Two Days of Collector Car Auction Action Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Australian RR Forums » Idler Chatter » Archive to 2017 » Two Days of Collector Car Auction Action « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Randy Roberson
Grand Master
Username: wascator

Post Number: 531
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Sunday, 18 October, 2015 - 12:26:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Here in beautiful southwest Missouri USA.
a beautiful, near-pristine '86 Corniche in nutmeg with tan top and interior brought $44000 USD plus 8%. A lovely '59 Jaguar Mark IX did not meet reserve with a high bid of $43,000. A nice '53 XK 120 got $46,500; a 1950 Jaguar Mark V 3 position drophead was knockdown gorgeous but did not get the reserve of $90,000.
Most unusual car by far: a 1969 NSU RO-80, the first production Wankel-engine car? lime green and near perfect; $18,000 bid but not quite enough to take it home. I have only seen these in magazines until today. Funny the driver for the auction could not get it to move. It has a clutchless manual; turns out the driver must remove the hand from the shift lever before the clutch, operated by a vacuum lever, will engage and allow the car to move. The clutch is released by grabbing the shift. Other than the Wankel engine, the layout was similar to an Audi: engine longitudinally mounted ahead of the transmission and front wheel drive. Inboard disc brakes in front though.
Biggest, blackest car there: 1956 Continental Mark II: gorgeous but the high bid of $45,000 would not take it home.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Randy Roberson
Grand Master
Username: wascator

Post Number: 533
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Tuesday, 20 October, 2015 - 06:20:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

A nice Corniche; An NSU RO-80, first I've seen in person
Corniche
1969 NSU RO-80
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Noel Reddington
Grand Master
Username: bob_uk

Post Number: 628
Registered: 5-2015
Posted on Tuesday, 20 October, 2015 - 09:16:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

The RO 80 I have only seen two. A white one and a Blue one. Nice looking cars. The standard repair was to put a Ford V4 Essex and scrap the wankel. Shame but the tip seals used go and score the "bores". Mpg was bad as well. NSU went broke over warranty claims. Engines were failing in a 1000 miles. AUDI bought the remains of NSU. NSU also made some nice Motor bikes.

Also the RO 80 had a touch sensitive gear lever which disengaged the clutch briefly for fast gearchanges. Like CitroŽn CX and Truimph motor bikes slick shift and Honda Cub step through. The Triumph one was unreliable and a wheely could result. 650cc engine. The clutch would suddenly slam in after a up ward gear change. 1st to 2nd could be brutal.

Corvette String Ray in yellow in the background. Unusual colour.

The Corniche is nice but not my colour. I think the wheels do suit the car better than the Shadow Type.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Randy Roberson
Grand Master
Username: wascator

Post Number: 534
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Tuesday, 20 October, 2015 - 11:10:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

You are right about the shift: the auction driver could not get the car to move and thought something was wrong with it. It looked so good I was confident it was not brought there with a problem. They got the owner who demonstrated that one's hand had to come off the lever before the vacuum/actuated clutch would engage. It was in near-pristine condition and I really enjoyed seeing it in person.
There was an Aston Martin Lagonda: the angular luxury sedan they built less than 700 of. Someone painted it white pearl and redid the interior in tan leather and put a Corvette LT-1 engine in it. Supposedly it was used in an ad for Elizabeth Taylor's White Diamonds perfume . Did not make the reserve of over $80,000 U.S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Noel Reddington
Grand Master
Username: bob_uk

Post Number: 630
Registered: 5-2015
Posted on Wednesday, 21 October, 2015 - 05:17:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

I wouldn't buy an Aston Martin without an Aston Martin engine in it. Brian Towns designed the car I think. The Electronics in the Aston Martin Bulldog Lagonda was touch sensitive like a modern computer screen. It was so unreliable. Also the touch pad would get very tatty looking.

The Elizabeth Taylor connection is being used as a selling tool. She probably sat in for 5 mins had a few photos and picked up a cheque.

