Page 1 of 1

1950s BETTER THAN 1960s?

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:14 pm
by PANADERO
I once had a 1960s traveller and then a 1959 saloon. I was immediately struck by the difference in the quality of
build. The 59 seemed bullet-proof. Does the membership agree with that assessment?

Anyhow I am currently looking for a 50s "cheese-grater" traveller and there is one on sale at a dealer in Hampshire at £10950.
Interestingly there is an identical one on sale at Cotswold Classics at £17995! The latter in fact featured in mmoc comment when on sale on ebay in September 2013 but failed to reach reserve price (bidding ended at £9400). There is something of a chasm between £9400 and £17995! The latter may well be exceptional in various respects ("only 20 surviving globally"etc) but clearly the marketplace is not prepared to pay such a very heavy premium. Before I rush out to view the Cotswold offering does anyone have any comments please on the above issues of build quality and valuation?

Re: 1950s BETTER THAN 1960s?

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 3:07 pm
by TFM150K
I can't see why 'build quality' should have deteriorated in any way in the sixties but can remember reading somewhere that the standard of the steel used in making bodies etc. went down in quality from the mid-sixties - something to do with the introduction of re-cycled steel into the process???
As far as price and value are concerned, price is what one person would like to sell something for, value is what another person is prepared to pay for the same thing! You may think that an item is not worth £17995 and the next person may think that is a fair price - if they come up with the readies then the value is £17995. I know two people at least who have paid more than that for Travellers. I paid £8 for my first convertible and ran it for 9 months before it failed its MoT spectacularly - those were the days!
:)

Re: 1950s BETTER THAN 1960s?

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:25 pm
by MarkyB
50s cars do seem to survive relatively better than 60s ones.
Cars were in short supply after the war and may have been better cared for. Also most of them are Black which seems to be the most durable colour.
The quality of the steel may well have deteriorated also costs may have been cut and the production line speeded up.

As for the difference in prices I'd think you have to factor in the profit margin the dealer is looking for rather than think there is a difference in the quality of the cars.

Re: 1950s BETTER THAN 1960s?

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:59 am
by jagnut66
Hi,
Dealers are always looking for fat profits, which is the nature of their game, you can bet he paid nothing like that for it.
I'd go and look at the one in Hampshire for just over £10K and, if it's what you are looking for, make them an offer.
You might get a good deal and the worst that can happen is that, if you think it's worth it, you will end up paying the asking price.

£17K - no way! :x

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re: 1950s BETTER THAN 1960s?

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 9:01 pm
by mbo145
I was told years ago that the ash on earlier travellers has lasted longer, as it was air dried, by the mid 60s it was kiln dried, I have seen many older travellers with original wood, but few later ones!

Re: 1950s BETTER THAN 1960s?

Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2013 12:57 am
by mike.perry
My 52 MM doors and bonnet close with clunk, my 68 Traveller doors and bonnet close with a clang