Margaret Watson writes:
>This is truly amazing when I consider that most of the Spitfire
>owners that I have encountered...knew little or nothing
>about their own cars!...
> We are never going to be able to save these cars, if we don't get
>some responsible owners.
This supports a long-held theory that I have, namely that TR's are
seen as collectors' cars, while Spitfires are looked on by the general
public to be more "disposable". Both the number of Spitfires at shows
and the market for restored examples also support this. Not to say
that I'd like to see the price for a decent Spitfire skyrocket, but
unfortunately respect in the collectors market is linked pretty closely
to dollars. I think this also applies to MGA/B's versus Midgets, but for
some reason not to the same extent.
On somewhat the same topic, earlier MG's with chrome bumpers,
etc., are more highly regarded than later examples. But in Spits, I've
seen far more later (MKIV-1500) examples at shows, etc. Is this
because fewer people are willing to put the money into restoring an
earlier example and not be able to get their money back out? Or
maybe most earlier examples were "disposed of" and are not available
to restore?
Is the Spitfire the Rodney Dangerfield of Triumphs?
Dave "I don't get no respect either" Williamson (silikal@aol.com)
|