This very rare 1960 Chrysler New Yorker convertible is a truly gorgeous car, a beautiful example of one of the most desirable designs of the Virgil Exner era. Someone else thought so too — it went for $125,000 at Mecum Monterey in 2015, and is now in a private gallery in Romania. However, I have questions.
One of the things I don’t understand about these high-end auto auctions is how careless sellers are about providing basic information about cars that are expected to sell for six figures or more. Bring a Trailer listings for cars worth a fraction as much as this rare New Yorker will often include all the trim plate and broadcast sheet details, telling you that the car was originally finished in Signal Red over Sultana White on April 6 by a left-handed workman wearing polka-dot shorts. Mecum and Bonhams listings might tell you a car is “red” or “green” (if their catalog doesn’t misidentify it completely).
Now, I’ll cheerfully admit that I don’t have the money to do more than window-shop in this league, and perhaps you don’t either, but if you were prepared to lay out more than 100 large for one of these cars, wouldn’t you want to know all those details? I think I would.
As I was pondering the old Mecum listing for this New Yorker, I wondered about its color. It’s really lovely, don’t get me wrong, but the dramatic lighting is potentially deceptive, and the images as displayed on the Mecum website have a bluish cast that immediately disappeared if I viewed them locally. (I don’t know that I understand that, but I recently had to replace my computer’s graphics card, so who knows.) The listing text says that during its extensive restoration, the car was “refreshed” in Bluegrass (which was a 1960 Chrysler “Lustre-Bond Super Metallic” color). However, the listing doesn’t include the trim plate, whose paint code might offer a more definite answer.
I spent 10 or 15 minutes perusing a 1960 Chrysler order codes book, which revealed that this car’s present paint/trim combination is one that wasn’t normally available. On a New Yorker convertible, the available vinyl upholstery colors were white, red, black, and blue. Blue (trim code 331) was only available if the exterior color was Formal Black, Alaskan White, Polar Blue, or Starlight Blue. With Bluegrass, you were limited to black (334) or white (339) all-vinyl upholstery.
I eventually discovered that this particular New Yorker is now part of the Tiriac Collection in Otopeni, Romania, owned by former tennis and hockey star Ion Tiriac. (I assume that’s who paid $125K for the car in 2015.) The collection page clarifies a few details the auction listing doesn’t, saying the car’s restoration included “a switch from the original Polar Blue paint to luminous Bluegrass.” If that’s correct, the trim plate paint code would read DD-1 and the trim code 331.
That explains the non-original color combination. However, I think it was bad form not to explain that in the auction listing. To me, saying that a car’s paint was “refreshed” tends to imply a repaint or touch-up in the original color. A well-done repaint in a non-original color might not be a deal-breaker, especially if it’s another correct color for that model, but this seems like relevant information for prospective buyers.
Both the auction listing and the Tiria Collection description say this car’s 413-cid engine was rebuilt to 380 hp specification, rather than the 350 gross hp it originally had. They don’t specify what that upgrade might have entailed, although the car obviously doesn’t have a cross-ram intake manifold like the one offered on the 300 Letter Cars. Buying someone else’s aftermarket hop-up job can be dicey in the best of cases, so I’d want to at least know what I was getting in for, even in this class.
Then, there’s the matter of the brakes. The 1960 New Yorker had standard power brakes, but the Mecum listing claims this car also has front discs, which were not available on any U.S. car in 1960, implying a front disc conversion. (The Tiriac description says nothing about this.)
Brakes pose a dilemma when it comes to cars of this size and vintage. Chrysler specified 12-inch drums on the New Yorker, but a well-equipped convertible was a 4,500 lb car with 350+ horsepower, so the stock brakes were marginal for any kind of vigorous use. For a car you planned to actually drive, a disc conversion would be tempting, but with a car of this rarity and this value, the awkward matter of originality rears its ugly head. Chrysler built only 556 New Yorker convertibles in 1960, the second-rarest model after the 300F convertible, and I would normally assume that significant modifications would hurt the car’s value both as a collectible and a showpiece.
Then again, this car won a trophy at a Palo Alto Concours d’Elegance event after its restoration (it doesn’t say which one), and was named Mopar Best of Show. I had previously thought concours d’elegance events were big sticklers for originality, sometimes to what I’d consider an absurd degree (like penalizing owners for using modern spare tires rather than retaining their ancient, crusty original bias-ply spares). I guess not.
Tiriac paid a LOT more than what seems like the going rate for these cars. Two years after the Bluegrass car sold at auction, this similarly magnificent red New Yorker convertible sold at Mecum Indy 2017 for $77,000, which from what I can tell seems to be a more typical price. What about the Bluegrass car, with its non-original paint, non-original upgraded engine, and (possibly) non-original brakes, commanded an extra $50K? The Tiriac Collection description says it has about 97,100 miles, so it wasn’t an unusually low-mileage car.