Astons like Royces are generally brought new by people with loads of money and it follows that quite a few had famous owners at one stage. Which doesn't mean the car was properly maintained. Elton John wouldn't worry if the engine in his RR blew up because he would simply buy another. Famous owner guarantees nothing.

Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones had a Bentley S type Continental called Blue Lena. He sold the car because it was worn out. He drove the Bentley all over Europe and North Africa.

I like old car auctions I see some nice cars. Like a pink 1959 Caddilac coupe and a GMC army tank recovery truck.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jan Forrest
Grand Master
Username: got_one

Post Number: 859
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Wednesday, 21 October, 2015 - 20:07:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Have to agree with the lack of care that some famous owners exhibit with their cars. However the Cadillac that Elvis shot because it wouldn't start is still going strong and even the original bullet holes are in pristine condition.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christian S. Hansen
Frequent User
Username: enquiring_mind

Post Number: 69
Registered: 4-2015
Posted on Wednesday, 21 October, 2015 - 22:03:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

"Pre-owned" Rolls-Royce and Bentley are amoung the few examples of "Used Merchandise" where occasional subsequent owners revel in "name dropping" who the merchandise was no longer good enough for. Odd.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brian Vogel
Grand Master
Username: guyslp

Post Number: 1712
Registered: 6-2009
Posted on Thursday, 22 October, 2015 - 00:26:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

If one has ever watched Antiques Roadshow it's abundantly clear that "the right provenance" that can be verified very often adds significant value to a given item.

Celebrity provenance for "top shelf" celebrities is definitely "the right provenance."

Blue Lena that belonged to Keith Richards recently sold at auction for an astronomical price far above the usual going rate.

Prior ownership history of the celebrity sort doesn't add monetary value to me, but it certainly does add a kind of je ne sais quoi.

Brian, who also doesn't think that selling something necessarily comes because it's "not good enough." Other factors are often at play.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Noel Reddington
Grand Master
Username: bob_uk

Post Number: 634
Registered: 5-2015
Posted on Thursday, 22 October, 2015 - 05:59:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Provenance is not about famous owners. My car has provenance. It was brought new by an engineering company and had VGU***M. It was sold to a pub landlord then me. The pub landlord re registered the car BRV***

Brian Vogel do you have a middle name

More than one person has changed their name to suit their car number plate.

I had a car with ROY ***K. I sold it to a Roy and he left of the K. He drove around like that for years before he got told off by a cop. No fines just a word in his shell like.

Nowadays the cops are hot on "altered reg plates" because of ANPR equipment. Also post 1972 cars must have white at the front and yellow rear not black with white letters.

Recently HRH Princess Diana's Ford Escort turned up. The owner paid £6000 for a 1983 Escort. At auction the best bid was 350 quid. It's of passing interest only.

Some famous owners do add value, but the car needs to be something like a Deuzzy and owned by Clark Gable. I have actually touched that car.

People like Elvis had loads of cars and Elvis wouldn't really care about his cars. Elvis has been dead for 30 years so thinking an ex Elvis car would have been well looked after would be a mistake.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christian S. Hansen
Frequent User
Username: enquiring_mind

Post Number: 70
Registered: 4-2015
Posted on Thursday, 22 October, 2015 - 08:54:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

While it may be true that isolated instances may evoke interest based on truly famous personages, rather than simply run of the mill rich folks, and remembering that RR/B were ALL originally purchased by the wealthy and not the working classes, and most of those were famous to at least some extent by virtue of their position in life, if not outright notoriety, I would discount whether that "lineage" adds anything other than idle conversation value. For instance, my 1968 MPW Coupe was originally ordered by a retiring US Army General (never bothered to determine his name as I don't care). Even if was, for instance, Eisenhower, I cannot see how that materially affects the value of the machine, does anyone else? My 1929 Springfield Phantom I Trouville was owned by Florenz Zigfield of "The Zigfield Follies" fame and married to Billie Burke, the good witch from Wizard of Oz, but aside from whatever chorus line applicant "interviews" may have transpired in that back seat, does that really add any real value, other than interesting story, to the machine? And finally, when I purchased my 1933 Phantom II Freestone & Webb Sportsman's Saloon, I was told that the prior owner, upon discovering that it was originally owned by some wealthy department store owner in England, and writing to the current family alerting them that he now owned the Rolls-Royce their Grandfather once owned, presumably expecting to be given a brass band parade, welcomed as a long lost member of the family, and spending warm evenings around the fireplace recalling the good old days and "grampa's" magnificent old saloon, instead received the courtesy of a curt reply in the form of a letter from the secretary esentially saying "So what?" So...while there are those who would fawn over "who once owned their used car", to most of those original owners, it is really a matter of "so what?" Fawning appears to be a one way street.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brian Vogel
Grand Master
Username: guyslp

