Art & Inspiration Value on convertables

I was just wondering something. Our the mopar cars (in this case 41 convertible) the redheaded step child of non ford cars? In our local craigslist, I have my car listed at $22000,there is a 39 or 40 ford conv for $35000, and a 48-49 chevy all torn apart project conv for around $25000. Both the ford and my ply run and drive.I understand about the fords being more pricey- but our the mopars that far down? Really? Whats your opinion? Exterminator

 

I never understood why, but 40s Plymouth convertibles (and Woodie Wagons too), never got the prices or GM or Fords for as long as I can remember. Your 41 should do far better in finding a home, than the 46-48 Ply convs...and I don't understand that either, as those later ones also look very cool to me.

two rough 47-48s went for peanuts in my area, nobody even wanted to look them over. I don't get it, as I have driven those years of Plymouths, and they ran, rode and handled great in stock form.

.

 

Taking a risk here by saying, yes the Mopars are not as sought after by collectors. Sadly it costs just as much to restore a Mopar. The initial purchase price for a project is usually lower though.
One should build what he likes though.You just have to be willing to get less back on your investment due to a smaller group of potential buyers.

 

surprised spelling police have not shown up yet - have your car in Classifieds here? - you should take pictures just of car, under hood, interior, etc - not with a bunch of people in front of it - bottom line is, beauty is in the eye of the beholder ( he that be holding the title and he that be holding cash to buy it)

 

Perhaps its regional. Around here Mopars of the 40s-50s don't seem to sell that well either. But... the 60s muscle car era cars will.

 

Close, but I'd bet it costs more. The less mainstream the build, the more it costs and the harder it is to source the parts.

 

That is my thought also, you can go just about anywhere and source say a speedo for a 49 chevy or ford pickup, for my 49 dodge I have to hunt high and low for something used that can be rebuilt by a pro. ... not a huge supply of after market parts available.

 

I agree it can be more expensive. I always caution people that are contemplating a non main stream car to make sure it is as complete as possible.

 

And those pesky 32 Fords are for some reason more expensive than a mopar.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

I have been playing with "old cars" since 1960 and don't remember Mopar's ever being very "desirable" until the Hemi engines became available.
Maybe it was a regional thing.


Sent from my iPad using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

I’ve got a lot of time and money invested in a 48 plymouth, I think it’s a very good looking and well built car. I believe the fact that they didn’t come with V8’s is the main reason for their lack of popularity. I think they are moving up in popularity tho. Any convertible in decent shape should command a high price, a 40’s mopar will probably always be well below a Ford sadly.

 

exterminator, you asked for opinions heres mine. Any Mopar built between 1935-1954 are flat out Fugly and not particularly desirable therefore the low resale value. I never built one as I'm not in the business of losing money.

The statement the reason for low resale on not having V8's doesn't hold water as you can put one in any build.

As previously posted by others, it costs just as much money if not more to build an ugly car. Why bother?

That said, I loved my 33 Plymouth PD coupe.

Gary

 

do you ever turn down a chance to run down a mopar. your opinion is what's not particularly desirable

 

As the saying goes " sometimes the truth hurts ". If there's a reason other then Fugly for the low resale values can you please tell us what it is.

Gary

 

Some of the Mopars are decent looking cars. The market for old cars are Ford centered and that may be because the cars were popular. Old Fords have held their popularity because of the all the parts marketed for generations that make working & maintaining the Fords a lot easier than any other make. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The 1941 Ford is not that great of a looking car for a car following the 1940 Ford or the post war Fords. If it is the yellow 41 Plymouth on the Craigslist then it may be the way that the car is being presented. Half of the car is hidden behind a line of people. There are no quality photos to give a good whole look or to make a good opening impression. There are no follow up detail views to draw a person in. If the car was staged & photographed with more intent to market the car along with several good detail shots of the car to show the level of finish, interior, condition of the car under the doors etc and the engine that would help. The effort to sell the car is a very soft effort. One would think that if the car is nicely finished, runs, drives & shows well that it should get snapped up for the asking price.

 

I agree fully. The car seems to be a great bargain, but the ad is really poor. More than one picture is needed, unobstructed, including interior shots. The title of the ad should say convertible, so if someone is searching for a convertible, it'll come up in a search (ad never says convertible, and search terms are a big deal). Doesn't say what engine is in it, and you mention "needs a little work" but no mention of what work it needs.

I think the car is good and I think the price is very good (if I were in the market, I'd be interested in that car at that price), it's the ad that holds it back. Buyers don't want to call and dig for details or make a long drive just to look at a car when pictures would suffice. You don't need to write a novel or make a calendar, but 6 clean pics and 2 paragraphs would go a long way.

If you want to make a sale, you need to be a salesman.