Admittedly, I do feel a little petty quibbling about this spectacular blue/turquoise/Bluegrass convertible because original or not, it IS a showstopper. If I were rich enough, I could see deciding that I had to have it just because I loved the color, and never mind the price.
However, the people I’ve encountered over the years who’ve actually had that kind of money have often had what were, to my way of thinking, very odd ideas about spending it: They were unbelievably extravagant about certain things and curiously miserly about others, and they tended to be stubbornly resistant to spending more for something than they thought it ought to cost. (Anyone who’s ever worked a service job can tell you that the rich are consistently terrible tippers.)
In a 1983 Rolling Stone piece on the Pulitzer divorce (NSFW!), the late Hunter S. Thompson wrote:
There is … a lot more to being rich than just spending money and wearing alligator shirts. The real difference between the Rich and the Others is not just that “they have more money,” as Hemingway noted, but that money is not a governing factor in their lives, as it is with people who work for a living. The truly rich are born free, like dolphins; they will never feel hungry, and their credit will never be questioned.
That’s never been me, and so maybe the priorities of these well-heeled auction buyers are something I’ll never really understand — why questions of originality and fair market value sometimes matter a lot and other times not at all. What do I know? I’ve never had $125,000 all at one time in my entire life, and in the unlikely event someone handed that sum to me tomorrow, there are a lot of things I’d spend it on before buying a pricey collector car.
So, I guess I’ll just stare at this one in wonderment, and dream.
To all of you: Have a very happy New … Yorker — and don’t forget to turn the lights out.
Magnificent car. the ’60 New Yorker convertible is on my bucket list
My take is that the folks who spend $125k on a collector car that catches their eye (without significant research and appraisal) are the people for whom $125k is a pittance. Imagine you’re in the store and see a Hot Wheels car that catches your eye. You buy it, because $1.25 is an insignificant amount of money for you to spend on something that pleases you.
And since it came from an auction, that means there was another person who thought it was worth $124k. There’s an implication that when your collector car starts to bore you, you can probably sell it for (at least) somewhere close to what you paid for it.
For $125k, I think any 60s high end American iron ought to be a very well equipped model that includes factory AC – even in a convertible.
I’m not a buyer, so the seller can take my opinion for what cost him.
The 1960 hits a sweet spot for me – some of the very best of Exner’s late 50s styling direction.
Chrysler was notorious for offering spring color and trim changes, and I would be really surprised if there had not been some flavor of turquoise available for the interior in 1960. But then again, I have been surprised before. On the paint color, I am with you that on a car of this rarity, originality should be maintained in almost every case.
Sweet ride! I wouldn’t mind the disc brake conversion IF it was done in a manner (if possible) so it could be returned to stock at anytime. And IIRC, they had some weird brakes that were a pain in the butt anyway.
I’m not even sure if it HAS a disc brake conversion, which was my point. The Mecum listing offers no details (and no pictures), the collection page makes no mention of it.
I ‘m trying to imagine what “Sultana White” might look like.
It was a standard early ’60s Ford color, later replaced by Wimbledon White. Here’s a 1962 Comet in Sultana White: https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1962-ford-mercury-comet-custom/
1960 was peak Forward Look, specifically the Chrysler models. In fact, I’d go with a lower trim Windsor or Saratoga since they didn’t automatically come equipped with the toilet seat. OTOH, the New Yorker had the much nicer grille, so it’s kind of a toss-up.
The other divisions? Not nearly as terrific.
Being the very content owner of a 1989 ‘Chrysler’s TC by Maserati’, I look at the upgrades on this 1960 New Yorker the same way as I looked at and upgraded the brakes on my TC, so that I would have a safe and dependable ‘DRIVABLE’ car.
The Tevis ABS brake system HAD to go as well as upgrading the rear disc brakes to a later original pair from a mid 90s FWD platform Chrysler. To satisfy my desire to actually drive my TC, I also converted it from a 3 speed automatic to a 5 speed manual transaxle from a FWD Dodge Daytona. THE VALUE of a car to an owner is not what someone else would pay for this car with the mods it has, but the enjoyment I have driving it all over the country to car shows and club events.
Very nice NY’er that I’d be pleased to own. Did have had a similar and equally rare NY’er convert once, but timing is everything. Never had big money but long enough ago one like this could be had for less than a fortune. I bought this former central Nevada ’58 NY’er convertible around the mid-’80s for less that 1/3 the price of a nice new car, say an Electra or Olds 98. This black ’58 eventually ended up going overseas but it was a greatly fun car for sunny Sunday rides while we had it!
