>>28657825
>I'm serious, are you fucking retarded?
Is $72,000 the boomer number where they want $1000 for every year they've been alive for not driving their toy from decades ago?
>>28657051 (OP)
Yes and no: boomers inexplicably bought incredibly common cars and simply didn't drive them (corvettes, mustangs, and now pickup trucks) thinking this was their baby, they wiped it down with a diaper, and now that they're out of money and on the verge of death, one of the last few acts of boomers is to sell that thing nobody was allowed to get near because the body heat may negatively effect the paint instead of just giving it to their living heirs for putting up with their bullshit.
The other side of the coin is these cars and trucks from the late 80s and early 90s are now nostalgia traps for those in their mid 30s to late 40's (a generation) and they want to own one of these vehicles from their childhood. Be it their grandpa had one, father had one, or they themselves had one and want to revisit that happiness in the car. Since they're established in life, they have a decent amount of money are are usually willing to spend $30k+ for a -good- example of a common shitbox from their rose-tinted past.
You can kinda track and predict the market: 1930's Cadillacs, Hudson hornets, Edsels, Model T's, Model A's were once super popular and commanded a premium decades ago. Now you can't hardly give them away. MG midgets were the same way. Muscle cars are a little unique because boomers are still alive and still have money so they'll sometimes buy a prime example of a 1960's or 1970's car excited about numbers matching and original window stickers. Younger people in their 30s or 40s think they're cool cars but won't be paying $50k+ for something they have no emotional attachment to. In 15-30 years when boomers die off and GenX and Millenials are alive, watch the cliff drop of 1970s muscle cars because kids can't afford them and others won't pay the premium.
