A Cobra Valuation question

[STLUCIE]

Originally Posted by 1985 CCX

In general narrow is a lower production number offering so ... Yup
Still its the car itself nothing to do with other cars. That is how Cobra's are judged.

Thanks, again. My takeaway from your response is that wide hip Cobras are preferred over narrow hip Cobras.

[HTM101]

1985 CCX and Buzz offered very good responses to STLUCIE's request.

Then the usual protagonists stepped in and the surgery began. Next STLUCIE dug in and managed to amp up the protagonists' evisceration.

The thread could have been educational.

[Blue66]

Originally Posted by STLUCIE

What is your feeling about wide being a more desirable body than narrow? Preference-wise? Value-wise?

Thank you for your help, @blue66.

Just personal opinion. Even buying one today I'd pass. Everyone has opinions

[hauss]

Just got done reading all the comments and can"t stop my head from spinning . Now I am wondering is anyone else feeling the same?

[1985 CCX]

No, its a preference however fewer narrow hips means typically more prized as long as they are still narrow hipped.

[DanEC]

When you start talking about narrow hip 427 cars you are basically only talking about street roadsters with smooth hoods, no roll bar, no sidepipes and loop bumpers. Competition and S/C cars did not have a narrow hip version. Those pursuing a street roadster version purposely probably would pay a slight premium for one as they were few in number, most believe that with the original Sunburst wheels the narrow hip cars looks better than the half-filled wide hip cars. But in general there is undoubtedly more collector interest in the S/C models and many street roadster models were converted over with some or most of the S/C features over the years.

[767Jockey]

I'm guessing I'm the only one who can't figure out what the whole issue and point is here?

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by 767Jockey

I'm guessing I'm the only one who can't figure out what the whole issue and point is here?

1) The insured picks a high number for loss of use.
2) The insurance carrier picks a low number.
3) Both sides hire prostitutes to opine on the value.
4) Both sides depose the other side's prostitute and run up billable hours.
5) The carrier tries to keep the case from going to a jury. Juries hate insurance carriers.
6) If the carrier can't keep the case out of the hands of a jury, they will likely settle for a higher number.
7) If they can keep the case away from a jury they will settle, but for less.
8) If the insured is unreasonable, the case will not settle.

All numbers are just made up by whatever side you're on. That's how the game is played.

[STLUCIE]

Originally Posted by patrickt

1) The insured picks a high number for loss of use.
2) The insurance carrier picks a low number.
3) Both sides hire prostitutes to opine on the value.
4) Both sides depose the other side's prostitute and run up billable hours.
5) The carrier tries to keep the case from going to a jury. Juries hate insurance carriers.
6) If the carrier can't keep the case out of the hands of a jury, they will likely settle for a higher number.
7) If they can keep the case away from a jury they will settle, but for less.
8) If the insured is unreasonable, the case will not settle.

All numbers are just made up by whatever side you're on. That's how the game is played.

1) The insured picks a high number for loss of use. THAT IS NOT TRUE IN OUR CASE. I AM SEEKING FACTUAL INFORMATION, OR, AT LEAST, VALID ANECDOTAL INFORMATION.
2) The insurance carrier picks a low number. THIS IS TYPICAL BUT NOT A HARD AND FAST RULE OF THUMB.
3) Both sides hire prostitutes to opine on the value. I READ THIS AS YOUR BEING FAMILIAR WITH PROSTITUTES SO YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THEIR SERVICES ARE QUICKLY RENDERED. I OUR JOB IS TO RESEARCH AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME I HAVE SPENT JUST IN THIS ONE FORUM SHOULD AT LEAST CONVINCE EVEN AN A DOPE WHO CONTRIBUTES NOTHING THAT MY ACTIONS CANNOT BE COMPARED TO PROSTITUTION.
4) Both sides depose the other side's prostitute and run up billable hours. THE LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS THAT WAY. ON THAT NOTE, WE CHARGE NO ADDITIONAL FEES TO DO ALL OF THIS RESEARCH. IT IS JUST CALLED TRYING TO DO THE BEST JOB THAT WE CAN.
5) The carrier tries to keep the case from going to a jury. Juries hate insurance carriers. SOMETIMES INSURERS DON'T LIKE TO SETTLE UNTIL THEY REACH THE COURTHOUSE STEPS.
6) If the carrier can't keep the case out of the hands of a jury, they will likely settle for a higher number. ONLY IF THE THIS ATTORNEY WHACKS THEM WITH SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE. I SEE "EXPERTS" ALL THE TIME WHOSE ONLY METHODOLOGY IS "BASED ON THEIR OPINIONS GAINED DURING THEIR 30 YEARS OF APPRAISING THINS - NOT MUCH ELSE. IN FACT, I AM ABOUT TO READ THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY THE COBRA "EXPERT". MAYBE IT WAS YOU?
7) If they can keep the case away from a jury they will settle, but for less. YOU ALREADY SAID THAT.
8) If the insured is unreasonable, the case will not settle. ALSO, REMAINS TO BE SEEN BUT PART AND PARCEL OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