’58 NY’er (392 hemi + TF):
We live in a world where some individuals own their own space program. $125,000 could easily go missing in their world and it wouldn’t be noticed or missed.
See, that would make more sense to me, but my point is that in my observation, an awful lot of rich people are incredibly miserly if they think they know how much something SHOULD cost. Seeing millionaires fuss and fight over being charged for an extra cup of coffee or a drink refill they thought was supposed to be free and then leave a minimal tip before hopping into their $125,000 car is something else, and anybody who’s ever worked in a fancy restaurant sees that almost every day.
I see your point too. I’ve worked for several of the people you describe. To be polite, I’ll just say that “Yea, I get it.”
I imagine it’s the valuing of a tangible good over a service, throw money at a car it’s “mine mine mine!” forever if they wish, but throw money someone’s way for serving you it becomes why waste money they don’t absolutely need to on someone they assume they’ll probably never see again. That’s certainly the takeaway I’ve gotten through the years with an an income largely dependent on tips from a diverse amount of people.
The same people often do the same thing when purchasing tangible goods, though, worst of all if it comes to replacing something worn out.
There are people that will spend $1million for a screwed up old penny. If they have that kind of money, its their money not mine. Nice car tho.
The collector car world tends to get weird once big money starts being thrown around. I’d actually argue absolute originality and numbers matching seems to have more importance to buyers paying sub $100,000 or even sub $50,000 for that matter.
Why? I can only speculate, but since its the internet and I can, I speculate it’s because people who get infatuated with such things spent more time in life fixating on such things in their dream cars than others did who instead fixated on amassing massive wealth. By contrast when you get to the extreme end of things where people are paying $50,000,000 for Ferrari 250 GTOs it seems like original paint color matters not in the slightest, it’s all about rarity, prominence and pedigree. Obviously if it’s a butcher job it’ll affect the price, but with cars like that the cost of a derelict still exceeds a small nation’s annual budget.
This Chrysler falls into the transition between enthusiast collector item where it started as,where prior owner(s) meticulously restored/preserved it but took liberties with color to suit their own desires, because why not? And collector collectors who just want the car at all costs(be it for investment or just to add to the “man who has had it all”s collection)
I personally don’t really care about originality but I simultaneously don’t tend to like overt customization either. Part of the appeal with old cars is they’re simple to work on and keep going so why torture yourself spending big bucks on reproduction bias ply tires, hunting down rebuild kits for long obsolete carburetors or putting your most basic safety in jeopardy with 4 wheel drums when all of them can be updated for the better without it being noticeable at a glance to even the most nitpicky among us? I mean I find a big red MSD box screwed to the inner fender annoying to see in old cars, but that’s simply because I find it lazy and ugly, not that I’m opposed to retrofitting of electronic ignition over points….
Secondly, color is just, well, color. Most old cars have had or will need a paintjob unless you’re into the patina thing (which is fine…I guess), and unfortunately fewer and fewer of us living were around when the cars were new where we could pick the color of our dream classic so why not pick what you want? If it’s gaudy and tacky with racing stripes and looks like the texture of mars I might negatively judge but something like this where I’d need to look through a brochure to realize is incorrect? I say kudos. Like I said I think the more monied end of the collector world tends to not be as bothered by that as those of us on the low end of the hobby who tend to nerd out over such trivia.
Was a time when the top end concours required overly immaculate restoration, then came the original air in the tyres with production line chalk marks, now it’s leave the vehicle barnfind. I remember reading about Ralph Lauren’s collection. He would have the car immaculately restored, then repainted in a hue slightly off genuine spec but he was buying to keep rather than flip and this was his way of personalising the collection. On the other hand, Enzo was so disdainful of this whole fixation his 1961 F1 championship-winning cars were never preserved, and the ones that exist now are all replicas.
It drives my record store-owning friend bananas that I put Australian pressings in US sleeves when I occasionally find them in thrift shops. Why? Because they are printed on chunkier card and feel nicer when handling to slide the vinyl out. Plus, the thicker spines are easier to read. As with Ralph, my records are not bought for resale.
I’m open to any change under the skin of a car if it improves safety or reliability. Not so fussy about colour so long as it feel contemporaneous to the vehicle.
It’s not that I necessarily begrudge people modifying their old cars, it’s that I’m puzzled and disgruntled when sellers take such a slapdash approach to disclosing those modifications. Lots of collector cars have upgrades like electronic ignition, and if a car needs a repaint, some owners opt for a non-original color, which is their prerogative. However, I think it behooves the seller to be clear about what they’re actually selling. For instance, if a car has a disc brake conversion, what brakes did they use? Are there discs all around or only in front? Are the original drums included if someone wants to go back to stock? Personally, what I would be willing to pay for a rare, mostly original car with a few minor upgrades and what I might be willing to pay for a restomod are not the same, and I’d want to know a lot more clearly what I was looking at before placing a bid.
