Are classic Ferraris really expensive?

When a painting oxidizes it adds character and patina.

When a car oxidizes it has rust

 

Yet it is still just a painting that all one can do it stare at .

 

On the contrary..........patina on a vintage car is very sought after, and an original patina vintage car will fetch often times as much or more than a restored car.

As for paintings.......some people appreciate different types of art. Good for them.

 

Cue the "Modligani" bubble thread...

I'd rather have $170MM of appreciating toys...

 

If it was never touched-- yes

If it was restored once (which most have) -- no.

Sorry, no one wants a rusty 308. That's not patina. That's rust!

 

I don't know a lot about paintings but I don't think they have maintenance issues. I think if it is stored at about room temperature you should be ok. Owning a classic Ferrari you need to spend money to maintain it whether you drive it or not. Those costs can really add up over time. I'm not saying the Ferrari isn't still a good investment. It just takes more upkeep than a painting. Plus the idea of a car being viewed as art is a fairly new concept.

 

I respectfully disagree. Paintings require proper atmospheric conditions--temperature, humidity, light--which must be precisely monitored; they are difficult to store and to transport; and the cost of insurance is commensurate with value. The total cost of maintenance is significant, as it can be with a collector car. My 2 cents.

 

The painting can never be duplicated. It is the only one of its kind forever. Sure copies can be made/faked, but this is the only one the world has.

A 250 GTO could be built again and again by Ferrari and they could build it exactly the way they built them in the past.

The artist Himself could never duplicate his own painting brush stroke for brush stroke..ever. It is by far the more valuable piece.

 

I'm sorry....but a 308 is not a Vintage Ferrari.
But I am willing to bet in 30 years or so you will be eating those words. I would be willing to place a bet but unfortunately(for me) my Granddaughter will be collecting.

 

When you see paintings & Sculptures from the "great masters" Da Vinci, Rembrant, Monet, etc... go for huge $$$ you are not only buying the actual work, but the history and provenance of the piece. you are in essence becoming a part of its history.

Picasso and Monet painted some crappy art, but its all now worth more becuse of the master works.... this is consistent with Ferrari.

I'd compare the 250 GTO w/ Rembrants self portraits and a 308 with Picasso's china paintings... they both come from masters but have differing values.

there will only ever be one original Mona Lisa... and only 39 GTO's ( what ever the actual count is) .... while Picasso painted a lot of things... like a 308... but regardless they both have the Ferrari name which is worth more than a similar car from GM.

 

I was just at Ferrari - and my 328 was referred to as a "vintage" Ferrari... sadly it does not command the same prices as a 250 ... or 330...

 

And security cost.

 

Its hard to compare the two but my 2 cents is these cars were undervalued- severely- for some time. So even with the recent run up- our basis for comparison is values that are too low. Time will tell if Im correct.

I'd also rather have the toys. Just not into paintings and traditional artwork....

 

Logic of art market is in bubble, so that supports classic car values as a general matter?

Or logic of art market in bubble, so classic car bubble should be even bigger?

Or logic of art values = X and so therefore car values should also = X?

Really not sure what to think of any of the above.

If the 250 GTO was a single unique car, it would likely fetch $150mm+ In fact, I would be shocked if not.

If all 250 GTOs save for one somehow spontaneously combusted, same thing.

If cars were historically produced as entirely unique pieces, and attained global recognition of the likes of the Mona Lisa, then I could see a "like for like" comparison.

As things stand, I don't see how you can try to compare the prices. Of course, insofar as justifications for abnormal prices go, it is always the case to create justifications, so it is consistent with human nature. We like to have "answers" or things upon which to support our views / beliefs.

 

I don't think it's quite that simple. I like the look of evenly faded paint, door handles with the chrome worn through to the base metal, a few body dings here and there from normal use, and distressed leather. That's patina on a car, to me.

I tend to agree with your assessment here.

 

Somehow, for 90% of their history, the cars were "undervalued" based on what?

