So I have this massive amount of Early 911 pricing data...

[mfitton]

Well said. That is the game they are playing

Does anyone have proof that their estmates are overstated. My recent experience with the sale of my '74 914 2.0 their numbers were dead nuts on. My car was 2+ and their value was 20k - 22k that is what it sold for and the buyer was very happy! On 914world this same argument was brought up but what people don't realize is most #1 & #2 cars are sold word of mouth and are not available to the general public there is always a line of buyers waiting for these cars. Oh, I did not list my car for sale to the general public, I just sent out 3 emails to people I thought would want the car. I also have a '71 911T Targa in 2+ condition and was recently offered 60k (unsolicited) for it. Hagerty's numbers on this car are also right on (50k for #2 up to 78K for #1).

BTW I do not use Hagerty for insurance on my cars!

[Frank Beck]

My point is don't necessarily expect objective, unbiased values from companies like Hagerty.

They have a chip in the game.

[luke-44]

I'm not so sure. There are also a lot of cars on Hagerty whose values have been flat lining for a long time. I think we all have a sense for the direction the values of long nose 911's have been going. I don't see anything inconsistent with what Hagerty is reporting.

[beh911]

The point I was agreeing with Frank on is that their total loss underwriting factor has to be very low.

And a rear quarter repair is a roughly "fixed" cost on these cars, and yes, it is high. But it won't total the vehicle.

So, if someone says insure it for 240 vs 200, Hagerty underwriting might not be objecting if they are looking to fund the occasional $20k fender bender with more premium from an insured who wants the total loss covered.

No one is being deceptive, they are just not underwriting for total loss. Which is what Frank is saying (I think).

Pure conjecture, but come on, how many total losses do you here about with collector cars relative to the masses that are insured

[mfitton]

The point I was agreeing with Frank on is that their total loss underwriting factor has to be very low.

And a rear quarter repair is a roughly "fixed" cost on these cars, and yes, it is high. But it won't total the vehicle.

So, if someone says insure it for 240 vs 200, Hagerty underwriting might not be objecting if they are looking to fund the occasional $20k fender bender with more premium from an insured who wants the total loss covered.

No one is being deceptive, they are just not underwriting for total loss. Which is what Frank is saying (I think).

Pure conjecture, but come on, how many total losses do you here about with collector cars relative to the masses that are insured

I agree with what you are saying, my point is the values they are showing are pretty accurate. You know you could play the numbers game also and insure your car for less than what they recommend knowing the odds are you are not going to have a total loss.

[Louie]

Its been my experience that from several direct contacts with the guys who compile this data at Hagerty that its very accurate. One of their primary sources of intel is folks calling in to change their policies. Add a car, remove a car for insurance. When they report having sold a car Hagerty asks the selling price. When a customer reports having purchased a car and want it insured Hagerty asks for pictures and purchase data. They told me that they weigh the private (unreported) sales over the auction sales.

Also, the private sales is where the sales velocity for our cars is now. Not the auctions. I loath the idea of selling (or buying) at an auction vs one on one with the cars current care taker.

Its easy to be a skeptic with stuff like this. There are always the 'hidden agendas'. As owners most of us want the price guides to reflect the highest value. When buying our objectives change. Such is the way.

Where the Hagerty value guide has really helped is when dealing with the Sloans and Canapas of the world. I had a random offer on one of our Porsches earlier this year. I suspected he was low on his offer. I hit up Hagerty and confirmed this. He increased his offer by $20k with no resistance. I declined and have no intention of selling the car (89 Speedster). Point is that the playing field was more level.

[Richardnew]

If Hagerty is pumping up values I wish they would do something about my '58 Corvette. It's been flat for a while now.

I think the auctions are getting more top quality cars than they used to. The auction prices are going up faster than the prices between private individuals. That wasn't the case a few years ago. Also, some auction houses are guaranteeing prices if you consign your vehicle to them. You need a really good car that will attract a lot of attention to do this though. A 911T won't do it.

I suspect that some of the '73 RS owners may not be paying a sellers commission. I'm not sure if they get guaranteed money though. For most of us none of this matters though.

I'm predicting we'll see our first $300,000 S at one of the Monterey auctions. I'm also thinking that every RS will go for over a million. Anyone taking the under on these bets?

Richard Newton

[NorthernThrux]

I dunno about the inflating values issue. Most Hagerty values for most cars are pretty flat. The lower loss underwriting factor is built into their premiums in a seemingly reasonable way, at least here in Ontario. I spend 1.5x as much to insure my 2014 Porsche (Statefarm) as my 3x more valuable 1973. Or in other words, it costs 4.5x less per $ of car value to insure the '73. The 2014 is curently insured for full replacement cost, to guard against depreciation, so its a pretty apples and apples comparson.

Ravi

[Richardnew]

Good should not be the enemy of perfect. If not Hagerty -who?

Richard Newton

[luke-44]

The point I was agreeing with Frank on is that their total loss underwriting factor has to be very low. And a rear quarter repair is a roughly "fixed" cost on these cars, and yes, it is high. But it won't total the vehicle. So, if someone says insure it for 240 vs 200, Hagerty underwriting might not be objecting if they are looking to fund the occasional $20k fender bender with more premium from an insured who wants the total loss covered. No one is being deceptive, they are just not underwriting for total loss. Which is what Frank is saying (I think)...

I agree with this as well. One thing I will say is the Hagerty charts did prompt me to up my insurance, so if that was a strategy, it worked.

At the same time I find some confusion between the Hagerty "Value change over time" and the "Insured values". Seems the insured values are significantly less. Can anyone explain this difference?