Even where the price range is about the same, Bring a Trailer sellers seem to be MUCH more likely to clearly disclose that kind of thing. Bonham and Sotheby’s are hit and miss — I think the problem there is that they don’t seem to have a standard format for automotive lots — but Mecum listings are really frequently deficient in these areas. It’s actually even worse at the lower end of the price scale; with a Mecum listing for a car expected to sell for under $10K, you’re lucky if they correctly identify the make and model.
Oh I totally agree if there’s liberties taken there should absolutely be disclosure and documentation provided(In fact I think restored cars in general should be thoroughly documented as you never know what costly corners might have been cut otherwise). Mecum and others are notoriously deficient in this respect.
Personally however I wouldn’t pay a premium for a restored car to original spec vs a restored car with a disc conversion. The original parts are going to be long gone either way, and if the seller of the latter is willing to include the rusted out of spec drums and leaky wheel cylinders the car had in 1960 I think I’d just say “eh, keep them”. I think I’d care more about this sort of thing on an unrestored survivor.
If you look inside a lot of classic Ferraris, Lamborghinis etc. many have been retrofitted with noticeable fire suppression systems just in case one of their several carburetors/fuel line fittings decides to spray gasoline everywhere. These systems generally don’t seem to have any impact on values as it is safer for both the driver and the continued preservation of the car to have them equipped. Are they restomods because of this equipment? I don’t think so. When it comes to things like brakes, save for 60s Pontiac’s with their finned aluminum drum/wheel assemblies, you can’t even see a disc brake retrofit unless you take the wheels off.
Restomod to me comes with modernization, eg big brake rotors/calipers that necessitate large wheels to fit, coilover suspensions that eliminate torsion bars and leaf springs, EFI conversions(and/or newer engines entirely) etc. using discs optional for the model to replace the drums, or converting from single pot master cylinders to dual is simply a retrofit, like putting a new toilet in a historic building. I personally wouldn’t pay a premium for the absolute original equipment because I myself would probably convert the car if it had the dangerous/troublesome stuff anyway if I wanted to drive it regularly.
Jay Leno updates the brakes on a lot of his cars- IIRC, he has a early 60’s Imperial refitted with four-wheel discs supplied by Wilwood. He said the car was terrifying to drive with the original drums. He also keeps the original parts so the car can go back to ‘factory correct’. His shop also keeps a logbook on each vehicle.
Personally, I’d rather have at least a dual master cylinder disc/drum system on any car not so equipped. I had a 1966 Pontiac GTO convertible and the brakes were horrible on a good day.
This Chrysler is a beautiful car but I would have stopped my bidding at about 20 grand less.
I was naïve, back in 2014, when I bought on the Internet my 1966 T-Bird convertible. A respected classic car dealership with many locations. I paid for restored, got much less. I have spent double the money I initially spent just to get my car right. Under water, I drowned years ago. But I love my classic car.
Well, Aaron, I am thinking along your line of thought. So what we have here is what I call guilt by omission either by the seller or Mecum. Really doesn’t matter who as the result is the same.
Now let me preface that. There are two basic car fan categories so to speak. I see a classic for sale and the first thing I do is go over it with a fine toothed comb. Open the hood, open the trunk, look under the car and see if everything is correct. So I would call this group car nuts as many people would think we are nuts being that particular about detail. I’m the same way about facts lining up.
The second group I would call car lovers. They see the color. They see the lines. They see the interior. They like what they see as it satisfies their aesthetic sense. Now that is me with wine. I’m not into all the nuances concerning vanilla this or earthy that. I either like it or not. Period! Now wealth gives you options and those options mean if you simply like it you can simply buy it for yourself and the rest be damned.
Now I’ll hazard a guess, Aaron, that if you were in that category of wealth and saw this car at auction, then you may not have brought up any of these questions yourself. The $125K being petty change. I know I wouldn’t go car nuts here but rather car lover as it is gorgeous. Last, like XR7Matt. I see no issue in upgrading things like tires, brakes, or ignition but draw the line on original color/interior and original engine/transmission.
Clones of all iteration are always selling for ridiculous money at auction. Far from an original car.. Dad was a Mopar guy. Traded in his green and white 57 Saratoga sedan on a sky blue 60 Windsor sedan like this .. I’ve always loved the Exener cars… Dad always bought used, but nice cars and had them maintained to a T.. Pic of a similar car to his.