RE: Check out the most valuable Ferrari ever auctioned
Discussion
esixtythree said:
LotusOmega375D said:
One was made 60 years ago by the engineers at Scuderia Ferrari and has the provenance of 2nd overall at the Nurburgring 1000km and a works entry at Le Mans, as well as numerous later races. The other could have been made last week by a workshop in England.
If the one made in England was made better and drove better, I'd rather have that! If the original was badly made and drove like crap, the Nurburgring 2nd place 60 years ago or whatever isn't going to make it drive well. But then these aren't really cars and they're definitely not about driving.esixtythree said:
cidered77 said:
Who cares about what the owner does or doesn't do with it - it's an incredible thing, and it's worth $50m because that's what someone paid for it. Doesn't diminish how beautiful or wonderful it is at all.
Surely it does matter? Let's say every GTO was parked up tomorrow, covered up, never driven again and never seen again. In that scenario, what would it matter how the cars drive and look?I think it clearly does matter as a matter of objective fact. The debatable bit is the impact current ownership patterns are already having. Personally, these cars don't interest or excite me because in my view they are no longer bought, owned and used as cars. They've become something else entirely. I love cars, not instruments of wealth.
A well loved and well driven, I dunno, 348 is a more exciting prospect to me than these ridiculous trophies to wealth and status and ego and narcissism. I just can't take cars like this seriously as cars. All a subjective view, of course. Except the bit that is doesn't matter what the owner does or doesn't do with it. That absolutely has to matter. Exactly what you make of that is of course open to interpretation.
One is objective reality - I am no great Ferrari fan, but I can definitely appreciate the beauty and it's place in history- but the other is just speculation, as we don't know who bought it, and their motivations. And it inevitably risks taking you down a path of jealously and bitterness if you overthink it - so, think about the car instead I figure!
I don't like how unequal our world is as much as the next not-rabidly-right-wing man, but - to varying degrees, it was ever thus. And because of that inequality, the cars we look back at most fondly (generally speaking) exist.
Yeah a triumph TR7 has pop up headlights and I remember that being quite exciting when one turned up on our estate in the 80s - but it the Cannonball Run and a white Countach driving by the bus on a school trip that turned me into a car nerd: and those things were hardly build for "normal people"....
cidered77 said:
esixtythree said:
cidered77 said:
Who cares about what the owner does or doesn't do with it - it's an incredible thing, and it's worth $50m because that's what someone paid for it. Doesn't diminish how beautiful or wonderful it is at all.
Surely it does matter? Let's say every GTO was parked up tomorrow, covered up, never driven again and never seen again. In that scenario, what would it matter how the cars drive and look?I think it clearly does matter as a matter of objective fact. The debatable bit is the impact current ownership patterns are already having. Personally, these cars don't interest or excite me because in my view they are no longer bought, owned and used as cars. They've become something else entirely. I love cars, not instruments of wealth.
A well loved and well driven, I dunno, 348 is a more exciting prospect to me than these ridiculous trophies to wealth and status and ego and narcissism. I just can't take cars like this seriously as cars. All a subjective view, of course. Except the bit that is doesn't matter what the owner does or doesn't do with it. That absolutely has to matter. Exactly what you make of that is of course open to interpretation.
One is objective reality - I am no great Ferrari fan, but I can definitely appreciate the beauty and it's place in history- but the other is just speculation, as we don't know who bought it, and their motivations. And it inevitably risks taking you down a path of jealously and bitterness if you overthink it - so, think about the car instead I figure!
I don't like how unequal our world is as much as the next not-rabidly-right-wing man, but - to varying degrees, it was ever thus. And because of that inequality, the cars we look back at most fondly (generally speaking) exist.
Yeah a triumph TR7 has pop up headlights and I remember that being quite exciting when one turned up on our estate in the 80s - but it the Cannonball Run and a white Countach driving by the bus on a school trip that turned me into a car nerd: and those things were hardly build for "normal people"....
esixtythree said:
Surely it does matter? Let's say every GTO was parked up tomorrow, covered up, never driven again and never seen again. In that scenario, what would it matter how the cars drive and look?