All numbers are just made up by whatever side you're on. That's how the game is played. NO, IT'S NOT COOL, AS YOU PUT IT, TO MAKE UP NUM BERS IN ORDER TO SCREW SOMEONE, BUILD UP YOUR REPUTATION, GET BONUSES, CLOG UP THE COURTS, ETC. HAVE ANYTHING HELPFUL TO CONTRIBUTE? IF NOT, WHY ARE YOU HERE?

[eschaider]

Originally Posted by patrickt

1) The insured picks a high number for loss of use.
2) The insurance carrier picks a low number.
3) Both sides hire prostitutes to opine on the value.
4) Both sides depose the other side's prostitute and run up billable hours.
5) The carrier tries to keep the case from going to a jury. Juries hate insurance carriers.
6) If the carrier can't keep the case out of the hands of a jury, they will likely settle for a higher number.
7) If they can keep the case away from a jury they will settle, but for less.
8) If the insured is unreasonable, the case will not settle.

All numbers are just made up by whatever side you're on. That's how the game is played.

Elegant, to the point and spot on, Patrick — thanks.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by eschaider

Elegant, to the point and spot on, Patrick — thanks.

... and you might be thinking that you would lead off your cross with something like "isn't it true you got your information from a website full of old men with fake Cobras, most of whom thought you were a moron?"

[STLUCIE]

Originally Posted by patrickt

... and you might be thinking that you would lead off your cross with something like "isn't it true you got your information from a website full of old men with fake Cobras, most of whom thought you were a moron?"

This is what you think of those who participate in the Club Cobra forum? I have found great knowledge here.

And, someone is telling you that idiotic, completely unnecessary post of yours was "spot-on"?

In my LOU report, in my list of those with whom I researched, I was proud to list Club Cobra among them.

Again, why are you sliming up my thread @patrickt?

[eschaider]

StLucie,

You need to cool your jets a bit.

The commentary was specific to lawyers, plaintiffs, court proceedings and the impact of various decisions the participants make. It was both spot on and quite insightful from a respected forum member whose credentials certainly say he should know ...

Did I mention it was entertaining?

[STLUCIE]

Originally Posted by eschaider

StLucie,

You need to cool your jets a bit.

The commentary was specific to lawyers, plaintiffs, court proceedings and the impact of various decisions the participants make. It was both spot on and quite insightful from a respected forum member whose credentials certainly say he should know ...

Did I mention it was entertaining?

His response was a smarmy, over-generalized list of what he feels are typical scenarios in legal proceedings. Specifically, it contributed nothing to my original query. I also don't appreciate being labeled a prostitute. My clients deserve thorough investigations. A discussion group may be an out of the box approach but every little bit helps. I have gained very useful info by following some of what has been written by other posters.

[twobjshelbys]

Loss of use is measurable only if there is use to be lost. Do garage queens and museum pieces - static displays - have use that can be measurably lost?

