-
Hey Guest!
British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
TR4/4A Interesting/Nice TR4 on the Bay
- Thread starter glemon
- Start date
Share this page
bgbassplyr
Darth Vader
Offline
OK, so whats wrong.
Mismatched horns?
Wrong radiator duct? for a 4A, I think.
Blue taped wiring harness? Misplaced location (routing) between headlights?
Top hose clamps?
If we're gonna pick nits, lets get to nit picking.
Still a beautiful car that I wish I could afford and had the time and talent to emulate.
Mismatched horns?
Wrong radiator duct? for a 4A, I think.
Blue taped wiring harness? Misplaced location (routing) between headlights?
Top hose clamps?
If we're gonna pick nits, lets get to nit picking.
Still a beautiful car that I wish I could afford and had the time and talent to emulate.
Offline
Not a problem; those were "alternative fitments" on TR4s.bgbassplyr said:
bgbassplyr
Darth Vader
Offline
Closed at $32,100, reserve not met.
rustbucket
Jedi Hopeful
Offline
Wonder what the reserve was? What did he expect?
V
vagt6
Guest
Guest
Offline
The Hagerty book "Cars That Matter" says a concours TR-4 price is about $40,000-ish, give or take a few thou. That's the tip-top concours trailer queen price.
That's a mighty stratospheric price, if you ask me.
Don't get me wrong, I think TR-4s are wonderful but even if I won the lottery I wouldn't pay that kinda money for any TR-4.
Guys with too much money, methinks . . .
That's a mighty stratospheric price, if you ask me.
Don't get me wrong, I think TR-4s are wonderful but even if I won the lottery I wouldn't pay that kinda money for any TR-4.
Guys with too much money, methinks . . .
Offline
I wonder if anyone told the seller that there's a recession on.
I'm amazed that it went so high, given the economy. That confirms it's a nice car, if you couldn't tell by looking at it, but I do thing the guy made a big mistake by setting reserve so high. $32K seems like a pretty good price, to me.
I'm amazed that it went so high, given the economy. That confirms it's a nice car, if you couldn't tell by looking at it, but I do thing the guy made a big mistake by setting reserve so high. $32K seems like a pretty good price, to me.
Lou Metelko
Jedi Trainee
Offline
My opinion says that the owner was right in passing on the $32,1 top bid. Missed by a good 20% but we will see that car pass through again. That 32 bid was probably close to what he had in it. That color was never a stock TR4 color so that may have thrown off the true Concours crazies.
Lou Metelko
Auburn, Indiana
Lou Metelko
Auburn, Indiana
bgbassplyr
Darth Vader
Offline
I bet he was looking for B-J price, say 50 large. See if it relists.
Offline
The "patina" comment really bothered me. If a car has undergone an excellent restoration to original condition, then it should win a prize. Full stop. The standard should be as they were when the rolled off the production line. When shopping for a new car, I don't believe I look for a patina, and I don't believe that the nice folks at Standard Triumph sought to add a patina to the cars when they were new.
Now, all that said, we should all be honest with ourselves. When our cars were new, they were manufactured largely hand-built by companies that were constantly out of funds and were a few short years away from being nationalized. Indeed, in my conversations with John MacCartney last weekend, he said straight out that the technology they were using in the 1960s was already decades old and outdated and they did so because they simply couldn't afford anything else.
My point is that most contemporary restorations will, by their nature, result in a car that is somewhat better than when the cars were new. Panel fit on 1960s British roadsters was notoriously bad. Most of us obsess about gaps in a way that nobody grabbing press-fit panels on a production line would ever care about or have the time to concern themselves with. The pictures I have of my parents in and around their new 1960 Austin Healey 3000 clearly show this, and my father -- who was a restorer then as he is now -- recalls this very clearly. Panel fit was lousy.
Plus, these cars were painted on a production line. They weren't treated to even the basic care that we would all expect from a normal paint job for a car we're redoing. It gets painted. We sand, we compound, we buff, we repaint. We let the paint cure and shrink for weeks, and we do it all over again. I can assure you there wasn't a large volume manufacturer at the time here or in the UK that did that. Think about what we usually do to a wood dash. I'm not talking about a replacement dash. Just what we all usually do when we pull out the original, sand the old finish off of it, and then re-coat it. I doubt any of us would be satisfied with what it looked like when new. We'll make it just a bit shinier.
Plus, none of us, including concours judges, would probably be satisfied with a car that was actually in like-new condition. My Lotus Elise came with so many minor defects from new -- not even addressing the mechanical stuff -- that I doubt will be added or reproduced when these cars are restored in four decades' time. Adhesive oozing from the bottom of the plastic sills where they are bonded over the fiberglass shell. Ill-fitting interior panels. A passenger door that didn't line up well with the latch. I can't wait to tell a concours judge in that time (if I'm still alive): "I swear, it was oozing that black glue the day I bought it! I spent months searching for original spec Hethel ooze!"
None of this is in any way intended to be criticism. It's just the nature of taking something old and spiffing it up, even if we're going for originality. In the end, you usually end up with something that is just a bit prettier than when it was new, especially since we're working on one car that we love and adore, and the nice folks at Triumph (or BMC, Rootes, Jaguar, Lotus, etc.) were cranking them out in larger numbers.
Just my two cents.
Now, all that said, we should all be honest with ourselves. When our cars were new, they were manufactured largely hand-built by companies that were constantly out of funds and were a few short years away from being nationalized. Indeed, in my conversations with John MacCartney last weekend, he said straight out that the technology they were using in the 1960s was already decades old and outdated and they did so because they simply couldn't afford anything else.