Post Number: 1713
Registered: 6-2009
Posted on Thursday, 22 October, 2015 - 12:10:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

If Bob and Christian wish to ignore and/or dispute the point I was attempting to make, so be it.

I have yet to see an instance were *major* celebrity ownership of virtually any item as part of its provenance doesn't add value.

I'm not arguing that it should, but evidence is that it generally does, and the more famous (or infamous - in certain instances) the owner is/was the greater the value premium.

Brian, who doesn't care about the admiration being mutual - that's not important at all
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Patrick Lockyer.
Grand Master
Username: pat_lockyer

Post Number: 959
Registered: 9-2004
Posted on Thursday, 22 October, 2015 - 17:00:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

"I have yet to see an instance were *major* celebrity ownership of virtually any item as part of its provenance doesn't add value."

Better read up about this RR this famous wonky owner.
Maybe you will change your mind.

http://news.sky.com/story/996611/buyer-of-jimmy-saviles-rolls-royce-gutted
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Benoit Leus
Prolific User
Username: benoitleus

Post Number: 221
Registered: 6-2009
Posted on Thursday, 22 October, 2015 - 17:11:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

This is another example of someone paying over the odds because of celebrity ownership.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufacturers/rolls-royce/9800120/Freddie-Mercurys-Rolls-Royce-sold-for-74000.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jan Forrest
Grand Master
Username: got_one

Post Number: 860
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Thursday, 22 October, 2015 - 19:37:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Not all negative associations are as negative as you might think

Zeig Heil ... er, perhaps not.

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/mcr/article/view/17835/22142
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob Reynolds
Grand Master
Username: bobreynolds

Post Number: 343
Registered: 8-2012
Posted on Thursday, 22 October, 2015 - 21:31:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

""I have yet to see an instance were *major* celebrity ownership of virtually any item as part of its provenance doesn't add value."

Better read up about this RR this famous wonky owner.
Maybe you will change your mind."


That story actually proves Brian's point. Nobody would have paid anything like £160,000 for the car if it wasn't for the famous owner.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Randy Roberson
Grand Master
Username: wascator

Post Number: 535
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Friday, 23 October, 2015 - 00:27:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Americans may be more celebrity-impressed than other people.
Then again, some people are betting on others valuing the car in question higher, while not caring otherwise.
Personally I could care less. Celebrities are usually far from the most interesting people.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas TRACHSEL
Frequent User
Username: jonas_trachsel

Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Friday, 23 October, 2015 - 03:37:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Jan
I think you wanted to write: "Sieg, Heil" (=Victory, Salvation). That's what was bellowed 75years ago a couple hundred Kilometers north of where I live.
"Zeig" is the imperative form of "show, demonstrate".
Jonas
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jan Forrest
Grand Master
Username: got_one

Post Number: 861
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Friday, 23 October, 2015 - 04:48:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

So that's all zeig and no gehen.

Nope, that doesn't work.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Noel Reddington
Grand Master
Username: bob_uk

Post Number: 635
Registered: 5-2015
Posted on Friday, 23 October, 2015 - 06:01:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

I wasn't disputing celebrity owners add value. But its well dodgy to value a car extra because of a famous owner. So many have come unstuck by paying silly money for an old car.

