Steve and Gary,
Well my comments/observations did "start" something.
First and FOREMOST I want to state that in NO WAY am I an expert on insurance
matters. In the heat of the 80's I did insure my Tiger for a stated value with
a very well known "consumer" insurance company. I also made sure that they
were aware that I was racing the car during that period. I no longer have this
coverage as my use of the car has been less rather than more in recent years.
Hope to change all that with retirement but finding my spouse has other
designs on my newfound time/availability!
Several points brought up are very true. I did have the car independently
appraised as it was a policy requirement. Also, I was easily able to meet
storage requirements, again required by the policy, for other than "home"
space.
I always felt that racing the car was my own personal risk to both car and
self. True, it is one of several reasons that I gave up racing the Tiger and
switched to the Imp. Competition costs, maintenance costs, speeds, potential
value loss, and the skill level of the driver were all factors.
It is also probably true that my current awareness of restoration costs is not
what I would call "state of the art". The point was, to not enjoy what we
possess might have been more accurately stated as USE what we possess because
of insurance costs would seem to be a bit of a oxymoronic situation.
IMHO, much of what drives the collector market is ego and hype. Two people
biding up a particular vehicle do not realistically establish a market value.
Yes, undoubtedly, it DOES have an effect on the overall price curve. Tigers,
while being acknowledged by the market, have not shown significant dollar
growth other that the few significantly historic and documented that have
gone across the auction block. I am confident that price growth will continue
in much the same manner that the quality of Tigers I have seen at events
continues to improve. Quality and uniqueness will have their effect felt in
the future.
I am still of the opinion that "real" replacement costs of some of the super
valued cars would be far less that their "market" price. I guess that if a
person wants to treat their vehicle as a "semi liquid" asset then they should
insure it for the "stated value". We all know almost anything can be insured,
just not necessarily on the most cost effective basis.
In closing I would say that I am in complete agreement with both of your
comments regarding my original post. If nothing else it may get some people
thinking in greater perspective about their individual insurance situations.
And NO I don't sell insurance.
Thanks guys for the comments.
Regards,
Curt
|