

Oh, and I just figured out why the numbers don't crunch on the guy restoring the Superbird! <P>You see, according to the chart, he's working on the much more plebian "Pontiac Superbird". <P>I think I'm going to be sick.

[Guest]

The moment I saw the article, and saw the headline, with the guy calling a Corvette a "classic"...I knew EXACTLY what kind of people we are dealing with.... !<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Peter ~ I knew that one would drag you out of the woodwork. Bravo!

[ex98thdrill]

Howard,<BR> You did it again didn't you?? You picked another hot topic. I like these journalists who call themselves "automotive experts." Is this individual looking to buy a car for himself? For the prices that he's talking, I'll pay someone to deliver it to his door. But they have said that drug use is on the rise again. <P>I don't know too many people who ever restored old cars and joined AACA to improve their financial portfolios. Car collecting isn't an investment, it's an addiction. Just when you think you've bought your last collector vehicle, another one comes along at a price that you can't pass it up and then you have another one. $20,000 to restore a superbird? That I'd like to see. My dad and I restored a '37 Plymouth pickup for about $14,000. The only thing about it, is that aside from seat covers, engine millwork and chrome, we did everything in our shop, by ourselves. To buy a vehicle and to pay someone to perform a quality restoration, I don't see anyone getting anything done for less than $30,000. As a matter of fact, back in our shop as we speak, we've spent over $20,000 on a '40 Plymouth woodie wagon that isn't even close to being roadworthy. Now try doing a '50's vintage Buick or Cadillac? you'll spend over $5,000 just in chrome (and that's being cheap).

[Guest BruceW]

Last night I received an email though our region's website from a reporter asking if there would be any members of our region that would like to be interviewed and had photographs of their antique cars taken for an article he is writing.<P>At first didn't think anything out of the ordinary.. lots of our members and their cars have been featured local publications.<P>However.... when I looked at his signature card on the email, it shows him as the "Financial, Legal and Business" reporter for a Business Journal!!!!<P>Sounds like another reporter following the same topic.

[Guest]

Like flies to a dung heap! ~ hvs

[Bill Stoneberg]

Bruce,<BR>That could be a good oppertunity to show another side to the story.<BR>Hook him up with someone who has spent more money restoring a car then the car is worth.<BR>Ask him whay and have him tell about his/her love of the car.<BR>Of course it may not interest him at all....

[Steve Moskowitz]

"Jounalists", as they like to call themselves, in Chicago apparently gather their stories from USA Today or the Enquirer because this article has already spawned a TV report in Chicago. I guess if I was selling I'd be happy!<P>It reminds me all over again about the fiasco several years ago with Ferrari's....might be time for those folks to recover!

[Dave@Moon]

Bruce,<P>Bill is right. DO NOT MISS this opportunity to present the truth (or at least reality)!

[Guest]

Dave ~ Your signature line <I>Don't believe the hype</I> never applied more emphatically than it does to this subject. <P>Unfortunately <B>HYPE</B> sells newspapers and other "news" media. ~ hvs

[Guest BruceW]

I agree that this is a good opportunity for people to "hear from the other side". I sent back a reply and indicated that we would be interested in meeting with him. If he replies, I'll be sure to let you know how it comes out.<P>Instead of interviewing just single members, I suggested that he interview the club as a group to see the personal benefits of the hobby.<P>Of course, the facts of loving antique cars for their historical signifigance, the gathering of families for fun and fellowship, the overall enjoyment of driving an antique car and spending time with fellow hobbyists may be too boring for a news story. <p>[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: BruceW ]

[Peter J.Heizmann]

I am quite certain that many of us have at one time given an interview to a newspaper reporter, or, other news media.<P>Sitting here, I recall 4 times I have experienced it, and, in all 4, I was shocked/stunned to read the final product the next day, only to ask myself who in the hell did they interview. Two cases were foundry and machining topics on the industry. They made up words to describe the process, the machinery, twisted facts around, despite my asking if they "got it straight?" at the end of the interviews.<P>Unfortunately, a high percentage of readers believe whatever they read "just because it was in print". What has always concerned me is the subscribers to the National Enquirer and swear on a bible, that, it is true.<P>Fact of life that will never go away...<P>Regards, Peter J. <p>[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: Peter J Heizmann ]

[Guest]

In the 1960's I granted interviews to the Baltimore Sun and Baltimore Magazine relative to the antique car hobby. What was printed bore no relation to what I said and had enough crap in it to grow mushrooms. <P>At that moment I swore <B>NEVER</B> to again speak to <B>ANY</B> member of the media. That is one resolution I have stuck to religiously.<P>Even if they let you review the article, that does NOT mean they will correct it prior to publication. After all what right do you have to correct <B>THEM</B>. ~ hvs

[Peter J.Heizmann]

Amen, Howard...<P>For the benefit of this Forum's regulars, unregistered folks, closet readers, or, new readers, take the last 2 posts into consideration as to the validity of what you read.<P>Hopefully, do not take the U.S.A.Today article on face value. <P>My opinion: It is just a hobby not retirement income.<P>Regards, Peter J.

[Guest]

A little lesson I have preached for years.<P>When you read a news item or magazine article on a subject about which you have a great deal of knowledge, you will generally find a certain amount of misinformation.<P>Now read an article on a subject about which you know nothing or very little. It will appear to be accurate. Don't you believe it. It is as full of inaccuracies as the one on a subject you know well. <P>Do you really believe that they only make mistakes or misleading statements in the articles on subjects about which you are expert?<P>Hell no! Everything they write is full of inaccuracies. They are not just picking on your subject.<P>The old saying, "Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see," didn't just pop out of thin air. There is good reason for it.<P>hvs

[Guest]

Yeah, and it always amazes me that when someone doesn't like someone elses claim they always ask " what are your sources " or 'where is that documented'. Those are good questions. True. But quite often if claims are documented (at least publicly)they are at least skewed. If u dont have anything for sale then avoid the media. That INCLUDES book writers.

[Guest]

I am like most of you out there. I like to restore old cars and trucks for fun. <P>I have made money selling the cars but when you add up anything at all for my time and consider that my profit was always less than $1000 over my costs, you would see that I didn't make a dime. If I could sell a car for $10,000 over my cost I would still come out on the short end. <P>I have always said I could buy a restored car for less money than I could restore it for myself, <P>but where is the fun in that? <P>As for the media, I agree that 99.99999% of them know nothing at all about what they are saying. They just report what they have been told by someone that thinks he (or she) knows everything. (Not referring to any of you) Then they get it all mixed up and try to make it fit into a page or time slot on the news. <P>I ask you this, Would anyone out there reading this post pay $20,000 for a "rare" 1970 Plymouth Superbird that was rusted and had a busted engine? Better yet, would you pay $85,320 for this same car after someone pulled it out of the field and "restored" it? If so could you tell me why? And who would tell a reporter that they are going to double their money on a car? Maybe I should offer half on the next car I buy and see what happens.

[29StudiePrez]

I just read all the postings with great interest and it reminds of all the mis-information that is out there in print. As an example, and I am sure many of you who are involved with certain marquees will agree, are these books from CRESTLINE which many novice's and collectors use as a source of reference to identify different years and models. My particular specialty are Studebaker's, if you look in the CRESTLINE book "Studebaker Cars" written by James H. Moloney, either he, the editors, or the publishers must have taken literary license to just randomly assign models and years to any picture they published which just appeared to be close to similar years. I could write a book twice the size of the original publication giving details as to why a picture of a car is not a 1927 but actually a 1929. The sad thing about it is, once something is published, it creates a life of it's own and become "factual" when in reality it is usually far from the truth, such is the case with this particular Crestline publication, and I am sure those of you who have purchased similar volumes on your particular marquee have seen the same gross negligence. Actually "negligence" is not the word, ironically, a more appropriate word to describe it would be "Illiterate" on the part of the Authors and publishers. And so with the news media most can be described as "illiterate" because by definition, they are writing about subjects they are not educated in.

[Guest]

Three [3] days and thirty-three [33] posts on a subject of my choosing which I [HVS] opened with a rather strong position and <B>NOBODY</B> has disagreed or taken me to task. <P>What is wrong with this picture? <P>Surely there must be someone out there to defend the indefensible. Aren't there any media lovers who think we are being unfair on here. Is there no NAPIBM [National Association for the Preservation of Incompetent or Biased Media]to stand up for the 5th estate? <P>I just don't know how to cope with all of this agreement. <P>hvs

[Guest]

<A HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-08-05-old-cars_x.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-08-05-old-cars_x.htm</A> <P>Here is the article.<P>Howard, contact the author, suggest he read this.

[Dave@Moon]

Sometimes I wish there was a "rolleyes" graemlin for the message icon on a post!<P> <P>Do you guys have any idea what it's like to put accross information in the press on a truly complex subject? You should try talking to these guys in the form of a state environmental official. If you're quoted correctly,...well let's just say that's the first and smallest of a series of hurdles. We environmental scientists know <I>exactly</I> where the misconceptions of what we do and why we do it come from. <P>However, I object to the notion of rejecting or ignoring the media on the basis of their unreliability. The fact is that just by being a reasonable human being and registering an objection to an argument/concept/opinion/etc. a victory is gained. <P>Debate can be fostered. Information <I>may</I> be disseminated. Misinformation <I>may</I> be exposed. <P>But most importantly, and alternative is (however well or poorly) presented. <P>Having been trained several times on how to present creditable information in a creditable manor, I know of a few tips. #1: Be simple and direct. #2: Use small words. #3: Do not expound on answers unless asked, and then only minimally. #4 Answer/offer only what you can directly support. #5: Do not give multiple answers on the same subject, choose and stick to the shortest/simplest wording you can. #6: "I don't know" is often your friend. #7: If on TV, never wear even the slightest shaded lens glasses. And #8: If on TV, dress to match your eye color.<P>Even a poorly presented debate is better than silence. Eventually truth wins out if we speak up. Silence is submission! <P>And Howard is right about my tag line:<p>[ 08-09-2002: Message edited by: Dave@Moon ]

[R W Burgess]

Are you happy now Howard? W.

[Guest]

YES! The pressure was getting to me. ~ hvs