In the UK the Royal cars usually end up at the Motor Heritage museum at Gaydon Warwickshire UK. The cars will never be sold. Charlie Windsor's Aston Martin will probably end up in Beaulieu rather the Gaydon.

A recent exception is a Phantom 5 or 6 which the Real Car Co. has.

If you had a Phantom with holes in the front of the roof where the Royal Crest went would you weld them up or just fit nice looking bolts instead. Those holes are provenance.

I helped out with a car that had won the Exeter hill climb in 1950s. The car had been heavily racing bodged up. We had photos of the car in the hill climb. We rebodged it to the same as that day when it won. That's provenance. Some wanted the car to look new as it left the factory in 1926. But the car would lose all its history. One guy got so upset about orange boxes being used for floor boards that he left. The floor had Jaffa printed on them.
The car. Bayliss Thomas with Meadows engine and gear box. The owners were National Motor Museum at Beaulieu Hampshire UK.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christian S. Hansen
Frequent User
Username: enquiring_mind

Post Number: 71
Registered: 4-2015
Posted on Friday, 23 October, 2015 - 10:40:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

"Value" is both at times fixed and other times variable, but typically is determined by what someone is willing to pay,and usually driven by perceptions of desirablity.

Most people would agree that a $50 gold coin is more valuable than an apple, but what if you were on a desert island and starving? Which would be more valuable?

Typically there are components of value: intrinsic and "blue sky". The intrinsic is more predictable. The blue sky is more volatile.

It is also vividly apparent that in an auction setting the best "value" is found when there are at least two bidders who desperately want the same item, as opposed to when there is only one.

In the example of the $160,000 Corniche, the blue sky valuation was vastly overestimated, accordingly highly volatile, and the value reverted to the intrinsic value.

In the case of the Silver Shadow owned by Freddie Mercury selling for $74,000: In the photo it presented nicely, so its intrinsic value may have been in the viscinity of perhaps $24,000 depending on actual condition. Maybe a bit more maybe a bit less, but that intrinsic value has been determined by numerous comparable sales and is thus not all that volatile. The extra $50,000 paid was strictly blue sky based on the individual desires of the bidders and is subject to volatility. No doubt there were the requiste two bidders at the auction, both fans and likely with every "Queen" album in their collection. For someone else, for whom "Queen" referenced to "HRH QE II", the intrinsic value would be the actual value. It can be seen that the blue sky valuation is quite elusive, subject to opinion, and highly volatile. What would happen if it turned out that the Shadow was actually not owned by Mercury, but instead simply registerd to him as a gift to his "Dear Mom". Reversion to intrinsic value, I presume, but with no disrespect to his Mom intended. Blue sky volatile, intrinsic value static. Call me crazy. Heap me with scorn and ridicule. I value an item based on intrinsic quantifiable condition and rarity rather than prior ownership, which to me is a bit like "exhaled breath". When "My car was previously owned by so and so" is part of the first words of introduction describing a car, I have to restrain my tendency towards laughter. Sure, its is of conversational interest, but only secondarily so. If someone idolizes a prior owner and desires to add blue sky to the valuation, such is their prerogative, but to me that additional valuation is unique to that individual and not truly representative of value.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brian Vogel
Grand Master
Username: guyslp

Post Number: 1714
Registered: 6-2009
Posted on Friday, 23 October, 2015 - 13:50:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Me: I have yet to see an instance were *major* celebrity ownership of virtually any item as part of its provenance doesn't add value.

Patrick Lockeyer: Better read up about this RR this famous wonky owner.
Maybe you will change your mind.


Bob Reynolds: That story actually proves Brian's point. Nobody would have paid anything like £160,000 for the car if it wasn't for the famous owner.

Precisely, it's the exception that proves (as in the original sense, "to test") the rule. That car would never have commanded that price without its ties to a celebrity. This happens to be an instance where the specific nature of later discovered infamy is profoundly value damaging, once it's known. Fame increased the price and infamy brought it back down. There have been lots of instances where "the right kind of infamy" pushes prices through the roof. One need only look at the very recent news of the $2 thrift-shop photo that turns out to be of Billy the Kid and family, and its auction estimates now, to see that at work.

