TeriAnn confesses:
~ Had I spent an extra $4 to 5K back in '86 i could have purchased a
~ very nice TR3 and have driven it the last 5 years.
Well, yabbut... I suspect, if you're anything like me, that if you
had HAD another $4K to $5K back in 1986, you WOULD have purchased
a very nice TR3 and driven it for the last five years. And as Jeff's
grandma used to say, "If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd
all have a Merry Christmas."
BTW, TeriAnn and I recently got to comparing notes on her TR3. I
have no way of knowing for sure, but I *believe* that this is a
car that I called on and almost bought, when I lived 400 miles
away from the seller. At the time, I had my Lotus Cortina and
one or two other impossible project cars, so I passed on it.
But based on her description of the car, the seller, the time,
the location, and the price, I seriously think this was the car.
Funny how the net drags us all in sooner or later... for one
meaning of net or another.
~ I guess whaat I'm trying to illustrate is that there is no such thing as a
~ bargin fixer upper. You pay for it now or pay a LOT more later.
This of course is the basis of my True Cost theory: every dollar under
a car's True Cost translates to two or three dollars over that price
by the time you're done with it. Maybe that should be Fisher's Second
Law.
Fisher's First Law, of course, is "By the time you've saved up enough
to buy it, you can't afford it."
--Scott
|