69 Z-28 survivor

[Steve Shauger]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see prices have returned to earth. Nice car. Priced about right. &lt;img src=&quot;https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...mpup.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt; </div></div>

Not sure you can base that on this car. The car is obviously NOT a survivor. Has incorrect paint, hood, grill, incorrect ride height/springs and many missing/incorrect pieces under the hood. No information regarding documentaion, and is low option car. Not trying to bash this car, but it is neither a survivor or concours restored car. What do you think this would have been worth a year ago? &lt;img src=&quot;https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...unno.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt; </div></div>


Steve,

Lets focus my comments to exactly what I was referring to. Since 2004 There have been numerous examples for sale where the seller was asking large dollars for cars that were claimed to be original with LOTS of stuff that was very clearly wrong.

Since then there have been more examples of cars that should have been heavily critiqued on Camaro web sites but essentially got a &quot;pass&quot; because while the car was not perfect- the asking price was still good and high.

This allows others that are vested in these values to speculate up the price on better cars through comparison with the high priced yet vastly inferior examples.

Despite this, the prices asked for these cars along with the rest of the 20,000 made in 1969 were hyped to levels that the market could clearly not sustain over the long term.

The car discussed in this thread looks to be an honest car that would appear to still have its original engine and is fairly priced (for a change). This fact is no small feat by its self.

It is that simple. Car is not perfect but the asking price is not $70K either.

My comments had and have zero to do with the car as a &quot;survivor&quot; (as the term) is currently used by the NCRS or for Camaro judging criteria. &lt;img src=&quot;https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...hmmm.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;

Phil </div></div>

Your quote &quot;I see prices have returned to earth. Nice car. Priced about right. &lt;img src=&quot;https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...mpup.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt; [/quote]&quot;

My point as stated is that the price for this car has not changed or &quot;come down to earth&quot;, because this car has been worth same for the last couple of years. I disagree with your statement and I specified why this car was not worth 75k plus because it was not a survivor or a concours restored car.

Regarding your quote:
&quot;This allows others that are vested in these values to speculate up the price on better cars through comparison with the high priced yet vastly inferior examples.

Despite this, the prices asked for these cars along with the rest of the 20,000 made in 1969 were hyped to levels that the market could clearly not sustain over the long term.&quot;



Regarding your quote:
&quot;My comments had and have zero to do with the car as a &quot;survivor&quot; (as the term) is currently used by the NCRS or for Camaro judging criteria.&quot;

Again my original use of the term survivor and concours was to point out this car was neither hence the 40K asking price. Now follow-up posts were made regarding the survivor term and I was clarifying its definition. If you read my post I think most people got my point. As you know accurate decriptions and classifications of cars is critical as stated in my previous post. &lt;img src=&quot;https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...eers.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;