What constitutes a classic
Discussion
Hooli said:
That's about the only one that works.
Yes, but only if you can spend more on it today than it is worth? My cars could be burned to the ground today and rebuilt the way the market has gone, but not when I got them. I am totally against the fact that perceived vqlue is the main definition of a classic. If next year the project of the Magnette takes off, I will certainly be in for a big hit on cost/value, but then who cares? It's a passion.Hooli said:
a8hex said:
Hooli said:
That's about the only one that works.
So you'd rule out a Ferrari 250?Hooli said:
//j17 said:
The only deffinition that works for me is a old car that someone's willing to spend more on repairing than the car may end up being worth.
You can easilly pick holes in almost any other definition.
That's about the only one that works.You can easilly pick holes in almost any other definition.
In many cases I'd agree with you, but the problem is that this doesn't allow for valuable classics like the Ferrari I used as an extreme example.
I'd already pointed out the anomaly with this definition in my own garage.
I have a Jaguar X300 XJ6, which I wouldn't really claim to be a classic car yet, I still think of it as my every day car, however I'd be prepared to spend more on keeping it on the road than it's worth by any rational measure. I'd do this because I love my car. I also have a XK150, which by just about anyone's definition is a classic car, but it would have to fall foul of the how much are you prepared to spend on keeping it alive test. I wouldn't be prepared to spend that much money. I'd get killed if I tried.
As Lowdrag points out between our 2 posts, his car could be raised to the ground and rebuilt and still not reach it's nominal market value. By the time you reach true exotica it just isn't possible to spend their values on "keeping them alive", since the metal work could easily be re-done in it's entirety for a fraction of the market value.
Hooli said:
They might make money restoring an utter shed, but I'd hope it's not just done for financial reasons.
There are two ways of looking at this. On one hand it is sad that there are people restoring utter sheds purely because of the chance to make money. On the other hand it means that sheds are being rescued.//j17 said:
The only deffinition that works for me is a old car that someone's willing to spend more on repairing than the car may end up being worth.
You can easilly pick holes in almost any other definition.
You can easilly pick holes in almost any other definition.
Hooli said:
That's about the only one that works.
a8hex said:
Well you'd appeared to be saying that //j17's definition of a classic car being an old car where the owner is prepared to spend more than the car is worth on keeping the car on the road.
In many cases I'd agree with you, but the problem is that this doesn't allow for valuable classics like the Ferrari I used as an extreme example.
Umm, yes it does. I never said it HAD to cost more to restore than it was worth after, just that it was a risk the owner was willing to take.In many cases I'd agree with you, but the problem is that this doesn't allow for valuable classics like the Ferrari I used as an extreme example.
For your Ferrari 250 example, lets say someone buys one in need of full restoration for a price based on a final £20million value. Well that basket case car's going to be about £10million and to get top dollar you need to spend big, both for perfect/as factory body and mechanical work but also to buy/have re-manufactured and certified by Ferrari each and every missing unique bit and piece. Lets say you spend £5million doing this. Now lets have something burst the classic car price bubble (again) and watch the value of a fully-resored Ferrari 250 drop to £12million...
I'm not saying that WOULD happen, just that it could - and if the owner bought the car because he'd just always wanted to own a Ferrari 250 he wouldn't give a rats rectum about the value as, he owns a Ferrari 250. If he'd just bought it as an investment, well who cares ^_^.
a8hex said:
I also have a XK150, which by just about anyone's definition is a classic car, but it would have to fall foul of the how much are you prepared to spend on keeping it alive test. I wouldn't be prepared to spend that much money. I'd get killed if I tried.
Again, I'd say that proves my point. You would be WILLING to spend more than it's worth to restore it - just maybe not ABLE to.I'm willing to spend more than it's worth to restore a Triumph 2000, but having just bought a flat with only a single car garage it's going to have to skulk on my folks drive a little longer yet...
Edited by //j17 on Wednesday 29th April 09:43
//j17 said:
a8hex said:
I also have a XK150, which by just about anyone's definition is a classic car, but it would have to fall foul of the how much are you prepared to spend on keeping it alive test. I wouldn't be prepared to spend that much money. I'd get killed if I tried.
Again, I'd say that proves my point. You would be WILLING to spend more than it's worth to restore it - just maybe not ABLE to.//j17 said:
I'm willing to spend more than it's worth to restore a Triumph 2000, but having just bought a flat with only a single car garage it's going to have to skulk on my folks drive a little longer yet...
A Mk1 or Mk2?I have very fond memories of my old man's Mk2 2000. It was probably the cause of me buying a Dolomite as my second car.
I can understand your current priorities and you desire to do it one day.
The spend being more than the value of said shed is just a consequence of owning a classic isn't it, some are complete baskets yet on the road, and written off every fuel fill. Cars should be kept on the road, well some.
There are classics, and more recently 'modern classics', some of which are just 'the right car' from a period, often when they weren't looked after at the time, so are fewer, yet were perhaps a good car, and in a way that memories lasted beyond their condition, and sometimes becoming desirable to get back on the road if you can find them, and then considered classic. Some are just elite overpriced things that most are scared to drive, usually because they're so mileage sensitive, it's a joke. Or the owners can't afford to run them, they are classics because they must be according to someone. Some are simply regarded so by those that couldn't find anything else, such a status is defended to the end haha.
