Official Countach Value Thread

Mine has sun visors. Old photo, but for the most part the same.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

You can see the rear has been converted from the DOT-type rear.

The colors are noted as original.

I think this is another instance where a repaint (& some bodywork) is being touted as a "restoration", as with 1121096.

 

cool. thks. That is the 1st I am hearing sun visor may have been factory for late 5000s USA.
your is one of the few late 85 carb made then. most late 500 were injected USA

 

My car is an 84 and has sun visors. Until now I just assumed they all had visors

 

I agree, I can't imagine driving the Countach without the visors in the car. I thought they all had them too.

 

So you believe that there will be no market correction at any point, or, if there is a market correction, they will be unaffected, right?

 

The car now being worth 7 figures for some variants and 400+ for others, IS the market correction!

 

Yes we're familiar with the the upward correction, I mean a downward correction, unless of course you are saying that the Countach market is immune to market economics and there will never be another downward correction?

 

interesting. for sure the euro based car dont have any visors.This was also not a item required to federalize the car. So i wonder now if the visor were a user add on seeing the later car or if indeed the factory or the importer decided to cater to the delicate eyes of US driver.

 

My 1984 LP5000S does not have the visors however I believe it was manufactured in April of '84.

 

Only the Anniversary cars came from the factory with visors. None others. Any non-anniversary cars with visors had them added after the cars left he factory, most likely with the Anniversary visors that were available for sale by dealers when the Anniversary cars came out. This is an 'upgrade' that seems logical, but visors didn't exist on the Countach until the Anniversary.

 

Not correct.

 

Guys what are the sun visors that everybody is talking about?

 

I have heard many say that CT prices have quadrupled and quintupled over the last two years and this is simply false. I refer you back to Joe's value estimates in 2012, whose opinion I greatly respect. I think today's values are more along the lines of +/- 3 times those values, with carb cars (LP400S and LP500S) making a bit more of a run than the later FI cars such as the Annivesario. So say 3.5 times for the carb cars and 2.5 for the later FI cars. This is relative to where I have seen other cars in this category move for the same period.

Thoughts?

 

Correct! Please provide evidence to the contrary. I will provide this evidence. In front of me is a 1988.5 Countach, a very late VIN car, just before the Anniversary was release, with no visors, nor any provisions for visors. Also, I've inspected a 1987 US fuelie this morning, and same thing...no visors nor provisions for them. Please provide evidence of your claim!

 

I saw an 86 car with visors and an 85 car with no visors when I was buying my countach. The factory is not all that consistent and some days they just sort of do whatever. You can't always get into absolutes with the CT, like "they never do this" and "they always do that." They just put stuff on the car if they happen to have it laying around.

 

I agree, but in the case of the visors, I believe they were something mandated by Chrysler as part of their updating, modernizing, and making the cars more fancy, like the electric windows and power seats. I just don't think the factory had visors laying around and imo just don't think there were any visors even designed or sourced for the Countach until Chrysler. I also think that visors are a useful upgrade, and when the Anniversary came out, many added them to older cars. Period publications and factory literature support my position as well.

 

Generally I think you are correct about the 3.5 for carb cars and 2.5 for FI cars in two years is correct. But to say it is simply false that some variants have gone 4 times is too strong if you look at the rise in lower end values. It is also not exactly correct that any CT is worth 3.5 to 2.5 it's previous value. As in all of life the devil is in the details. For example a basket case low value LP 400 is worth 4-5 times what it was 2 years ago.

One factor is also that the extreme restoration and reversion cost of the CT is now worth it where before it was not. This is a threshold that previously holds cars back and then is seen as an added factor. After this factor, what you see in the market is an added equity investment in the cars that is seen as retained equity. These leads to a point that is close to yours that the values (although crossing the restoration threshold, have not gone up all as much as you think. Consider that many cars have an added investment in them (previously equal to the value.) and this added restoration is seen as dollar for dollar equity in the car. Take a car that was worth 175k in 2012 that went through a 200k restoration, and now has a 2015 sale price of 650k. It would be misleading to think that if it sells for 3-4 times its previous value, it has appreciated 3-4 times, because it sells for 1.75 times the value invested. The truth is it is an extremely rare CT that doesn't need a huge amount of work and money to realize the extreme values. (This is not just neglect but also US chop shops) The truth is a proper CT restoration is at the upper end costs of restoring exotics if done properly, and most cars being flipped are being sold without the last owner having the cash to get the car where it should be. And there is a school of though that there is a ways to go after money is invested to fix the bad ones.

 

No Joe, that's not what I'm saying. The CT market will rise and fall with the High End collector/ exotic market. I'm saying it will not have a "correction" independent of the broader market. It has now been established as something financially special, and will rise and fall with other like Collector cars. Not independent of them.

 

That's about right.

 

I love it when people do this.

As Vic requests, please provide your basis for disputing what he posted. You may have some some useful information to share with us that we can all learn from, but to simply say "not correct", then decline to elaborate further, is particularly unhelpful, and you might as well not bother posting if you're not going to share anything. Now, tell us why you think he's not correct, please?

 

We agree then.

All I'm saying is that at some point in the immediate or distant future, prices will come down. That is as certain as night follows day.

 

No. By "correction", I mean an economic change that causes the prices of cars to come down, as characterized by supply exceeding demand, as in, lots of cars for sale, but not selling at the prices sellers are asking, followed by prices being reduced to induce sales. That type of correction.