Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[emmerson]

Here's a question to stir things up, perhaps.

I've just found a site called "howmanyareleft", so I put in "Range Rover LSE". It showed only 363 left on the road, which is probably about right, as only about 1500 were built.
So I put in "Morris 1000 Traveller", and there are 8,500 on the road.

So, why do people regard the Morris as classic, but if I suggest that my RR has a better claim the title, I get dismissed as a crank?

No range wars, please, just a friendly question!

[Rick]

Age?

If the RR LSE is the last of the old shape job (?) then I suppose most people would see it as an up-and-coming classic, or "modern classic".

The Moggy goes back to the late 40s in design, so qualifies in most people's eyes on that count, even if the final examples were built in the early 1970s, ie overlapping the early RRs.

If it was down to rarity alone, then Yugo 45s and Zastavas of the late 1980s would be on every classic buyer's shopping list

RJ
_________________
Rick - Admin
Home:https://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk
Videos:https://www.youtube.com/user/oldclassiccarRJ/videos
OCC & classic car merchandise (Austin, Ford ++):
https://www.redbubble.com/people/OldClassicCar/shop

[ukdave2002]

I think we get very confused about ; nostalgic, classic, expensive and old

anything old seems to get a auto pass into the classic arena, no matter how poor it was in the day anything new is automatically dismissed by a load of folk just because its new anything expensive aka Range Rover tends to get dismissed by folk that could not afford them.

Lovely car the Range Rover LSE

Dave

[IanAl]

The 'is it a classic' question has been asked many times over the years and with just that number left on our roads, there is no question that it is a certain future classic. In my opinion, every car will one day be a classic, whether it is a desirable classic however is another question. Look at a Fiat uno, a classic? Personally I do not think so, but that doesn't mean the next person won't see it as retro or desirable. Each persons idea of a true classic will always differ to the next and I'm sure this question will continue to be debated for many years to come.
IMO a true classic has to have, breeding and heritage, quality, class, be worth more than the cost of it's restoration, and be an inspiration to others and evoke memories of yesteryear, but personally I feel a certain rarity always makes a car more desirable.

[Ellis]

I remember reading in one of the classic car magazines some years ago about their definition of a classic car.
The answer was that a classic car is one which was generally considered desirable and special when it was current.

I disagree.

Classicism in motor cars must surely be in the eye of that marque's beholder and admirer.

Age notwithstanding.
_________________
Starting Handle Expert

1964 Jaguar Mark 2 3.4 litre
1962 Land Rover Series 2a 88"
2002 BMW M3 E46 Cabriolet

[IanAl]

[Uncle Alec]

I find it easier to think of them as "collectable".
I can empathise with anyone who finds a certain make and/or model interesting enough to treat them as collectable. I may hate them personally, just as the other person may hate my Rileys, but I still have that link with them of someone who admires a certain vehicle.
Wandering round the NEC, I see many vehicles that I wouldn't have as a gift, but they have every right to be there and each and every one adds to the grandeur of the show.

[peter scott]

I guess I'm the last person to add anything to this discussion because my first car was an 803cc split screen Minor and I thought it was a dreadful car then and continue to see it as the worst car I ever owned.

I don't understand why they were so popular in their heyday and apart from their anachronistic design I don't understand why anyone wants one today.

Their shape was in no way pace setting. They were/are slow, noisey and unrefined. Slamming the doors (always necessary) was like slamming the lid of a metal tool box. The driving position was upright and uncomfortable and the boot was small and fuel economy was nothing to write home about.

They were popular in their day and still remain so. Clearly I'm missing something so I'm also probably wrong in thinking the Range Rover a much more deserving classic.

Peter
_________________
https://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon

[Geoffp]

Perhaps we should adopt the way in which Germans refer to classics as either 'Oldtimers' or 'Youngtimers'; the dividing line appears to be somewhere in the 1980s. The Range Rover LSE was produced about 20 years ago, and the original Range Rover came out just as the Minor came to the end of its long production, so perhaps that is why the Minor is more generally looked on as a classic.

Geoff (Oldtimer )

[michael1703]

The problem with how many left is the figures are only of the vin, not what the vin belongs to

There could be x amount of what shows as range rover lse's but they could be tray back/bobtail etc

Same thing goes with jaguars, there are countless sovereign/mk10's being cut up and the engine/box/axles/vin plate finding their way into ss100/ dtype replicas so the figures are wrong there

[peter scott]

[Riley Blue]

I think the internet is largely responsible. The ease of communication it provides has meant that the owners of a car that wouldn't have been given a second thought previously have been able to get in touch with each other and convince themselves that it has 'classic' qualities.

The internet has also made it easy to start a 'club', the members of which may never meet and may only ever discuss their cars on-line, all the while convincing themselves more and more that what they drive is worthy of distinction when, in reality, it has no redeemning features and may even have been considered a 'lemon' when in in production.

I can think of quite a few cars that I've driven from the last three or four decades that were absolute horrors when on sale but have been appearing at shows in the last few years - I suspect that the majority of people walking past raise an eyebrow in bewilderment.

I think the term 'classic' has been debased in recent years. It's used in titles of magazines or the name of shows when the cars they cater for are anything but 'classic' - but that's just my opinion, I don't pretend to know the definitive definition (!) of the word.

[Marc-H]

Classic
having a high quality or standard against which other things are judged
Classic
informal extremely or unusually funny, bad or annoying

Well that covers everything then! if I take the 2nd definition of classic, my lawn mower is a classic because it is bad or annoying.
and to muddy the pitch the definition of Classic car I found was

a car which is still popular although it is no longer produced

and just one last thing! IanAI wrote
" be worth more than the cost of it's restoration,"
IMHO not many of the everyday classics fall into that definition, I could be wrong, but in my experience the cost of restoration outstrips the value of the car. just my thoughts.
_________________
Marc
1961 Rover P4 100
"Harold"

[Salopian]

To answer the original posters question rarity has nothing to do with it. Pre war Bentley are easy to find but Pre war Hillman Minx are not - its all to do with desirability which leads to a high survival rate.
Classic Magazines have to market themselves so are always extending their coverage and stretching the definition. Most cars are consumer durables just like a refridgerator but some just a few show originality in design and inspiration or are just fun and that lifts them out of the common rut. These are desirable appeal to enthusiasts and generally are priced accordingly. Mostly they are sporting or of high quality and were desired when new.

Hope I've not offended anybody - each to their own!
_________________
Jonathan Butler
Alvis SD 12/50 1928 MG TD 1950

[Geoffp]

On the basis of a number of the replies, a brand new 2013 Mazda MX5 is more of a classic than say a 1973 Vauxhall Viva - discuss

Geoff