Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Vehicular Math...

A longtime friend of mine from wayback celebrated his birthday this past weekend, and it got me to thinking...

He moved into our district when we were in eighth grade, so that would have been in the early 1980s. The house his parents bought came with an "extra" - a 1963 Ford Thunderbird, in what can only be described as "accelerated wear" condition. It was in decent shape all things considered, but at the time was not running and as such was consigned to a junkyard. With the power of 20/20 hindsight, of course, we both wish they had held onto it.

And then it dawned on me. That's like having a 1994 T-bird, non-functional, sitting next to your house now. Like this:


(This is a 1990 model - which is about a month or so away from being an antique in its own right, but it's representative of the 10th generation T-bird).

It might not seem like a classic right now, but who knows what the future will bring?

That is all.

3 comments:

Ted said...

Anything that they produced more than 1,000 of will never be so rare that you can make a killing restoring it

lelnet said...

A 1963 Thunderbird wasn't merely a cool car, it was a work of engineering _art_. Whereas from 1970 until the late 1990s at least, there were almost no cars made by _anybody_ about which you could say anything better than that they worked decently well and weren't transcendently ugly...and even those two criteria made any car which met them a real stand-out.

I'm not going to try and make the case that holding on to a rusting-out '63 'bird in the early 1980s would have made financial sense...it probably wouldn't have, even in retrospect. But there's a vast difference between a prospect which might be a waste of money (such as that) and a prospect which is an utter affront to all that is good and decent and true (such as intentionally preserving a '90s vintage "thunderbird" -- which was an awful car and a horrific libel of a justly-revered name -- today).

Jay G said...

I love my readers. :)