I think it clearly does matter as a matter of objective fact. The debatable bit is the impact current ownership patterns are already having. Personally, these cars don't interest or excite me because in my view they are no longer bought, owned and used as cars. They've become something else entirely. I love cars, not instruments of wealth.
A well loved and well driven, I dunno, 348 is a more exciting prospect to me than these ridiculous trophies to wealth and status and ego and narcissism. I just can't take cars like this seriously as cars. All a subjective view, of course. Except the bit that is doesn't matter what the owner does or doesn't do with it. That absolutely has to matter. Exactly what you make of that is of course open to interpretation.
It doesn't matter at all. How a person uses an object is no concern of anyone but them. A car doesn't cease to be a car if it doesn't get driven. There are people out there who spend years building or a restoring a car and then sell it the moment it's finished. That doesn't mean they're not enthusiasts, it just means they get enjoyment from a different element of the hobby. It's the same for someone who enjoys cleaning cars, or taking them to shows on a trailer. You might get enjoyment/excitement from driving cars, but that doesn't mean that people who get that enjoyment in other ways are wrong, or are only doing it because of wealth or ego. Different people just like different things. The fact people keep bringing ego into it is a pretty big reflection on them in reality, and suggests that their problems with this car are not about the car at all, but about the rich people who can afford to buy them - illustrated perfectly by this post...I think it clearly does matter as a matter of objective fact. The debatable bit is the impact current ownership patterns are already having. Personally, these cars don't interest or excite me because in my view they are no longer bought, owned and used as cars. They've become something else entirely. I love cars, not instruments of wealth.
A well loved and well driven, I dunno, 348 is a more exciting prospect to me than these ridiculous trophies to wealth and status and ego and narcissism. I just can't take cars like this seriously as cars. All a subjective view, of course. Except the bit that is doesn't matter what the owner does or doesn't do with it. That absolutely has to matter. Exactly what you make of that is of course open to interpretation.
esixtythree said:
It's easy to justify the value when the whole thing is about ego projecting status. Less so when it's about cars and driving.
Why are you assuming it's about that? You don't know anything about the person that bought this car. Ironically, it's you that seems to be projecting something - bitterness towards people who have more money than you perhaps?thegreenhell said:
None of those things affect the physical object. The car raced at Le Mans, not you. The watch went to the moon, not you. It's not like you somehow get transported to the moon when you put the astronaut's watch on your wrist, so why are you paying more for somebody else's past experiences?
Because that's what some people enjoy. You seem to be trying to apply logic to something that is illogical. People buy some things for emotional reasons, not practical ones.julian64 said:
I think you're being naïve. Owning a rare car and never driving it isn't a car enthusiast any more than someone who collects rare thimbles is a sowing lover.
Collecting something because its rare, but never using it is being a collector, and is pretty much the death of the car.
Now I could be wrong but I think the stats are with me. For every person on the planet who would buy this car with enough money to risk driving it, there will be 100,000 people who would only afford it as an investment.
Only my opinion but the car would be better off as a photo on someone's wall and in reality died while doing what it was designed for. Its the analogy of being in a relationship with a supermodel who also happened to be a lovely person, or simply having a wax work figure of a supermodel in your house. With the wax work you are only seeing the most superficial expression of the person, and the same is true of the car.
It's not naïve in the slightest, it's just reality. As I said above, just because the driving element is part of your definition of cars or being a car enthusiast, that doesn't mean the same has to be true for everyone else. That's like saying that you are only a football fan if you support a certain club, or that you're only a music lover if you play an instrument. People get enjoyment from things in different ways. There is no right or wrong, and no defined way that a person has to behave in order to be deemed a car enthusiast. You're just trying to force your narrow definition onto everyone else. Collecting something because its rare, but never using it is being a collector, and is pretty much the death of the car.
Now I could be wrong but I think the stats are with me. For every person on the planet who would buy this car with enough money to risk driving it, there will be 100,000 people who would only afford it as an investment.
Only my opinion but the car would be better off as a photo on someone's wall and in reality died while doing what it was designed for. Its the analogy of being in a relationship with a supermodel who also happened to be a lovely person, or simply having a wax work figure of a supermodel in your house. With the wax work you are only seeing the most superficial expression of the person, and the same is true of the car.
esixtythree said:
If the one made in England was made better and drove better, I'd rather have that! If the original was badly made and drove like crap, the Nurburgring 2nd place 60 years ago or whatever isn't going to make it drive well. But then these aren't really cars and they're definitely not about driving.