 

It may be because he lives in a Crotch. We all have to respect that not everyone has the same tastes, thank God, but at the same time that doesn't mean we should make a point of being crass. I believe Don Henley wrote that this is a "graceless age" in one of his songs.

 

Not much value. Unless they're the Chrysler woody convertibles of 47-50. Then they're ridiculously expensive.

 

Well Fat Fender Mopars from the late 30's up into the early 50's never have had a big car folk following even though they are usually pretty solid cars. I worked on a lot of them in high school auto shop in the mid 60's because my teacher worked for the local Dodge dealer in the summers and some of the older cars and trucks found their way to the high school autoshop for work and service.
I'm going to reiterate what several others said, you absolutely have to improve the add, get rid of the photo with people in front of the car and clutter behind it. Drive the thing out somewhere where you have a decent background without distractions and take quality photos with a real camera. Loose the attitude piece at the end of the written part of the add. When I see that BS I quit reading adds then and there no matter what is for sale as I figure the seller has a piss poor attitude to begin with.
And yes put CONVERTIBLE in the header.

 

I dont like to discuss what I pay for things but this will be a good data point. About 4 years ago I bought an older restoration 41 Plymouth convertible from an estate of an aquantence. Because it was an estate they had a professional appraisal for $25K. Even though I'm a bit of an old Mopar guy and loved the car, I thought that price was way too high. However, I didn't want to insult them with what I thought was a fair offer so decided to pass. Long story short I ended up with the car for $17K. For me the car is a prize and long term keeper but I if I did decide to sell today, I think I'd be lucky to get $15K for it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

^^That's a fine looking car^^ at any price.

 

I would love to pay $15,000 for that car!

 

The 15K example above seems like a half-price purchase compared to what I see for sale around Wisconsin, but then again there are very few convertibles in Wisconsin and it's possible they bring more of a premium around here or are just that much less likely to find.

 

My point on price I think is pretty accurate for around here and speaks more about the desirability of old Mopars as compared to Fords and other more popular makes. I think the same vintage Ford would bring $25K to $35K and more depending on condition.

Sent from my SM-G950U using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

Just noticed that on cars for sale here on Hamb that a 1948 chevy cabrolet just sold for $14,500. Wow!

 

early Plymouths and Dodges were entry level cars when new, used, and now as classics. They were never overwhelmingly popular, just there, along with other makes of the period. Hot Rodders wanted to go Fast, and so Fords were the popular car. Someone who wants an old car, but was not there when they were common, will gravitate towards a Ford or Chevy, because they are well known. I would love a late 30s Dodge or Plymouth, but if given the chance would move on a similar ford or Chevy if the price range was the same. Car auctions are a good way to judge the market. Look at WHAT is going across the block. I have never seen a any 37-54 Mopar at a car auction that I have attended or watched. There may have been a few, but definitely not prime time cars.

 

Was it Tan, and from Connecticut? I rarely look on the cars for sale, but did see the tan one a few weeks ago on there, that has been around here forever at the meets, a proven driver for sure. I don't recall the price, but it seemed low compared to 10 years ago pricing ...but like I keep saying, OUR local economy here is tanked...


Ok, comparing that 48 chevy conv to a 48 Ford conv, both are huge cars but the chevy is bigger/bulkier... the 48 Ply conv is smaller, shorter nose, no quarter windows which makes it look sporty...and it has a nice low windshield, nice dash. Damn good looking in a dark color...my only fault is the big butt, but the Ford and Chevy did, too. Those Plymouths were a good car back then. Nice ride, and handling, ran forever...
.
.

 

This discussion reminds me of the American Pickers episode where Frank paid 13K for a barn find 41 Plymouth coupe and lost his ass on it when he tried to sell it. If I remember correctly he got something like 4 or 5K for it.

Gary

 

While Chrysler was part of the 'big three', they ranked last after GM and Ford. And styling was never Chrysler's strong point in those days, particularly after the Airflow disaster which caused their designs to get even more conservative in the backlash. Both Walter Chrysler and his successor J.T. Keller were more about building a mechanically advanced, durable car with styling as an afterthought. Keller's insistence that their cars had to have enough headroom to allow a man to wear a hat while driving doomed them to being rather tall and dowdy looking until Virgil Exner finally got his hands fully on their designs in '57. So in the late '30s to early '50s era it would be a bit uncharitable to say they were ugly, but they definitely lacked the 'flash' of the GM cars or the purity of design that Edsel Ford/Bob Gregorie achieved at Ford.

So while Chrysler had arguably the best running gear of the big three during this time, the styling and lack of performance potential left them in third place. And in spite of the fact that they developed the hemi in multiple forms during the early '50s (and it's still a mystery as to why they allowed three different designs), they also stuck with the flathead six until '61, the last of the majors to abandon the flathead design.