Collectability v. Volume by Michael Sheehan.

I agree with you on both cars. However, there's precious little else in the Fiat or LdM eras that will have value or historical significance in the long run, while some of the most important sports cars ever made were done during the Enzo era.

A Daytona Spyder just sold for $1.7M and 330 GTS $1.9M from the Don Davis collection. Any open car prior to 1975 with a prancing horse on it is seriously blue chip, and even the previously "affordable-ish" coupes like the 330 GTC are being chased by collectors who want the best. These are genuinely rare, beautiful cars, of the sort we'll never see again.

I think Sheehan's rule is basically correct. A few exceptions for the 288-F40-F50-Enzo run don't really invalidate it; and there are a few clunkers in the Enzo era. (Also IMHO the Enzo and F50 aren't all that beautiful or important in the grand scheme of things.)

And yes, he sells stuff like Testarossas and 360s, but he's pretty upfront about those being "a bargain for a lot of horsepower" or "a lot of fun" or something similar. I've never heard or read him saying that anyone should buy one to secure their financial future.

 

Sorry Bob but I agree with Pete. Reports of its demise have been greatly exaggerated. That nobody wants to drive it only occurs in this country... for that matter huge fuel guzzling trucks... only in the US of A. Its a human trait to want that feeling of one-ness with the car.

 

His rule is correct really more because of your comment about historically significant cars during the Enzo era. But it's all too convenient for him to say the Dino is an "Enzo era" because it was designed pre-FIAT. To me, that's a FIAT era car...few mainstream people get caught up in that...it's collectible due to the emotion and provenance surrounding it.

My point is more around the statistical analysis - it's irrelevant. Production numbers and history have some effect, but it's not end all / be all. Exceptions with respect to Ferrari might be considered true exceptions given the general exclusivity of Ferraris to begin with.

Ford Thunderbirds are NOT exclusive. They ARE collectible. This is my point. Sheehan happens to cater to a market that generally aligns to his theory of eras, but I still don't agree with it.

 

Jon, what is so historically significant about a 330gts? or daytona for that matter beyond they made less of them. Enzo cared more? I don't buy it. Leaving race cars aside as they have their own unique history, the F cars of the 50's were all sort of hand made one-off's...for the most part. But with the formation of SEFAC, Ferrari began a regular production of road cars that continues today. When did a 330 gts go from being just a used car to 1.9 million and why? What made the Dino all the sudden 10 times better than a 308. Baby boomers and their money. I do not think the only choice is one era and then everything else is just junk. I don't buy it.

Enough people our age will start collecting cars they relate to and the price of good cars post 1973 will begin to rise. Boomers did not stick only to blower Bentley's and impressionist art work because that is what Grandad taught them. They have made the market for mid-century modern art and 60's sports cars. I am not saying that with increased global demand and always diminishing supply that these cars will ever fall in value. But to draw a line in the sand of 1973 and call the automobile dead is just ridiculous. I think a Ferrari 456 is one of the best looking Ferraris ever and would never consider a 250 GTE or 330 2+2 at even money much less 5 x more. In 1986, my dad bought me a new IROC-Z for about 16500 and him another 65 Shelby that I think he paid 13K for. He had a bunch of Shelby's and I drove them a good bit. I get them and like them. But I would never buy one. Maybe one day I would pick up an IROC again for the hell of it. The cars are really not that far apart to me and that would even diminish with time. American muscle. In the last couple of years I have driven a 86 BMW 635csi a lot. It's a fun car to me. Cheap today but I can see appreciation in those, especially an M version.

Hey the market speaks today. But I do think that guys like Sheehan and even SCM today sound really stuck in Baby Boomer logic ie.. the only thing cool is James Dean and Steve McQueen. 1955-1968. It was cool, just not the only cool and I think future generations will speak with their wallet on that.

 

In one sense Dino's are the most Fiat of any Ferrari. Not that it has made them any less desirable.

 

My Freestyle Shark that I have had since 1983 keeps far better time than the 1950s Rolex that I inherited from my Great Uncle. One provides superior performance, the othe superior value.

 

Amen

 

Dont forget that until 2000 or so all the twittering heads were saying the 288 would never be worth much because of its close resemblance to the common 308. Indeed 10 years ago a F40 was double a 288. Conniseurs vlaue tyhe thing for what it is, then appreciation becomes widespread then value is driven by followers(demmand) limited supply and useability(demand for seriel production cars).

 

Agreed!

 

Yep I totally concur, to me it's irrelevant that it has any relation to FIAT - it's a great car that is unequivocally desirable.

 

Sometimes (always?) it comes down to just that.

Buy only cars that you love. You may own them longer than expected.

 

Were all the odd serial numbers used ? I thought they only used every 3rd or 5th number. He claims 28 000 or so cars from the end of the Daytona to the end of the Testarossas at 75 000. I really didnt think there were that many.

