£145,750 for this: am I missing something?

[LotusOmega375D]

https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...

[TR4man]

It doesn't even look like an SS100.

[Pistom]

There are a lot of silly kitcars asking crazy money these days as it's impossible to register anything newbuild without meeting current legislation.

Most of these are bitsa cars nailed together under a council house carport.

Cobra replicas seem plentiful but this beats even those monstrosities.

[alfaspecial]

£145,750 for this: am I missing something? Think the advertised price is adding something. Like the final nought (and the comma is in the wrong place!)

estimate £20-30k
http://www.classicandperformancecar.com/adams/road...
https://www.handh.co.uk/buy/1985-adams-roadster/13...

sold £17437.50 (yes, 50p) https://www.handh.co.uk/auctions/results-2/218/imp... LOT33

Edited by alfaspecial on Tuesday 19th September 18:09

Edited by alfaspecial on Tuesday 19th September 18:09

Edited by alfaspecial on Tuesday 19th September 18:12

[v8250]

No, not missing a thing and as others have said the decimal point is in the wrong place, especially as a pukka replica, brand new and factory built can be had here, built by Roger and the great guys at Suffolk Jaguar http://www.suffolksportscars.com/pages/suffolkSS10...

[Roy C]

I think there's a key word missing from the advert.

It should read Adams FAMILY roadster.

Maybe that would account for the monstrous price.

[Jukebag]

I think the "bitsa cars built under a council house car port" remark is abit of unfair and snobby to be honest. Nothing wrong in building ones own kit car in your own garage provided it's a good build, and at least it cuts out the greedy middle men (ie rip off garages and restoration places charging silly money). And I dont think most people having to live in a council house are considering building a kit car when it's the last thing on their minds considering most people in that situation can barely afford to make ends meet.

Yes that is silly money for something which dosent even look like the real thing, not even a passing resemblance (looks something like a Merlin or Spartan), but so is the 30k you would pay for a more authentic recreation. Who throws money like that away?...plenty it would seem.

Edited by Jukebag on Wednesday 20th September 09:45

[iSore]

LotusOmega375D said:

https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...

Peter Jarvis.


Say.No.More.

[iSore]

I like all the statuettes in the garden, classy.

[Pistom]

Jukebag said:

I think the "bitsa cars built under a council house car port" remark is abit of unfair and snobby to be honest. Nothing wrong in building ones own kit car in your own garage provided it's a good build,

Edited by Jukebag on Wednesday 20th September 09:45

Yes, you are right of course but my comment was meant to be deliberately cutting as I detest horrible things like this.

A world away from some great cars built at home.

Edited by Pistom on Thursday 21st September 11:01

[Plinth]

Roy C said:

I think there's a key word missing from the advert.

It should read Adams FAMILY roadster.

Maybe that would account for the monstrous price.

Looks more like a Morgan with a Marlin front end grafted on.
“..based on a 1935 SS100…”
I think he means SS90 as the 100 didn’t arrive until 1936.

[QuickQuack]

My first thought when I saw the pictures was also a Morgan and not what the idiots claim it to be. That in itself is flipping annoying too. Apart from not looking remotely like the real thing, and the wrong year/model combo, they've made the classic schoolboy error with an SS and called it a Jaguar SS100. Well it bloody isn't, it's an SS Jaguar 100. SS Cars Ltd was the manufacturer and the make, not Jaguar. At the time, Jaguar was just the model, like Fiesta, Escort or Focus and the error is compounded by not having a space between the letters and the numbers, so calling the original "Jaguar SS100" is akin to calling a Focus ST a "Focus FordST" (yes, the lack of a space between Ford and ST is intentional). It might be petty on my part but it's something that really annoys me (maybe I should put this down as an irrational annoyance in the thread in the Lounge...) and it just screams "bullstting conman" to me, especially when added to the rest.

[Allan L]

I agree with all those points about nomenclature, but we are not referring to a real car here so it's not that important.
If he had built even a half-convincing fake, what he calls it might have mattered but as he didn't it doesn't (in my view).

[eldar]

QuickQuack said:

My first thought when I saw the pictures was also a Morgan and not what the idiots claim it to be. That in itself is flipping annoying too. Apart from not looking remotely like the real thing, and the wrong year/model combo, they've made the classic schoolboy error with an SS and called it a Jaguar SS100. Well it bloody isn't, it's an SS Jaguar 100. SS Cars Ltd was the manufacturer and the make, not Jaguar. At the time, Jaguar was just the model, like Fiesta, Escort or Focus and the error is compounded by not having a space between the letters and the numbers, so calling the original "Jaguar SS100" is akin to calling a Focus ST a "Focus FordST" (yes, the lack of a space between Ford and ST is intentional). It might be petty on my part but it's something that really annoys me (maybe I should put this down as an irrational annoyance in the thread in the Lounge...) and it just screams "bullstting conman" to me, especially when added to the rest.

Robin Reliant appears far too often...

[Roy C]

It's probably William Lyons' fault for calling his earlier cars SS1, SS2, SS90.

Also, the DVLA have most of these cars registered as manufacturer Jaguar, model SS100.

You can't win.

Edited by Roy C on Thursday 21st September 16:28

[lowdrag]

When I was building the C-type, the DVLA said that the designation XK120C did not exist in their records. So not even a real C-type has the correct paperwork!

[aeropilot]

Surely, that price has to be a typo.............even Jarvis surely wouldn't be that brazen to put a mobile shed like that up for that money...???

Even £14,575 would have been an optimistic price........

As others have said, looks like a modded Morgan to me?

[iSore]

aeropilot said:

Surely, that price has to be a typo.............even Jarvis surely wouldn't be that brazen to put a mobile shed like that up for that money...???