CNN's Flops turn Collectible

[SLK]

CNN posted a gallery of vehicles that they feel were flops but are now collectible. Among the 10 cars listed is our own Continental Mark II. I wouldn't necessarily call it a flop, it was just unobtainable for most buyers.

Take a look.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/autos/1006/gallery.hagerty_flops_to_winners/index.html

[Doc]

I don't know whether to be proud or embarrassed, I've got three examples of cars on that list...

[SLK]

It must have been your ability to see into the future.

[Don Henschel]

I don't know whether to be proud or embarrassed, I've got three examples of cars on that list...

I would be embarrassed if I paid $30-60,000 for a Fiat Jolly or an Isetta and they value a Mark II at only $40-90,000.

[Shelly Harris]

That's an interesting article. Frankly, it speaks highly and accurately about the Mark II. I would love to have some of the other "Flops"... like the Avanti and how about having a Tucker. The others mentioned are worse than flops.... they were awful.

[Don Henschel]

That's an interesting article. Frankly, it speaks highly and accurately about the Mark II. I would love to have some of the other "Flops"... like the Avanti and how about having a Tucker. The others mentioned are worse than flops.... they were awful.
An Avanti and how about having a Tucker, and even an Edsel would do as well (A two door hardtop, wagon or convertable). I saw an Avanti cruising through my home town back in the early eighties long before I ever walked up to a Mark II. The only reason there is a Mark II here is because of me.
$575,000 to $1.1 million for a Tucker:eek: If you can't buy one you can always build one.
http://www.robidaconcepts.com/lower48build.html
Another project for Mad?

[Barry Wolk]

There were only 48 Tuckers made. Couple that with the story and you have the prices stated.

While not plebeian, the Mark II was a mass-produced automobile, along the lines of many boutique builders of the '30s. The bodies were made by Mitchell, the drive lines right out of the Lincoln parts bin and most other parts made by outside contractors. Continental was more of an assembler, rather than a manufacturer, like other Ford divisions.

I think Mark II prices are hurt by the perception that they are expensive to own. I think that that is misplaced. While bringing a Mark II to top standards is expensive, it's no more expensive than something like a '53 Roadmaster. Paint is paint and bodywork is bodywork. Keeping up a Mark II is ridiculous in its simplicity. While many of the systems were advanced for the time, nothing (with the exception of the low fuel light system) is terribly complicated.

Another thing that keeps Mark II prices down is that they are not rare, IMO. With the majority of original production extant you can't pick up a Hemming's without seeing 7-10 of them for sale at any given time.

To me the Mark II is a work of art that has intrinsic value. Rolling sculpture that you don't have to keep on a pedestal. That is what spoke to me. It's a thoroughly modern vehicle, less the electronics. Yes, it would be nice to have better brakes, but spending 5 hours behind the wheel just isn't tiring, if the car's set up right.

Does the Mark II have the potential for big increases in value? I don't think so because, just as the owners were a particular breed when the car was new, I believe that the car plays to a particular breed today that's a very small segment of the car collector world.

McKeel Hagerty was the majority contributor to that article. He is a huge fan of the Mark II. If anyone can prognosticate pricing trends, he can.

Thanks for posting that.

[Doc]

Unfortunately my "awful" flops don't include a Tucker, but coincidentally all the "Tuckers" used in the film were prepared at a shop here in Hermosa Beach. The shop is long gone, but the Tucker mural they painted on the building is still here.

http://i831.photobucket.com/albums/zz238/markii1956/IMG_0704.jpg

[newmexicomatt]

I have two on that list with the recent addition of my Isetta...my Mom had a VW Thing that she restored in the 80's. Some guy walked up to her in a parking lot and gave her $11,000 for it...and that was over 20 years ago!

[Shelly Harris]

My father in-law had a "thing" in the 1980's and kept it in his North Woods hunting and fishing cabin near the Minn/Canadian border. He sold it off rather quickly because it looked like it should have fit in for the use, but for several reasons he soon learned to hate it. No heat, rain leaks, weak engine, etc. And he was a guy who loved all cars! I understand that most "things" rusted out very quickly which made them scarce early on.

[Shawn Newcomb]

What's the deal with the stance on the red Mark II? It is all jacked up in the back, and is that a Mark II fender emblem on the C-pillar?

[Barry Wolk]

The whole car sits way too far off the ground. I believe that that is a Lincoln Star, like those used on the '60s slabside.

Tacky.

[Don Henschel]

The whole car sits way too far off the ground. I believe that that is a Lincoln Star, like those used on the '60s slabside.

Tacky.

OK how far off the ground should it be? The resto manual shows 26.5 to the bottom edge of the fender (refer to the resto guide for measuring location). Mine has been sitting around for years with the trunk loaded with spare parts and spring spacer jacks installed between the coils to raise them (were in there when I bought the car) and I have 26 3/4 -27 inches. I ask this because I just received a new set of coil springs (because of those goofy spring expanders) I ordered assuming my leafs and coils are sagged as they probably are.

[Barry Wolk]

Had my rears recurved at a local spring shop. The Mark II springs have plastic spacers in-between the leafs. When rust forms it can expand into the plastic, pretty effectively locking one spring to another. I sand-blasted and painted the leafs and removed any burrs on the plastic and reassembled with a small bead of carbon lubricant down the center of each spacer.

That got rid of two of the car's creeks. Also discovered that both shock mount plates had been installed upside down and on the wrong side. The shock bushing were ruined by that arrangement.

[Shawn Newcomb]

While, I don't make habit of measuring other peoples cars:) , and certainly can't speak to an authenticity manual that I've never read, I can spot a car that doesn't have the right stance. Visually the Mark II seems to look right with the lip of the rear wheel well at the upper edge of the white wall of the tire. Long and low, but not too low.

Barry, when they have your car apart and the frame flipped for welding it can get a little confusing which way is up! :)

[Ian Cowie]

VIN of this MKII is C56F3032, sold Aug 2009. More pictures can be found on www.finecars.cc (http://www.finecars.cc/en/detail/car/48567/index.html?no_cache=1&ret=251).

There are similar angle pictures of a convertible on the same web site and it seems to be sitting perhaps an inch lower. Check out those pictures also on www.finecars.cc (http://www.finecars.cc/en/detail/car/27299/index.html?no_cache=1&ret=251).

Another similar angle of a much lower stance can be found www.autabuy.com (http://www.autabuy.com/Photos/372891_206239744_Original.jpg).

I have extracted the pictures from the web sites and added a black line across the lower trim piece to visually see the difference.

http://cowco.net/pics/mkii/stance/Stance%20-%20Red.jpg
http://cowco.net/pics/mkii/stance/Stance%20-%20BlackConv.jpg
http://cowco.net/pics/mkii/stance/Stance%20-%20White.jpg

(sorry Shelly as that is 3 pictures with links .. but I needed to do that to show the comparison)

[Shawn Newcomb]

Nice comparison Ian.

I'm thinking the Mark II should have been built in coupe and roadster versions. No one should ever have the option to put that hideous top up! Ford probably knew that when they did r&d on the retractable hardtop.

[Barry Wolk]

That's why I never drive mine with the top up if I don't have to.

[Barry Wolk]

Note the emblem on the convertible. The same guy that put those on that car put them on mine. When my top was replaced I had them deleted. He also installed welting between the bumpers and the body. That's the second thing I removed.

Where's the "puke" smiley when you need it?

FYI, that is one of the two convertibles made in 1994 from Derham prints. The other is metallic green. They were made by famous car crafter Alan Taylor.

[depmike38]

That's why I never drive mine with the top up if I don't have to.

One thing I believe is almost a universal truth about soft top convertibles is they were never really meant to be seen with their tops up.

[Barry Wolk]

I would concur.

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg18/barry2952/sample_Cont2copy-1.jpg

[Don Henschel]

The whole car sits way too far off the ground. I believe that that is a Lincoln Star, like those used on the '60s slabside.

Tacky.

The rear appears a bit higher than yours and the front about the same. Mine is like the white Mark, maby a bit worse on the front. That "black" line is running through the lower part of the wheel cover vanes on mine. A new set of coils should get mine sitting like yours. I guess my rear springs must be in very good shape. If I get them re-arched, my Mark will sit like that red car (unless the front raised up transfers more weight to the back). Another error in the restoration guide-my front springs are sagged out but my car is higher than the spec. in that guide. If possible could some members with new springs WITH Mark II spec. post how high their car sits.

[linc64]

Not what you asked for Don, but this picture is from the Dec. 1955 Road and Track. It shows the perfect stance.

[Barry Wolk]

That looks low. When the picture above was taken it measured plus or minus an 1/8".