Hagerty on Cadillacs to hold and sell

Started by James Landi, February 28, 2020, 03:24:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

James Landi

https://www.hagerty.com/articles-videos/articles/2020/02/26/cadillacs-to-buy-sell-and-hold?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20_February_28_Newsletter_NewDDw

As we've all grown somewhat skeptical (and at times cynical) about the way the automotive press reviews Cadillacs, you may find this review both of interest and worthy of comment. Happy day, James

Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621

#1
Should've included 77-81 CdV in the list under the Buy recommendation; agreed on the Allante' which never went anywhere marketwise and probably never will.

55-58 Eldorado- hard to say...

Inclusion of 09-15 CTS-V is kind of silly being it's a late model used car with tons of depreciation ahead of it. The model's claim to fame is more to do with performance rather than styling which will always lag behind successive models as technological improvements occur over time. Probably much the same for the XLR although I would give its chances slightly better (especially the XLR-V version) not so much the base model. Either XLR still has a lot more depreciation left in store.

Another overlooked Cadillac is the 80-85 Seville (or more particularly the 80/81 with 6.0 for reasons that are well known here). These never had the best survival rates and its distinction is undeniable. Distinction and low survival are almost a never-fail keys to future collectibility even when - or especially when - its controversial.     
A Cadillac Motorcar is a Possession for which there is no Acceptable Substitute

Anderson

I'm not shocked about the '71-'76 deVille being on there, and I suspect this cascades into other cars of the same era.

I also agree that they really shouldn't include cars <15-20 years old due to depreciation curves.  Maybe a few "specialist" cars are exceptions, but that seems like a decent starting point.  The number of late-model cars that seem to show up on those lists that are large-scale production cars just...well, it boggles me tbh.

James Landi

Agree with both of you, and my understanding is  Hagerty bases the "Buy, Hold Sell," in large part, on the number of cars that folks wish to insure with them and that market value and desirabilty are factored in as well. For example, their concept of an "agreed upon value," as I understand it, is that you. as owner, and they, as insurers, determine just what compensation you'll receive if it's wrecked, so when I negotiated with them for insurance on the XLR, we agreed on the value, but they insist that the car be parked during the winter months (which is fine with me). So while my XLR is hardly vintage, it is rare, and it does pull a much higher resale price than the average car of its model year. By comparison, I own an S type Jaguar of the same model year, and it's worth next to nothing.            Great topic,    James

Big Apple Caddy

Articles like this are largely click bait but in general, I think a number of Hagerty's valuations can be puzzling.

Just a couple of examples:
1.  Three years ago, the average (#3) value of a 1983 Coupe deVille was lower than the value of a 1983 Fleetwood Brougham coupe which would seem to make sense as the Fleetwood Brougham is an upscale version of the DeVille but today the average value of the Coupe deVille is actually higher than the Fleetwood Brougham coupe ($5,700 versus $5,400).

2.  Jump ahead a couple of model years to a 1985 Coupe deVille versus 1985 Fleetwood coupe.   Three years ago, the average value of the Coupe deVille was oddly higher than the more upscale Fleetwood coupe but today the Fleetwood coupe is higher ($5,600 versus $4,700).

Not to entirely pick on Hagerty as I've also come across puzzling classic car valuations with NADA and other mainstream guides.

Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621

These so-called "valuations" should be used as nothing more than a starting point. Values of exceptionally good (or bad) examples bear little resemblance in the real world.

Factors of color combinations, rare desirable options, originality, documentation, ownership history can also weigh heavily on market value which would be difficult to impossible to incorporate in "valuation tools" sponsored by industries supporting them. 

Values should therefore be determined on a case-by-case basis. 
A Cadillac Motorcar is a Possession for which there is no Acceptable Substitute

Big Apple Caddy

I get that they are basically just starting points but is it logical that the average "starting point" for a 1983 Coupe deVille would be higher than for a 1983 Fleetwood Brougham coupe?  The Hagerty difference right now is only $300 in DeVille's favor but go to NADA and the average retail value of a 1983 Coupe deVille is much much higher, $4,900 for Coupe deVille versus just $1,925 for FB coupe.  All else constant, I just don't see why the Fleetwood Brougham should be worth less and certainly not 60% less as with NADA value.

Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621

Quote from: Big Apple Caddy on February 29, 2020, 10:12:05 AM
I get that they are basically just starting points but is it logical that the average "starting point" for a 1983 Coupe deVille would be higher than for a 1983 Fleetwood Brougham coupe?  The Hagerty difference right now is only $300 in DeVille's favor but go to NADA and the average retail value of a 1983 Coupe deVille is much much higher, $4,900 for Coupe deVille versus just $1,925 for FB coupe.  All else constant, I just don't see why the Fleetwood Brougham should be worth less and certainly not 60% less as with NADA value.

The relative values quoted of those two models makes no sense whatsoever. I remember the same thing occurring years ago regarding valuations of '50s Sixty Specials compared to Series 62 Sedans.

If the values are being based on auction prices, it's easier for the data to become skewed on rarer models that exchange hands so infrequently in order to arrive at more realistic valuations. That's the only explanation I can come up with.
A Cadillac Motorcar is a Possession for which there is no Acceptable Substitute

Big Apple Caddy

Quote from: Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621 on February 29, 2020, 11:45:08 AM
The relative values quoted of those two models makes no sense whatsoever. I remember the same thing occurring years ago regarding valuations of '50s Sixty Specials compared to Series 62 Sedans.

And those were just a few examples of wonky valuations I've stumbled across from Hagerty, NADA and others over time.  It continues to bring into question the validity of classic car data even from "reputable" sources.

I've also seen values given for models/trim levels that don't even exist e.g., Hagerty has values for 1989 Fleetwood d’Elegance yet there was no Fleetwood d’Elegance in 1989.  That sort of sloppiness again makes one question that accuracy/validity of content.

Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621

Quote from: Big Apple Caddy on March 01, 2020, 09:04:26 AM
That sort of sloppiness again makes one question that accuracy/validity of content.

My thoughts exactly.
A Cadillac Motorcar is a Possession for which there is no Acceptable Substitute

wrench

#10
Lol at a comment about the styling of late model Cadillacs.

‘Looks like it was designed by a demented origami nerd’

In addition to being funny, it is in my humble opinion, also accurate.

I think this alone excludes most modern Cadillacs from collectibility rankings.

I would give them a B-



1951 Series 62 Sedan
1969 Eldorado
1970 Eldorado (Triple Black w/power roof)
1958 Apache 3/4 ton 4x4
2005 F250
2014 FLHP
2014 SRX

cadillacmike68

Quote from: wrench on March 01, 2020, 10:08:51 AM
Lol at a comment about the styling of late model Cadillacs.

‘Looks like it was designed by a demented origami nerd’

In addition to being funny, it is in my humble opinion, also accurate.

I think this alone excludes most modern Cadillacs from collectibility rankings.

I would give them a B-

The 2008-2011 STS and 2008-2013 CTS were the last of the good looking Cadillacs.
Regards,
"Cadillac" Mike

Big Apple Caddy

Quote from: wrench on March 01, 2020, 10:08:51 AM
Lol at a comment about the styling of late model Cadillacs.

‘Looks like it was designed by a demented origami nerd’

In addition to being funny, it is in my humble opinion, also accurate.

I think this alone excludes most modern Cadillacs from collectibility rankings.

I would give them a B-

While I do agree, for other reasons, that later model cars are too new to put a meaningful collectability rating on, I still think these article and rankings are largely meant to be clickbait anyway.

As far as some of the comments, classic car enthusiasts starting back in the 1940s and 50s have been critical of modern cars of the time and doubted their future collectability yet many of those modern cars went on to have collector interest decades in the future.   Classic enthusiasts from every era were/are probably about the last group to rely on for assessing the collector car market of the future.