Surely that's why both exist? The cheap knock-off satisfies people with your approach, while the expensive original satisfies those who want the original. There's room for both. Jon_S_Rally said:
It doesn't matter at all. How a person uses an object is no concern of anyone but them. A car doesn't cease to be a car if it doesn't get driven. There are people out there who spend years building or a restoring a car and then sell it the moment it's finished. That doesn't mean they're not enthusiasts, it just means they get enjoyment from a different element of the hobby.
Exactly, it means they're not driving enthusiasts, they're building something enthusiasts. Owners of GTOs are not driving enthusiasts. They are wealth and status and ego projection enthusiasts. All of the value is tied up in ownership and, somewhat tautologically, in the value of the thing. They only want it because it's perceived to be be valuable. Another physically identical things that delivers the same visual and driving experience is of no interest, because it doesn't offer the attributes desired as an instrument of wealth. It would just be a car, and it's not cars that the buyers are interested in.And what people do with things does matter. The original intended purpose of a device is irrelevant if it is never used for that purpose.
The driving experience of a GTO is of absolutely zero consequence if the car is never driven. That is an objective fact.
None of this need be terribly upsetting and controversial. We all buy things to some extent to project. There's an element of that in my own car purchases. I'd enjoy driving, say, a Subaru WRX but wouldn't dream of owning one because I couldn't cope with the ricer image, which is a bit shallow.
But it's probably harder to be introspective about such issues when it's the overwhelming constituent of the purchase and indeed the buyer's status is such a large part of their identity.
Jon_S_Rally said:
Surely that's why both exist? The cheap knock-off satisfies people with your approach, while the expensive original satisfies those who want the original. There's room for both.
Nobody said, as you are attempting to imply, that there isn't space for both. So I have no idea what you're on about! 
The question here really boils down to whether cars like this are, in practice, really cars. I'd argue not. They've become something else. Being able to build copies is neither here nor there in that consideration.
What's kind of amusing is that for the people who buy into to this stuff, the notion that they're still cars is so very important. It's a delicious irony. They've ended up putting all this money into a car, and they way the go about it all means it's not a car anymore! They buy it actually as an instrument of wealth, but for the whole cognitive ruse to hang together, it needs to notionally be a car. But they can't possibly use it as a car. It's all fantastically silly!
Jon_S_Rally said:
Why are you assuming it's about that? You don't know anything about the person that bought this car. Ironically, it's you that seems to be projecting something - bitterness towards people who have more money than you perhaps?
No, but that's the obvious go-to, isn't it, when your position is weak, to cast aspersions like that? I'm entirely comfortable with my financial position and wouldn't be terribly interested in a GTO at a price I can afford.Prefer my sports cars a bit more sophisticated and usable. Most driving enthusiasts have preferences re driving dynamics. A 60s shed with a live axle and carbs that fall out of tune all the time isn't really my thing. My favourites are from a more modern era with electronic ignition, independent suspension and sophisticated chassis engineering but before the driver aids became overwhelming. That's just a preference, but it's based on driving not values and status, which are irrelevant to driving.
But of course, it's laughable to talk about such issues on the context of a GTO. Because the thing has long since stopped being a car or defined by its driving characteristics. It's an instrument of wealth, and offers outstanding performance for that remit, no question.
cidered77 said:
One is objective reality - I am no great Ferrari fan, but I can definitely appreciate the beauty and it's place in history- but the other is just speculation, as we don't know who bought it, and their motivations. And it inevitably risks taking you down a path of jealously and bitterness if you overthink it - so, think about the car instead I figure!
I don't like how unequal our world is as much as the next not-rabidly-right-wing man, but - to varying degrees, it was ever thus.
Don't entirely disagree. I'm personally very New Labour on this - "relaxed about people getting filthy rich" as Mandelson said. By no means in favour of radical new means to redistribute wealth. I don't like how unequal our world is as much as the next not-rabidly-right-wing man, but - to varying degrees, it was ever thus.