Sure, if I have a Chevy and it gets whacked and sits in a body shop I can measure loss of use by how long I had a rental car.

But here we seem to have something that was sold by someone that may or may not have had legal right to do so and the legal title was not available, and now someone who has possession of that title is intervening.

How can the title holder claim loss of use for something they didn't even know they had???

This is starting to sound like the story of Phil Spector's Coupe.

PS. I still can't rationalize that a supposed expert (who ought to know all of this) is asking these questions in a public forum. Shouldn't you know this stuff already? I'd be looking for an expert who did. ANd if I were on the other side I'd be using that maybe not such an expert collecting valuations from people who are even less experts. (Sorry, you're all thinking this but I'll just throw it out on the floor. And I suspect there a few people who are such experts and may be involved behind the scenes already.)

I'll state that the loss of use valuation is $42.

[STLUCIE]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Loss of use is measurable only if there is use to be lost. Do garage queens and museum pieces - static displays - have use that can be measurably lost?

It is sometimes only your own appreciation of your Cobra, its history, the joy of sitting in it, bragging rights, etc. that constitute Loss of Use, not just losing your commuter car or work truck.

If you owned a similar car and it was stolen, even though you seldom drove it, you have suffered loss of use.

That is not just one man's opinion but I get where you are coming from. Losing a trophy car may be a narrow interpretation of Loss of Use but legit, nonetheless.

Ownership of the car and L<oss of Use will be decided in the courts. I just came here to determine whether the 289 could be more valuable - in general - than the 427 and whether the wide hip Cobras are (and were) worth more to collectors. Previous posters have shed light on this.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by STLUCIE

I just came here to determine ... whether the wide hip Cobras are (and were) worth more to collectors. Previous posters have shed light on this.

Wide hip Cobras clearly lend themselves to a loss of consortium claim.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by STLUCIE

It is sometimes only your own appreciation of your Cobra, its history, the joy of sitting in it, bragging rights, etc. that constitute Loss of Use, not just losing your commuter car or work truck.

If you owned a similar car and it was stolen, even though you seldom drove it, you have suffered loss of use.

That is not just one man's opinion but I get where you are coming from. Losing a trophy car may be a narrow interpretation of Loss of Use but legit, nonetheless.

Ownership of the car and L<oss of Use will be decided in the courts. I just came here to determine whether the 289 could be more valuable - in general - than the 427 and whether the wide hip Cobras are (and were) worth more to collectors. Previous posters have shed light on this.

I disagree. What you describe is closer to pain and suffering. Loss of use is physical. You can measure it. Pleasure derived from looking at a car in a garage has no measurable value. It has emotional value only.

[STLUCIE]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

I disagree. What you describe is closer to pain and suffering. Loss of use is physical. You can measure it. Pleasure derived from looking at a car in a garage has no measurable value. It has emotional value only.

Would you feel the same about a million-dollar Rembrandt that was lost in a theft? We'll see what a judge or jury says and I will be glad to share their ruling. Pain and suffering is a stretch but I will mention it to the attorneys.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by STLUCIE

Would you feel the same about a million-dollar Rembrandt that was lost in a theft? We'll see what a judge or jury says and I will be glad to share their ruling. Pain and suffering is a stretch but I will mention it to the attorneys.

Exactly my point about a garage queen.

If a Rembrandt disappears from a museum all that can be claimed for loss of use is unrealized revenue from traffic that didn't come to the museum because the Rembrandt is no longer there.

However, if the Rembrandt were in a sealed vault in the basement of a collector, and the painting is stolen and moved to another sealed vault, there is no real measurable loss of use because there was never any measurable revenue producing use. Mental pleasure, yes.

Oh, and it was mentioned that this was not operable? How "inoperable" was it? If it couldn't be driven there is even less of a case for use. And since all she ever had was a piece of paper discovered years later, there is even less of a nexus to be able to claim use that could be lost.

This whole thing sounds to me like it is being built on a house of cards by a bunch of lawyers that took a case on contengency. Sure hope you're submitting billable hours weekly.