It is almost a challenge now, to keep a vehicle on the road that doesn't comply with 'euro' emissions requirements, so anything before that stipulation was an mot requirement, is a reason to qualify.
Some are just due to old school mechanicals, or pre can lines, pre high pressure fuel systems, pre airbags, pre crumple zones, pre obd, pre eml, whatever gives you reason to keep it nice and keep it going, makes it classic.
Just my2p
There are classics, and more recently 'modern classics', some of which are just 'the right car' from a period, often when they weren't looked after at the time, so are fewer, yet were perhaps a good car, and in a way that memories lasted beyond their condition, and sometimes becoming desirable to get back on the road if you can find them, and then considered classic. Some are just elite overpriced things that most are scared to drive, usually because they're so mileage sensitive, it's a joke. Or the owners can't afford to run them, they are classics because they must be according to someone. Some are simply regarded so by those that couldn't find anything else, such a status is defended to the end haha.
It is almost a challenge now, to keep a vehicle on the road that doesn't comply with 'euro' emissions requirements, so anything before that stipulation was an mot requirement, is a reason to qualify.
Some are just due to old school mechanicals, or pre can lines, pre high pressure fuel systems, pre airbags, pre crumple zones, pre obd, pre eml, whatever gives you reason to keep it nice and keep it going, makes it classic.
Just my2p
droopsnoot said:
It's a never-ending discussion. Should a Minor be more of a classic somehow than an Allegro, should we celebrate the Mk3 Escort but ignore the Mk4, is it down to age, or rarity, or interesting-ness? I doubt there's going to be a conclusive answer - there never has been before. My view is that pretty much anything could be considered a classic if there's something a little 'different' about it - which might be its age, might be how few survivors there are, might even just be that a specific one has been owned continually for 30+ years, or just that a few people want to celebrate them.
Agree with droopsnoot here. I'm sure the 'Classic' question has popped up on here many times - but I think it's all down to desirability. That could be in the form of the rarity of the car, memories from your youth and specific traits of the car (great handling/performance, etc).Back in the late 70's, our road was largely full of Escorts, Marinas and the like. Even as a young lad, I preferred the Escorts to the Marinas and Vivas that were around (possibly due to Ford's involvement in motor-sport - only the rare droop snoot Viva appealed from the other similar marques), and I think this is reflected in current prices. Similarly, I'm not sure many people really desired an Allegro, and they don't have anything else going for them (looks, handling, performance), so I don't see these as classics. The Morris Minor was, I believe, a fairly capable car in it's time, and has it's distinct styling on it's side. The upper end of the market, where the likes of Ferrari/Lamborghini/Maserati/Aston etc. reside will always have inherent desirability on their side - but I remember when Ferrari Dino's were 'only' £30,000 as no-one wanted them - but they were still 'classics' due to rarity and performance. It's a different story now, of course, but I think it highlights that 'classics' certainly don't need to be expensive vehicles, as cost can vary massively.
As for 'Future Classics', I think cars have to go through that well-established cycle of hitting rock-bottom (to get rid of the basket cases) before becoming desirable again. The last Capri I bought (2.0S - truly mint condition) I paid just £1,000 for - simply because by the nineties no-one wanted them. I want to cry when I see how much they have climbed in value since, and are now, IMHO, bona-fide classics. Now I just have to wait for the cycle to turn for my Puma!
I think it is as simple as one single metric: desirability.
An Allegro wasn't a classic until it became sufficiently desired that parts were being sourced.
If parts aren't cropping up on EBay or at auto jumbles then no one is desiring to own that model of car and therefor it isn't a classic.
It isn't about how many were built or whether the car was good or terrible or how old etc etc. It's made up by hundreds of tiny factors that have little mass on their own but all contribute to a vehicle becoming desirable.
An Allegro wasn't a classic until it became sufficiently desired that parts were being sourced.
If parts aren't cropping up on EBay or at auto jumbles then no one is desiring to own that model of car and therefor it isn't a classic.
It isn't about how many were built or whether the car was good or terrible or how old etc etc. It's made up by hundreds of tiny factors that have little mass on their own but all contribute to a vehicle becoming desirable.
Hooli said:
//j17 said:
The only deffinition that works for me is a old car that someone's willing to spend more on repairing than the car may end up being worth.
You can easilly pick holes in almost any other definition.
That's about the only one that works.You can easilly pick holes in almost any other definition.
Spent a lot of time and money restoring it.Owned it for seven years,traveled to many classic shows,steam rallies etc.
Finally sold it and made a profit.
Now my mint 1997 Mercedes SL320(R129)has become my NON daily driver,garaged and kept clean.Its so much better to drive than the Peugeot so I intend to use it on long distance classic tours,no problem there.I`ve also tried to enter it in some of my favorite shows and steam rallies only to find that some of the entry forms state its to new and wont qualify for a classic car show.
So my Peugeot was a classic and my Mercedes is not,apparently ? What do you guys think,would you consider a 1997 R129 SL a classic. The argument continues.
Allegros are a good example of my original point. Is age alone sufficient?. I had one as my first car. Hateful thing and to my mind, and at the risk of offending, something to be consigned to the rubbish bin of motoring history.Classic only in as much it is a classic example of a crap car.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff