Record price paid for a warbird?

[L. Thompson]

I was reading this morning about the 1931 Duesenberg J Special Phaeton that was sold at an auction of 90 rare cars and motorcycles owned by late Los Angeles Times publisher Otis Chandler on October 21st. It brought
$2.64 million while a 1904 Mercedes 40/45 HP Sports Touring went for $2.25 million.

I think the record price ever paid was for a 1935 Mormon Meteor Duesenberg SJ Speedster that sold for $4,445,000 at Gooding & Company's Pebble Beach auction, on August 15, 2004.

It got me thinking what is the highest price paid so far for a warbird?

Has 4.5 million been exceeded or would that take something like a pristine time capsule German fighter being brought out of a forgotten cavern?

Whatever the case I CANNOT see warbird prices over $2 million being a good thing for those of us who want to continue to see them fly.

[Flat 12x2]

I think the record price ever paid was for a 1935 Mormon Meteor Duesenberg SJ Speedster that sold for $4,445,000 at Gooding & Company's Pebble Beach auction, on August 15, 2004.

.

I think its a lot more than that , a '71 Plymouth Cuda Hemi convertible sold for IIRC $6,000,000 about 2 years ago.
The Ferrari GTO's of '64 (?) are worth 7- 16 Mil. $$

Cars in general far out strip warbirds value $$ wise even though they would cost 1/5 to restore compared to the restoration costs of a warbird.

[Jiggersfromsphilly]

And Parts are easier to come by for cars!

[mjanovec]

Whatever the case I CANNOT see warbird prices over $2 million being a good thing for those of us who want to continue to see them fly.

I think the pricing will be self-regulating. People willing to pay $2M and beyond are likely those interested in obtaining warbirds to fly them (or have someone fly for them). Most static display museums can't afford that kind of price. So if a warbird sells at the top end of the scale, it's likely going to be flown. How regularly it's flown is another question.

[King]

There are more people, with the money, who will buy the cars for 2 mil. and higher than there are people who will buy the warbird.

Period!

that's true but thank god fpr the rare few who buy and fly warbirds

[K5DH]

The '71 HemiCuda convertible was one of SIX that were built.

At last year's Monterrey Historics auction, a superbly restored Talbot Lago sold for $3.45 million to some guy from Texas who apparently has way too much spare cash. When asked what he planned to do with it, he calmly replied that he intended to drive it!

Cheers!

[dhfan]

AFAIK, the most expensive car ever sold was a Bugatti Royale in 1987 for $8,700,000.

I've never thought warbirds were cheap, but everything's relative.

[oz rb fan]

in the late 80's a wealthy japanese man paid $20,000,000 us for a ferrari 250 gto.
one reason that warbirds arn't so valuable is the maintance involved, even ferrari's etc are cheap to keep comparad to mustangs etc
paul

[T J Johansen]

Whatever the case I CANNOT see warbird prices over $2 million being a good thing for those of us who want to continue to see them fly.

I think the pricing will be self-regulating. People willing to pay $2M and beyond are likely those interested in obtaining warbirds to fly them (or have someone fly for them). Most static display museums can't afford that kind of price. So if a warbird sells at the top end of the scale, it's likely going to be flown. How regularly it's flown is another question.

I have to side with Leroy here. How often does Erickson's stuff fly, or Waltrips, or Del Smith's? As prices will continue to soar (and insurance too) I think more and more a/c will fly a lot less. Investors will take over, and they are probarbly not interested in puting their investment at risk. Might mean that a lot of aircraft might be loaned to museums until the day its time to capitalize on that asset stored somewhere! So, if you like seeing warbirds fly, enjoy it while you can. I just don't think it will last that long!

T J

[Jerry O'Neill]

T.J.;
I good question to ask about holding on to flyable aircraft as an investment is, after many years for not flying, is the aircraft still worth as much as it was when it was flying regularly?

Technically (and maybe physically) it is no longer flyable. Some amount of work would need to be done to make it flyable again. That could bring the value down. Also, if every plane is held onto as and "investment" and none are "flyers", then their value and aquisition cost to a future collecter might be in question. Since they don't fly, and only ground based, non-flying musuems would be interested in aquiring them, who's going to shell out millions for one? I would gladly shell out the money for a B-17, P-51 or Corsair instead of a Lear jet or Citation, but that would only be if I had that kind of money in the first palce. If people are willing to spend 6 to 20 million for a car, I'd like to think the flying warbirds will be around for a while.

Just some food for the discussion!
(Now, where can I get a couple of Million dollars?!!!)
Blue skies,
Jerry

[gregv]

here's a list of top prices paid for vehicles at auction; this does not include private sales:

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/auctions ... hp?ShowAll

the top is $8,700,000 for a Bugatti Type 41, and this was back in '83. The late 80's/early 90's saw an explosive surge in collector car prices, with Ferrari 250 GTO's going for over $10 million and higher, leading to at least a few being new-made around existing serial numbers from long scrapped cars. I believe nine 1971 Hemicuda convertibles were made in total, with 3 being export cars; I could be wrong on the last bit, as I am no Mopar expert. Clones are getting over a hundred grand right now...

Sorry for the o/t banter.

cheers

greg v.

[k5083]

I used to think that I understood the rudiments of warbird economics and that the guiding principle was that people who want to fly them would pay the most for them and would therefore tend to get them. Nowadays I'm not sure that's true. More and more potentially airworthy machines are going to static collections. I would not have predicted that the Seattle museum would end up with the Champlin collection or that the F4F would go to Hawaii. I am not surprised that these museums have the money for the aircraft, but I am surprised that they would be the high bidder. It seems now there is a class of buyers that values the aircraft so highly as static displays that they can compete with, and sometimes beat, purchasers who want to fly them.

Some try to explain this as buying for "investment value", but the behavior of some of these buyers is inconsistent with this. If the investment value of the aircraft was ultimately premised on its value to a future buyer who would want to fly it, then the investor should try to keep the static aircraft as airworthy as possible. As we all know, there are ways to maintain a static aircraft so that it stays pretty close to airworthy. But most static museums (alas!) don't run-up the birds or exercise their systems in the way that they should if they sought to retain value premised on airworthiness. So I'm forced to conclude that they value the aircraft solely as static displays and expect that future purchasers would do likewise.

If so, this may reflect the coming-of-age of warbirds as true historic artifacts, which could be better or worse, depending on your perspective.

August

[T J Johansen]

T.J.;
I good question to ask about holding on to flyable aircraft as an investment is, after many years for not flying, is the aircraft still worth as much as it was when it was flying regularly?

Technically (and maybe physically) it is no longer flyable. Some amount of work would need to be done to make it flyable again. That could bring the value down. Also, if every plane is held onto as and "investment" and none are "flyers", then their value and aquisition cost to a future collecter might be in question. Since they don't fly, and only ground based, non-flying musuems would be interested in aquiring them, who's going to shell out millions for one? I would gladly shell out the money for a B-17, P-51 or Corsair instead of a Lear jet or Citation, but that would only be if I had that kind of money in the first palce. If people are willing to spend 6 to 20 million for a car, I'd like to think the flying warbirds will be around for a while.

Just some food for the discussion!
(Now, where can I get a couple of Million dollars?!!!)
Blue skies,
Jerry

I think August have just answered the question like I would have done. I have also looked at old Formula 1 race cars which also go for decent amounts. Their value has also continued to rise over the years whether or not the car runs in historic races (or runs at all). Granted, the cost of making said car driveable again would be less than making an a/c fly, but it does give a hint as to investors minds. I believe that when something has attracted investors (paintings, sculptures, real estate, cars, aircraft, etc.), the prices will continue to soar. Keep in mind that this is a part of history like any other artifact. When the day comes that they don't fly anymore you can still show them off at garden parties on your private airfield and use them as a backdrop or talking point. "I say old chap, that is a Spitfire, much like what my great, great, grandfather flew back in the ol days..."
Do I think that all warbirds will cease flying within the next decade? No, I don't, but I do think they will fly less than at present. From today on I strongly feel that the amount of flying time these birds fly per year will drop. Therefore I just say, enjoy them today. It won't last for that long!

T J

[mjanovec]

I suspect the trend of the future will shift more towards new-build warbirds, with rare and authentic examples slowly moving towards static-only display. I think we'll still see P-51s flying 50 years from now, but they may essentially be newly-built aircraft. And really, when you look at it now, what percentage of the airframes on some of the warbirds flying today date back to WWII and what percentage are comprised of new parts?