My point is that most contemporary restorations will, by their nature, result in a car that is somewhat better than when the cars were new. Panel fit on 1960s British roadsters was notoriously bad. Most of us obsess about gaps in a way that nobody grabbing press-fit panels on a production line would ever care about or have the time to concern themselves with. The pictures I have of my parents in and around their new 1960 Austin Healey 3000 clearly show this, and my father -- who was a restorer then as he is now -- recalls this very clearly. Panel fit was lousy.
Plus, these cars were painted on a production line. They weren't treated to even the basic care that we would all expect from a normal paint job for a car we're redoing. It gets painted. We sand, we compound, we buff, we repaint. We let the paint cure and shrink for weeks, and we do it all over again. I can assure you there wasn't a large volume manufacturer at the time here or in the UK that did that. Think about what we usually do to a wood dash. I'm not talking about a replacement dash. Just what we all usually do when we pull out the original, sand the old finish off of it, and then re-coat it. I doubt any of us would be satisfied with what it looked like when new. We'll make it just a bit shinier.
Plus, none of us, including concours judges, would probably be satisfied with a car that was actually in like-new condition. My Lotus Elise came with so many minor defects from new -- not even addressing the mechanical stuff -- that I doubt will be added or reproduced when these cars are restored in four decades' time. Adhesive oozing from the bottom of the plastic sills where they are bonded over the fiberglass shell. Ill-fitting interior panels. A passenger door that didn't line up well with the latch. I can't wait to tell a concours judge in that time (if I'm still alive): "I swear, it was oozing that black glue the day I bought it! I spent months searching for original spec Hethel ooze!"
None of this is in any way intended to be criticism. It's just the nature of taking something old and spiffing it up, even if we're going for originality. In the end, you usually end up with something that is just a bit prettier than when it was new, especially since we're working on one car that we love and adore, and the nice folks at Triumph (or BMC, Rootes, Jaguar, Lotus, etc.) were cranking them out in larger numbers.
Just my two cents.
PeterK
Yoda
Offline
My only dissatisfaction with this car is that the hardware was blasted then clear coated. After blasting, it looks gray, not natural. And he didn't take measures to restore the original finish, just clear coated.
Other than that, it reminds me of my own project TR4A that has been in my workshop since 1997 and sat in someone elses shop for many years prior. I take great pains to get it right. Getting closer but still more time to go. Mine won't be a trailer queen.
I agree about over restoring and I think that it is unfortunately quite common in the concours arena. A "real" restorer's work shouldn't be measured against an over-restored vehicle.
Other than that, it reminds me of my own project TR4A that has been in my workshop since 1997 and sat in someone elses shop for many years prior. I take great pains to get it right. Getting closer but still more time to go. Mine won't be a trailer queen.
I agree about over restoring and I think that it is unfortunately quite common in the concours arena. A "real" restorer's work shouldn't be measured against an over-restored vehicle.
TR4nut
Yoda
Offline
Its hard to really criticize this car, it looks extremely well done. A lot of it for me is just personal preference. For some reason, my pulse quickens a little more when I walk around a survivor car than I do with a beautifully restored car. But independent of that I think this particular car is gorgeous, its just not in my price range (ie cheap!)
I'm not a judge, but if I were I wouldn't try to ding a car for being restored versus one with patina. For either car, though, if I see something wrong as in not from the factory, I would dock 'em.
I'm not a judge, but if I were I wouldn't try to ding a car for being restored versus one with patina. For either car, though, if I see something wrong as in not from the factory, I would dock 'em.
I think TRBill's comment about the car not being able to win at a concours for lack of patina is just misguided, perhaps he doesn't really understand how a concours works. Pebble Beach does now have a class for unrestored original cars, maybe that's what he was thinking about. I do love unrestored originals, but also love beautiful restorations. 2 completely different things, I don't try to argue which is better, I appreciate them both.
I'm actually the seller of this car, I restored it, I've enjoyed reading everyone's comments about it. A lot of you showed very sharp instincts on the pricing. I had the reserve set at 40, then lowered it to 37,500. I sold the car this morning on the phone to a dealer on the East Coast for 35. Sure, the car might have done better at one of the Monterey auctions next month but at this price I think it was "fair to seller, fair to buyer".
It's hard to value a TR4 in this condition because of a lack of comparison. There have been multiple big Healeys at auction the past few years that have established what a show grade example will sell for, it's is a little more murky for TR4's. All I know is that I learned a lot restoring mine, made a fair profit and had a good deal of fun along the way.
I'm actually the seller of this car, I restored it, I've enjoyed reading everyone's comments about it. A lot of you showed very sharp instincts on the pricing. I had the reserve set at 40, then lowered it to 37,500. I sold the car this morning on the phone to a dealer on the East Coast for 35. Sure, the car might have done better at one of the Monterey auctions next month but at this price I think it was "fair to seller, fair to buyer".
It's hard to value a TR4 in this condition because of a lack of comparison. There have been multiple big Healeys at auction the past few years that have established what a show grade example will sell for, it's is a little more murky for TR4's. All I know is that I learned a lot restoring mine, made a fair profit and had a good deal of fun along the way.
Offline
Welcome to the Forum! I have to ask: was this car originally special-ordered in Cactus Green, or did you just like that particular Triumph color (which <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> correct for the time period)? It's one of my favorite Triumph colors; sadly, it virtually never made the paint color chart for US-bound Triumphs.
Thanks! The car was originally red and almost everyone, including my painter, thought I was crazy not to repaint in red, especially since I was going to be selling it. I just really liked cactus green, thought it would suit the car, and knew it would the only TR4 out there in that color.