I can't argue with Mr. Hansen's "intrinsic versus extrinsic value" argument since I've used it myself. But when it comes to cold, hard cash value the particular type becomes relatively irrelevant. For myself, I've always been an "intrinsic only matters" kinda guy. We seem to be in the minority.

Brian
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christian S. Hansen
Frequent User
Username: enquiring_mind

Post Number: 72
Registered: 4-2015
Posted on Friday, 23 October, 2015 - 15:46:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Not to argue with Brian too much, but I guess what I was saying is that the components are first, "fact" and then, "opinion". Condition, aka intrinsic value, is a relatively quantifiable fact. As to the status/fame/celebrity added "value", that is entirely in the eyes of the beholder and thus volatile. Some may be more definitive that others, say an Abraham Lincoln signed letter, Hitler's personal dagger, newly discovered photo of Billy the Kid (?...hmmm...I imagine it was endorsed on the rear, "this really is my photo, Bill the Kid"?), with well recognized fame or infamy status, but when it comes to the "Elizabeth Taylor sat in this car during a photo shoot" type of hype "provenance", I have to be heartily skeptical, or at least amused by those who would fall for that. I guess my point was simply that while celebrity connection may or may not add value, it is not the least bit quantifiable and is subject to opinion shifts. I suppose that if one is in the enviable position of being able to spend 160,000 pounds "on a whim", as the buyer confessed, then this discussion is irrelevant and such decisions become simply the way that the Universe was telling the fellow that he had too much money! Either that, or as PTBarnum observed about suckers being born every minute! My limited financial resources are strictly reserved for quantifiable resale value, thank you very much!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter Toet
Experienced User
Username: peterpackard

Post Number: 26
Registered: 1-2015
Posted on Friday, 23 October, 2015 - 18:03:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Hi all, This thread really alerted me to the reason why we "collect" items....it's because we want something which is special to us. The original thread detailed the results from an auction and included mention of the RO80.
Funny about that, I had always wondered if the RO80 was any good. Top gear had a glowing report on them in 1994 ( engine seals were fixed in late 1968, with life expectancy over 200,000km but warranty claims bankrupted NSU). Approx 192 NSU RO 80's were sold in Australia. They cost $7,400 ( same as a Porsche) when a Datsun 1800 SSS cost $1,950 and a Silver Shadow cost $28,400.
I recently purchased a very nice original registered 1969 RO80 ( with the renewed metal rotor seals) for $A 4,000. He had a spare RO 80 which he gave to me for $A100. The car is quirky to drive and has the same as a VW Sportmatic clutch. It flies and will do 105 mph with the rev limiter switched on and 115 mph with the rev limiter switched off. With regard to provenance, it depends how eclectic the collector's collection is as to how much premium he/she is prepared to pay. I liked the thread. Peter Toet
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jan Forrest
Grand Master
Username: got_one

Post Number: 862
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Friday, 23 October, 2015 - 19:29:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

How this might bear on the later engine is unknown, but owners of the original rotor tip design found that longevity could be seriously improved by the addition of 2-stroke oil to the petrol. Not sure of the concentration, but I'm sure there must be an owners club out there that does know.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ChristopherCarnley
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 213.122.123.166
Posted on Friday, 23 October, 2015 - 17:50:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

In a nut shell,we are all victims and beneficiaries of the "trickle down effect", so good that it proved Karl Marx, theories invalid.

(Message approved by david_gore)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter Toet
Experienced User
Username: peterpackard

Post Number: 27
Registered: 1-2015
Posted on Saturday, 24 October, 2015 - 12:04:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

I run 100:1 pre-mix Castrol Super TT two stroke oil in the RO 80 fuel( 98 Octane). I have disconnected the engine oil autolube as in my opinion, engine oil is not good enough for the engine rotor tips. PT