But that doesn't mean pretending people spending $50 million on an old Donkey is about driving enthusiasm.
I'm not remotely jealous about this kind of car, it doesn't interest me. The fact that Carrera GTs went from a (relatively) attainable £250K to now likely forever beyond my reach, on the other hand, does make me a bit bitter!
esixtythree said:
No, but that's the obvious go-to, isn't it, when your position is weak, to cast aspersions like that? I'm entirely comfortable with my financial position and wouldn't be terribly interested in a GTO at a price I can afford.
Prefer my sports cars a bit more sophisticated and usable. Most driving enthusiasts have preferences re driving dynamics. A 60s shed with a live axle and carbs that fall out of tune all the time isn't really my thing. My favourites are from a more modern era with electronic ignition, independent suspension and sophisticated chassis engineering but before the driver aids became overwhelming. That's just a preference, but it's based on driving not values and status, which are irrelevant to driving.
But of course, it's laughable to talk about such issues on the context of a GTO. Because the thing has long since stopped being a car or defined by its driving characteristics. It's an instrument of wealth, and offers outstanding performance for that remit, no question.
Prefer my sports cars a bit more sophisticated and usable. Most driving enthusiasts have preferences re driving dynamics. A 60s shed with a live axle and carbs that fall out of tune all the time isn't really my thing. My favourites are from a more modern era with electronic ignition, independent suspension and sophisticated chassis engineering but before the driver aids became overwhelming. That's just a preference, but it's based on driving not values and status, which are irrelevant to driving.
But of course, it's laughable to talk about such issues on the context of a GTO. Because the thing has long since stopped being a car or defined by its driving characteristics. It's an instrument of wealth, and offers outstanding performance for that remit, no question.
You're making assumptions about all those who own GTO's unless you know them all?
The only thing one can say that they have in common is wealth - is that your issue?
AstonDamascus said:
Noting that many original 250 GTO (and 330 GTO?) owners now only drive 'Tool Room' copies of their cars (even when racing at Goodwood), one wonders if this car will ever see the light of day.
Shame.
Enzo would have been very disappointed.
But at US $50m a pop, would one really be surprised?
He'd be disappointed that he sold them too cheap or that he didn't stash one away to sell 50 years later.Shame.
Enzo would have been very disappointed.
But at US $50m a pop, would one really be surprised?
Robertb said:
With values like this I’m grateful to the owners who race them at Goodwood etc and give folk the chance to see them in proper action.
You don't REALLY think that those are the original cars do you?.. most are cloned [& accurate] replicas, with the original kept safe ''at home''. And can you blame the [very wealthy] owners?. Edited by mehere on Wednesday 15th November 14:04
Edited by mehere on Wednesday 15th November 14:05
mehere said:
You don't REALLY think that those are the original cars do you?.. most are cloned [& accurate] replicas, with the original kept safe ''at home''. And can you blame the [very wealthy] owners?.
I'd race my real one. I presume a scratch build costs late hundreds of thousands all done.
Smacking your genuine example into a bollard will probably cost a few thousand or tens of thousands to repair. And it'll add extra 'patina'.
Gotta economise somewhere along the line.
gruppeb86 said:
Bloxxcreative said:
Seems a tad overpriced to me.
100% agree. Also commentary above regarding different levels and the super rich doesn't sit well with me. It's a gross and frivolous piece of expenditure likely through copious amounts of profiteering without a care in the world for those the money is being extracted from. Our society is aguably more disproportionate than has ever been before.The assumption that the rich have gotten their wealth immorally smacks of jealousy, to be frank.
I applaud the person who bought this car. If I met him, I'd congratulate him on his success, not look down my nose in scepticism about how he obtained his money (providing it wasn't illegal)
mehere said:
Robertb said:
With values like this I’m grateful to the owners who race them at Goodwood etc and give folk the chance to see them in proper action.
You don't REALLY think that those are the original cars do you?.. most are cloned [& accurate] replicas, with the original kept safe ''at home''. And can you blame the [very wealthy] owners?. Edited by mehere on Wednesday 15th November 14:04
Edited by mehere on Wednesday 15th November 14:05
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff