Does rarity make a car prettier ?

[jfman]

I was looking at mustangs FS the other day. In the the early mustangs, the fastbacks are selling for a lot more than coupes. But in fox bodies, the coupes are worth more than hatchbacks...

People like fastback mustangs and coupe foxes...

IMO they all look good... about the same apart from the fact that the rarer ones are not seen often.

Does a '67 mustang fastback really look ten thousand dollars better than a '67 coupe ? Is it all just hype ?!?

[dropit69]

i say no but glad they are worth more..you looking to buy a 67 fb..mines for sale..

[MrQuick]

its called popular demandability. yeah I just made that up. Its not all hype, its what people want so it makes the price increase.

[boodlefoof]

I think the '65 and '66 fastback look the sweetest of all. I might make one of those a project someday... if I can afford it!

[wantahertzdonut]

I have a 70 fastback because I like the looks. Coupes don't really do it for me, at least for a "cool" car. I'd take a coupe, but I paid more for the fastback because that is what I wanted. Same for the hatchback fox bodies, the coupes just look strange. I'm not sure I'd really want one. Those are going for more because they're supposed to be lighter and stiffer, good for race cars.

[CDJr]

Simple economics really....supply, demand, all that jazz, not to mention personal preference thrown into the equation. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....."

[Jim Nilsen]

Fastbacks were ,well faster when they came out and back then everyone wanted faster and faster was cooler and still is today along with less of them and more valuable.

Jim Nilsen

[vintageracer]

Yes, a fastback IS worth $10K more than a coupe when speaking of 65-70 Mustangs. Most coupes are parts cars but thats why they make these cars great race cars! Per your quote "Does a 67 Fastback look $10K better than a 67 Coupe? HELL NO!

Given the price of early fastbacks/Shelbys, coupes make great road race or PT cars. In race form I personally think the 67-68 Coupes look MUCH better than fastbacks. There are some really cool looking and fast driving 67-68 coupes out there. They are cheap to buy, a little larger than the 65-66 for better comfort and really haul the groceries with all the suspension modifications no available.

If and when I ever do another Mustang project it will be 67-68 Coupe.

[Joey_H]

Ford didn't make as many early fastbacks as they did coupes. So they're considered more "rare" and more valuable.

[Bandit]

I would have to say no. Some of the best-lookin cars around aren't rare by any stretch, like no-option '69 camaros and mustangs, but most people would agree that these are really beautiful cars. Conversely, some of the rarest cars in the world can still look like crap.

Rarity, as in one of 100 made, may be desirable to the #'s matching crowd, but the options that make it rare may not even be visible, as in a serial #. Furthermore, the average joe (like me) could care less whether the car is only 1 of 2 made when it comes to looks. We just want to see smooth body lines, good aesthetic fit and finish and nice paint and wheels. If there are rare options that improve the looks of a vehicle they can usually be duplicated in a more common version of the vehicle for much cheaper than obtaining one of the "rare birds".

Personally, I am in the "form follows function" crowd--I think the things that really make a car perform, like air dams, tasteful spoilers, large brakes, wheels & tires etc, make a car look really sexy. The 'vette Z06 is a perfect example. Almost everything on the car is built for pure function, and with a nice paint job it looks slicker than snot on a doorknob! Another example is the bare-bones Ford Cobra. Still one of the hottest-looking cars ever. This is a personal taste though, some like chrome-embellished, doodad-encrusted, steel-bumpered '50's land yachts--not me.

And of course, everyone has there own opinion about what looks good..but you know what they say about opinions...

Paul