Excellence Magazine Responds...

[stout]

Since I've not heard from Don in two hours, and he was diligent to post my comments last night and shoot me an email I only got this morning telling me he would post parts of my response here, I feel compelled to post the email I sent in response. I have also called him this morning, to no avail.

I have only removed his personal info.

Sincerely,

Pete Stout


Don,

To say that I am frustrated that you violated my trust
by posting my PERSONAL email to YOU (noted as such) by
publishing it -- in whole or in part -- on the web
would be putting it mildly. When readers write in but
ask that their letters not be published, you can be
sure that I honor their requests.

And, for the record, Excellence does NOT operate via
the dubious practices of so much media. When Wolfgang
Durheimer goes "off the record," it's off the record.

So that I may defend myself and clarify my answers, I
ask that you post this email in its entirety
(inlcluding the above) on the Early 911S Registry
forum thread that you have started based on my email
to you. If you are unwilling to do so, then I will
join the Registry to post it.

I will also, from here forward, need to more carefully
consider responding to readers' letters.

The more I read the thread you have created on the
911S Registry's Message Board, the more I am inclined
to think there is a valid defense for Bruce's numbers.
Hence, my quote on "the case for conservatism."

Our market values may be low compared to the visible
and confirmed sales of many early 911s online, but
then the cars that tend to make the "news" are usually
extreme examples from both ends of the spectrum --
though people sure love the highs. One must ask,
"Why?"

Moreover, auctions results are probably only a good
barometer of values in the auction arena -- which is
often supercharged for "shiny" cars on one hand and
careful/dubious of "less shiny" cars on the other.

I feel that Jim at SCM does indeed have a good handle
on the market for these cars -- but I don't think it's
the only handle. The smart reader would probably want
to assemble as many research "handles" as possible
when trying to get the most accurate assessment of the
market. If we are the conservative example, then I am
comfortable with that -- Excellence is conservative in
many ways.

Also, just how many early 911s are out there with
"all-original paint, low miles, few owners, etc.,
etc."? My guess is not many. These cars are not
"merely" "excellent" -- they would fall into Bruce's
oft-noted "beyond excellent" category and thus off of
our pricing scales. Thus, they should not be allowed
to have TOO great an impact on the market values as a
whole.

Early 911s are roughly four decades old now. Is an
early 911 that's been cherished, driven 100,000 or
even 200,000 miles, had a repaint or two, but is
otherwise stunning not an "excellent" car? I would
argue that it certainly can be -- and would be
delighted to see it in a supermarket parking lot,
Registry event, or at an R Gruppe meeting.

But how many early 911s fall well short of "excellent"
-- or even "good"?

Early 911s are enjoying meteoric increases in value
currently -- 8-9 years ago, I had a feeling it would
happen someday. It is good to see them valued for
their beauty, desirability, driving pleasure, relative
rarity, and centrality to the Porsche legend. It is
also sad to see early 911s pushed out of reach for
many enthusiasts, but I suppose this is inevitable.

I wish members of the Early 911S Registry warm
greetings from Excellence and good fortune with your
club in the future. I regret that I felt forced to
make my public address in this manner.

Sincerely,

Pete Stout

P.S. (Please note my confidentiality clause at the end
of this email -- something I pointed to and added to
in my original message to Don.)

Editor, Excellence Magazine

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this
electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). No representation is made on its
accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this electronic
message. ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If this message was misdirected, the author does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. Please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments from your system.

--- Don Hxxxxxxxxxx <dxxxxxxxxxxx@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

> Pete,
> Thanks. I will just quote short sections. An
> excellent 1970
> 911S just sold on the "early 911 registry" and the
> asking
> price was $55k. Tell Bruce.
>
> Don

[kenikh]

This thread is making my stomach turn. I hate thinking that trust between the S Regsitry and Excellence is now compromised. Excellence has been a great resource and promoter of these cars. I'd hate to see that damaged.

FWIW, Excellence is still my mag of choice and I buy it every month on the shelf.

[72targa]

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this
electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). No representation is made on its
accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this electronic
message. ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If this message was misdirected, the author does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. Please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments from your system.

Welcome Pete. I personally hope to see you post here again from time to time. Excellence is certainly part of the Early 911 community and vice versa. As for the above statement, my understanding is that unless a lawyer is addressed or copied on any E-mail with such a statement on it (such as when sharing information when preparing for litigation), this statement has essentially no value. If you said something to the effect of "please don't quote me" in your initial reply, well, that's a whole other can of worms.

[stout]

This thread is making my stomach turn. I hate thinking that trust between the S Regsitry and Excellence is now compromised. Excellence has been a great resource and promoter of these cars. I'd hate to see that damaged.

FWIW, Excellence is still my mag of choice and I buy it every month on the shelf.

Have no worries on that score...and know that we appreciate and value criticism as much as praise. The former is more important to making Excellence better, actually -- and we can certainly still improve!

Do not think for a minute that we aren't separating the actions of one member of the Early 911S Registry from the group as a whole. You guys are serious fans of Porsche -- and that's common ground that runs deep.

If I am angry about anything, it's losing a good chunk of my morning work time to "clean up after this mess" and the fact that I must now consider readers' requests for feedback on their questions even more carefully -- or maybe just not respond to any emails at all.

How sad...

pete

[stout]

If you said something to the effect of "please don't quote me" in your initial reply, well, that's a whole other can of worms.

Oh, I did. Here's the original email. Don's "parts of it" were actually most of it. I have only left off the last paragraph here -- and would darn sure hope Don will not post it now. I'm not particularly scared about it getting out in the open -- as it is hardly juicy or something that "attacks" Bruce -- but it'd be nice to have SOME privacy.