 

A couple of points:

First, the Ferraris made while Enzo was running the company and walking the plant are subjectively different. Many car enthusiasts regard them as uniquely important in the car universe. Until the 348, Ferraris were very much handmade, often bespoke, coachbuilt cars. (In the era of the 330 GTS that is especially true; less so for the Boxer/308.) That industry is essentially gone. It's much the same at Mercedes, where you can still buy an "SL", but it's the product of a complex modern supply chain, and computer-guided assembly. Impressive, but different. Some buyers care about this and spend obscene money on 300 SLs; some don't and buy McLaren Mercedes SLRs. But from a collector perspective, the older cars have a unique significance that sustains high prices. They are not technically better, but they are different, and no one buys art because it is more usable or technologically more advanced.

The newer stuff... jury's out. But electronics and technology have no proven track record in the collectibles market -- we've never had this many aging computers or proprietary electronic bits on wheels before. I don't know whether a malfunctioning glass roof panel in a 612 Sessanta is going to be fixable or desirable in 20 years -- maybe someone will keep a few spares and sell them at a fair price? I personally wouldn't want one of those unless it was under warranty and I had confidence that Ferrari would have spares on hand.

Secondly, the market has voted. Ferraris (and Porsches) prior to the smog/impact bumper era are more desirable than what came after. There is a chasm in prices between 1974 and 1975, and it is a stretch to say that baby boomers decided they're only sentimental about stuff through December of 1974 (or pick a month). If you want a 1972 Porsche 911S, you will pay four or five times what you would for a 1978. A Daytona coupe is probably triple the price of a 512 BB. I don't believe it's rational to assume that boomers remember 1972 lovingly and don't remember 1976 or 1977. I think it's more likely the cars themselves changed -- significantly, and for the worse, in terms of purity of form/design and degree of hand craftsmanship. That stuff is hard to quantify, but collectors (in contrast to drivers) have always valued it.

I grew up when Magnum PI and to a lesser extent Miami Vice were major car culture influences, as did many who are now in their 40s and entering their prime earning years. Yet, steel 308s and Testarossas are cheap. Why, if we have the money, are we driving up prices on cars that pre-date our formative years, while Ferrari 348s and '80s Corvettes and IROC-Z prices continue to plummet? If we wait another 20 years, will our childhood recollections of Road & Track covers catapult the 348 ahead of the Dino 246? (Or, will the market continue to hold the 246 as timelessly beautiful and elemental in its appeal?)

Regarding the desert of the '80s and '90s: We have seen the 288 GTO and F40 do very well, which suggests that collectors are actively looking at everything from the '80s and '90s and telling us that there's just not much worth keeping other than a very select few. Doesn't seem like sentimentality as much as a recognition that the 288 and F40 were really important cars, while the Porsche 928 and arguably the 456 were just cars.

The question, to me, is whether there are still cars being produced that will ever be serious collectibles, or whether all we have now are mass-produced technology showcases and a few made-to-be-souvenir cars. Obviously we don't know, but my hunch is that the important cars have already been made, and that we're now biding our time as technology takes shape to replace the old IC engine and all the good and bad that comes with it.

Being Gen X, I still think the Lusso and other cars of that era are cooler than the stuff I grew up with.

I like the 456, but the idea of trying to keep one running 30 years from now because it was somehow an important car ... I'd probably just get something newer and under warranty. Hopefully Ferrari would have fixed the warping/sticky plastics issue by 2043.

 

I respect the old stuff. I LOVE the simplicity of the lines and the sexy curves. I wish the cars of today were closer in size to the old stuff.

But, and I feel like a bad guy for saying this...

I can't get over the fact these cars appear old fashioned to my my eyes. They are from an age that I have no connection to. I just can't get all gushy about stuff from an era that means nothing to me. I get the appeal, I just find it hard to relate. Maybe I'm just not much of a romantic.

A Lusso is a gorgeous car.

-F

 

Your dissertation ignores that the older cars were not always so valuable and many of them, Dinos in particular, are a very recent phenomenon. 250 GTO's were dirt cheap back in the 70's. It took the Dino 35-40 years to take off, so to expect cars 10 and 20 years newer to maintain a high value from new ignores the historical trend. The 288/F40 are exceptions to where they have never been cheap but most cars, including even the super cars of the '60's, go through a sharp depreciation before going back up, if they do.

365GTC/4's were $30k 10 years ago, now they're 4x that - I remember thinking in college that that would be a cool Ferrari to own as a 355 or 360 would never be in my budget. Glad I had it backwards. In 5-10 years I think BB's will not be so cheap, the TR will need another 10 years beyond that etc. 365 BB's are getting very expensive...The fiberglass 308's are getting close to, if not exceeding six figures for a mint one etc.

Cars from the 90's need 20-30 more years before any call can be made and who knows what the world will be like then...I couldn't tell you what even the most blue chip of blue chip cars will be worth in 30 years, let alone a 456. We could transform to where gasoline cars are completely rendered irrelevant and viewed similarly to steam powered cars or horse drawn carriages in 30 years as a curiousity and laughably out of date, a relic of a bygone and bad era only used for movies or period re-enactments. Or the same could happen and massively increase the value of any decently cool gasoline powered car. Hell, the world could end 10 years from now and it'd all be moot. Enjoy them now, not for what they'll be worth some day when you may be dead anyway.