They did run up, dramatically, in the late 1980s, so was that when people's eyes were "open" briefly? Then after, people all of a sudden undervalued them again (and that incorrect "undervaluing" persisted for years)?

Now the values are still "too low"?

Having a hard time understanding this. The cars don't generate cash flow except when they trade hands (they have value as items of "want" and "history" and nothing more). So it's hard to understand this notion of under/over valued that seems to suggest that most of the time, the "values" are too low...

I am not downplaying the beauty of the cars, or their artful nature (they are indeed more art today), but not following the logic.

 

No not the same thing. You're right if all but one 250GTO was destroyed tomorrow the value of the survivor would sky rocket but only because it would be the last surviving reminder of the collective history of the 250GTO's together.

There are plenty of examples of rarer and even unique Ferraris and cars from other marques that are not as valuable as the GTO because they don't have the same combination of history, looks and usability. Even within the ranks of the GTO's themselves there is considerable variation in value based on their individual histories.

 

Same thing, given the same starting point assumptions, of course.

In any case, my "same thing" comment was not literally "exact same situation" since both situations are hypothetical. If the car carried the same historical significance, etc, etc, a more limited number would have resulted in a far higher value.

You need that assumption to hold true to make the comparison, of course.

Obviously many rarer and unique Ferraris, or from other marques, again, not addressing my point, which clearly assumes ceteris paribus.

A one-off car, with no history or appeal, isn't the same thing. I could also go and paint something tomorrow that my mom will probably love but I doubt just because it's a one-of-a-kind that it will fetch much on ebay.

Going back to my point, cars of historical value or interest can't be "valued" off art work, other than perhaps noting that both groups have skyrocketed and plummeted in the past, and neither (typically) generates any cash flow (other than negative). So the value is in the eyes of the collective beholders. Better measure of value is over longer periods of time, since you can get rid of some of the speculative ups (and downs) when people are rushing to buy, buy, buy, or cashing out in fear of bigger value declines (or to get liquidity).

Saying people have historically over or undervalued one or the other is silly, since there is nothing to "under" or "over" value inherently, other than the historical preference of people in the market.

Comic book values skyrocketed over a period of time beyond any historical basis. People looked back and wondered why people didn't "historically" have any good sense and also value them more highly... then the market crashed, and people wondered why anyone valued them so highly. Pretty much any non-cash generating collectible has seen these swings and the only thing I've seen consistently in the long-run is a reversion to the typical / average historical prices (reversion to mean).

 

For a very long time cars were not looked upon as artwork of any form. I think thats been slowly changing.

Gold doesn't generate cash flow either.

You're right- this is entirely human behavior. Most investments have some element of human behavior factored in. I believe the mindset has shifted forever. Will I be right or wrong? We have to wait to know. In the mean time we can drive and enjoy.

 

Depends on your definition. You could say "classic" instead but 308's are now almost 40 years old. The 308 is still "Enzo era", although many won't consider it so.

Most people consider a car over 30 years old to be classic. And, there is no doubt that 308 prices are rising in the last 10 years. In fact, 328 prices have doubled in less than 5. How many investments fall into that category?

My point is you can lock up a painting 30 years and it won't degrade. Take any car and do that and find out that the aluminum block is corroded, the leather is cracking and shrinking, the fuel is now gunk, the brakes need to be rebuilt, the paint is flat, etc, etc. In short, they take maintenance to keep them in top shape.

 

Why is one stainless steel Swiss movement watch more expensive than another one?

 

Right. Its all associations and BS.

I think people are just looking upon automobiles with a different set of eyes. We will see it it remains.

Time wears down all man made creations- just differently.

 

Interesting thread, but there is one point, as yet, unmentioned.

Upcoming generations do not have the interest level in automobiles as those before.

Take a look here:

Millennials Don't Care About Owning Cars, And Car Makers Can't Figure Out Why

 

Other studies show that as soon as they get a good job they buy cars.