Forget the legality issues. The thought of having to sue another Porsche enthusiast makes MY stomach turn. I hope I'll never have to, but the wide-spread internet postings of copyrighted Excellence material and inflamatory, libel-ridden remarks published internationally on web forums with too little or no moderation may make that an inevitability.

Let's hope not.

This was a plain old matter of courtesy and ethics.

What follows is (almost all of) my original email to Don, since he's brought it out to light anyway.

Hey Don,

First, sorry to have taken so long to get back to you.
Such is the deal with no staff on hand and letters
that come in during deadlines.

Off the record (as in NOT for use or posting in a web
forum), your concerns are both valid and discussed
regularly here. My only request is this: I'm writing
to you and you only; I'll be happy to formulate a more
carefully laid-out repsonse if you'd like to post it
in a forum.

Part of the problem with all of the market update
values is that you're dealing with a nation-wide
market with localized hotspots -- but that doesn't
fully explain the early 911 phenomenon of the last few
years.

Can an excellent 1969 S be found for $27,100? I
suppose there will be cases where one or two are. Are
your price estimates ($36,000-40,000) more realistic?
My gut says yes, but there is a case to be made for
conservatism...

You'll note that Bruce's estimates jump roughly 33 %
from 2005 to 2006 -- which is a significant jump
indeed. That said, I think that the basic numbers are
low across the board.

[bburcha]

Have no worries on that score...and know that we appreciate and value criticism as much as praise. The former is more important to making Excellence better, actually -- and we can certainly still improve!

Do not think for a minute that we aren't separating the actions of one member of the Early 911S Registry from the group as a whole. You guys are serious fans of Porsche -- and that's common ground that runs deep.

If I am angry about anything, it's losing a good chunk of my morning work time to "clean up after this mess" and the fact that I must now consider readers' requests for feedback on their questions even more carefully -- or maybe just not respond to any emails at all.

How sad...

pete

Pete, I feel for you.

What ever happened to handshake agreements and verbal promises. No wonder litigation lawyers have such successful practices and can afford to drive "new" (read expensive) Porsches.This remindes me of a saying my mother told me long ago - "You have 2 ears and 1 mouth, use them in that proportion".

Bruce B.

[stout]

Can an excellent 1969 S be found for $27,100? I
suppose there will be cases where one or two are. Are
your price estimates ($36,000-40,000) more realistic?
My gut says yes, but there is a case to be made for
conservatism...

You'll note that Bruce's estimates jump roughly 33 %
from 2005 to 2006 -- which is a significant jump
indeed. That said, I think that the basic numbers are
low across the board.

Okay, while we're at it, here's what I probably SHOULD have said had I known Don would disregard my email:

Can an excellent 1969 S be found for $27,100? I
suppose there will be cases where SOME CAN BE. Are
your price estimates ($36,000-40,000) more realistic?
My gut says "PERHAPS," but there is a case to be made for
conservatism...

You'll note that Bruce's estimates jump roughly 33 %
from 2005 to 2006 -- which is a significant jump
indeed. That said, I think that the basic numbers MAY BE
low across the board.

There, I feel much better now...

Oh, and thanks for your welcome and warm feelings. They are shared here as well. Know that I'd love to join in from time to time on many of the boards, as I think they are some of the coolest parts of the Porsche community. But, with no staff and a magazine to get out the door every 5-6 weeks, I usually don't have time to do so.

Also, with so much at stake -- and so many waiting to find a crack in whatever I might write to exploit -- the time spent to craft postings and all of the potential headaches mean I'm better off just lurking...

Of course, they'll find the cracks in print anyway (hey, we're human -- so there are plenty of them!) and exploit them.

So instead of having fun, friendly posts to share, my rare appearances in web forums usually come on sour occasions. That's a bummer...

Sometimes, when stuff like this gets posted online and I get no Letter to the Editor from the poster, I have to wonder if, at some level, he or she intends to really help the magazine improve or even just to complain. Or are they making themselves look smart in front of others?

So I'll give Don one thing -- at least he wrote me. But maybe that makes the events that followed even worse.

Whatever, I better stop posting now lest I wear out my welcome. And I need to get back to work.

Oh, and I need an editor -- sorry for the long-winded responses, but it takes time to make 'em shorter.

pete

[Tom F.]

Excellent exchange of opinion, here. I have been an Excellence subscriber since 1990, bought my first issue in 1989, and I've enjoyed and kept every one.

I think that BA's reporting on pricing is careful, as it should be. It would be a disservice to the hobby if he were to drive prices up by rushing to report inflated prices in his column. While some may enjoy old Porsches for price speculation, I enjoy driving and caring for them. Thanks, Bruce!

[stout]

First post here (and the 5th or 6th from the original, deleted thread) edited to remove Don's last name to protect his privacy.

Post has been reestablished for the informational purposes of letting readers and 911S Registry board participants have an eye into Excellence's view on its Market Update series -- which are often questioned/debated.

Thanks,

pete

[pwd72s]

This thread is making my stomach turn. I hate thinking that trust between the S Regsitry and Excellence is now compromised. Excellence has been a great resource and promoter of these cars. I'd hate to see that damaged.

FWIW, Excellence is still my mag of choice and I buy it every month on the shelf.

Hell, I just send a subscription check...for the longest period of time. Probably because small towns don't seem to have EXCELLENCE on every magazine rack. I agree on the upset tummy, BTW...But those who upset my tummy will never have a clue why they do.