 

Like I said, I'm an outlier because I don't get the collecting thing. Owning multiple performance cars to me would be like having multiple wives, which is a very scary thought.

For me, thus, it is all about the driving. And while I have never driven a F40 (hint, hint), I have talked to a number of people who have, and it can be a somewhat scary experience on public roads, i.e., you dog the car for fear it will get away from you. Even taking a F40 to the track can be a daunting experience because one little goober can be an very expensive experience.

Oh, I understand, but I don't. For example, I don't get vintage racing. If I'm gonna try to hit the notes on the track, I want the very best car I can get. Driving yesterday's wine can get hairy in a hurry.

And air conditioning!

Look, I have only owned two "collectible cars." One was a 1973 1/2 911T that had less than 16k miles on it, and it was a hoot to drive. But I sold it because (1) not having A/C meant limited use in Texas, and (2) driving the car on back roads was beating the hell out of it.

The second car was a 1967 330 GTC, and it was really a gas to drive. It definitely had the understeer to oversteer to understeer boogie. So why did I sell it? Because I started hearing noises. Like when I turned right from a stop, I would hear a faint honking sound from the left rear. Plus, the syncros were so shot, you had to double clutch even on up shifts to 5th. And then I started following a thread on Ferrari Chat where someone was brave enough to do a full restoration. $100,000 would have just be the deposit money.

Granted I made money on the GTC when I sold. I would have still made money at today's prices even after pouring another six figures into it. But that's not why I do this. I just love to drive fast. I do other things in life to have the money to drive fast.

Dale

 

I hear ya, it's all good, different strokes and all. I think it's funny how in this thread the young guys want the old and the old guys want the new. I'd love to own a CS or 16M. I think computers are cool.

Get in line, I'll sell you my spot for $5.

-F

 

Ok to try conclude what a lot of people here are saying.

1973 or 69 are arbritrary dates but.

The number of pre 69 or pre 73 Ferraris produced was so low and the years so far they are all pretty much collectable excpepts maybe some 2+2's.

Fact has proved the collectability of some post 73 Ferraris appreciating but.

These are so far car unfettered by smog and other legislative requirements and produced in limyed numbers, and are past the 30 years deporeciation mark. So glass 308s and Boxers. Therer are also special cars produced in limited numbers 288 F40 which are super collectable rare unfettered and over 30 years.

As we go newer production numbers are much higher and so we look to special verisons as potential collectable. 512M Stadale Scud, the others are probably too numerous to appeciate in any reasonable time frame, and some specials are just marketuing hype without real perfomace cache 550 barahchetta, supermerica 599 Gto. In any event while the recent cars may well turn out to be collectable and appreciate, by in large they have to depreciate to 30 years before we will know.

In all fairness to Sheehan he stated that customers wanted to know if newer ferraris were an investment. Putting aside his so called cutoff date we know the supers 288 F40 have proven to be good investements. We also know that a glass 308(35k-100K) has been a good investemnt. A boxer may well turn out to be a good invstment. We also know that even if collectable the newer the car the slower the rise or return. lastly we know that pre 69 cars now require no guesswork or intelligence to buy.

So we can say that buying apre 69 ferrari is like being a collector of art who buys known big names for big bucks. Buying a post 69 means having actual taste and understanding, and then waiting for the market to mature. Same as the person who bought a picasso in the 30's.

 

Sounds reasonable. Dale

 

Pretty good description. And the previous 4 pages are discussion on that taste and understanding .

 

Sort of... although I think someone who buys pre-1969 might also "have taste and understanding".

And cash.

 

And lots of it!

Dale

 

Damn Internet. I just realized that I got sucked into an argument that doesn't make any sense. Comparing a 250GTO to a F430 is silly. Why? Simple, Ferrari supercars will always be collectible and go up in value regardless of the volume, lack of racing heritage, or wacky electronics. I offer the Enzo as Exhibit #1.

No, the real question is the collectibility of production cars meant for riff raff like you and me:

275-330-Dino-Daytona-C/4-308-Boxer-328-TR-512-348-355-550-360-575-430-599-458...

(Notice I did not include the 2+2s because they ain't sports cars. )

None of these cars ever had any official racing history because Ferrari had moved on to F1. All were made in relatively large quantities (for Ferrari) for the time. And all were state of the art complexity for their time, e.g., how many '60s muscle cars had disk brakes?

Looking at this timeline, it is clear to me that the 275-330-Dino-Daytona have launched.

The real question is who is next in line? Are C/4s ever gonna take off? (Some may question why they are in this timeline because it is a 2+1 car.) Are Boxers next? Will 308s ever be worth more than $25K? Are 550s going to break to the upside before TRs and 512s?

Stay tuned for the next edition of the new reality show -- Dancing with Ferraris!

Dale