Oh No Yenko!
Hi Friends!
Earlier this week I was making my normal rounds through the handful of Facebook groups that I’m in. I’ll first say this, I’m not a particularly big Facebook guy (I much prefer Instagram), but there’s significant knowledge that gets traded within Facebook’s group structure and there is tremendous value to be had by being involved in those because of this. As somebody who’s interested in and restores/preserves mid-century Italian racing bikes, there’s not a lot of resources out there to teach you the way. This said, there’s several groups on Facebook that have proven invaluable on my various journeys there and the depth of knowledge goes even further as you get into things that are more valuable and considered more widely desirable. If you’re on Facebook and you’re not exploring these groups, you’re definitely missing out. There’s some real potential consequences in ignoring these groups too.
This point was proven once again, as I was cruising through some posts on the Yenko Super Cars group and came across a discussion that could quite likely save somebody several hundred thousand dollars in headaches. It also brought up some interesting questions about ethics and disclosures that I think are probably worth discussing on top of the initial situation at hand.
Basically, what happened was, the original poster was going through Barrett-Jackson‘s online catalog for their upcoming Scottsdale auction and noticed a car that he very briefly owned in the not-too-distant past. According to the poster, he purchased YS-8035, a 1968 Chevrolet Camaro Yenko RS/SS from Mecum‘s 2023 Glendale auction. The car was advertised as documented, from long-term ownership, 1 of 11 produced and although, a few little things here and there weren’t number one quality, basically it was still the top of the heap as far as Camaros are concerned. As most of us know, these are serious cars. An average first-generation Camaro is going to run you somewhere $50k-$120K, but obviously Yenko examples are a different animal entirely. As purchased, this car exchanged hands at Mecum for just shy of $360,000.
The purchaser/poster, reportedly a seasoned and highly knowledgeable Yenko collector, took custody of the car and began to notice issues. These issues were significant enough to do a real deep dive, which ultimately led to the discovery that the car was a rebody (which in addition to pictures was also backed up by photos and info regarding the ownership chain and why the car was rebodied). There was enough proof involved here for Mecum to initiate a buyback, retake custody of the car and the consigner was required to purchase the car back from Mecum.
Fast forward to earlier this week and the car appears via Barrett-Jackson’s website with the same photos that were used with Mecum and an almost identical description. Two additional pieces of information added to the equation in Barrett’s catalog however mentions that certain sections of the body and cowl of the car had to be removed, thus compromising important VIN numbers. According to the poster/previous buyer, it was much more than that and that “the buyer should beware”.
I want to first state that I did not personally dig into this car and research this all the way completely. I have also never seen this car firsthand (at least I don’t think I have). I also want to make note that the poster in the group was very thorough and provided a lot of information and seems credible (if you’re looking into this, you’re going to have to make that decision for yourself). I also want to say that I think people coming forward like this when cars like this are on the market do provide something important. Obviously, we’re dealing with collectibles and ultimately at the end of the day, used cars. There are shady things that happen in this business all the time as a result. It’s just part of how it works. I firmly believe that the cleanliness of this hobby and this marketplace is the responsibility of everybody and therefore, when people come forward like this when they see things like this, it’s important and that person should be commended.
If you think about it, Bring-a-Trailer for example, with their comments section has almost figured out how to make this kind of self-policing a component of their business model (they just pulled what appeared to be a fabulous looking 1952 Gilera Saturno 500 motorcycle off their site last week because of issues brought up in the comments section). So, the question is, to what degree does a live auction house have the responsibility to figure things like this out before offering a car?
If you dig through any auction catalog or contract provided to consigners or buyers, it pretty expressly states in all of them that they don’t. To a degree I think that’s probably fair. In most circumstances, auction companies have very limited direct interactions with vehicles before offering them. It may be a situation where a consignment specialist very briefly looks at a car or it can be done entirely through email with pictures and documentation that very easily could be forged by the consigner. Consigners do also tend to leave out unflattering details here and there too.
We’ve talked about this before here. All an auction house really is, is a place for a buyer and a seller to meet under the most favorable circumstances possible for each one. An auction house can do the marketing, they can put people in their audiences, on their website’s bidding platforms and on their telephones who are qualified buyers, they can provide those qualified buyers with the best cars that they think are available at the time. That’s really what an auction house’s main function is at its core.
Although, the auction house’s job isn’t really to verify the story that the consigner is telling, some of them do tend to blur the lines a little bit with their marketing and when they go out to the world advertising involvements with guys like Jerry Macneish with GM products (who I want to make crystal clear is NOT mentioned as verifying this car in any of the auction descriptions that I read on it), Kevin Marti with Fords, Galen Govier with Mopar, Marcel Massini with Ferrari, etc. it may lead people to believe that the auction house is more involved in verifying things like this than they actually are. In most circumstances, consigners hire these guys ahead of time and include it with their auction packages or the auction house makes the introduction and lets those parties handle the intricacies therein. Auction houses like Bonham’s have records departments and things that are available for people to speak to on site at sales, but those people are primarily just custodians of records provided by consigners.
So, the question here remains, was the poster/previous buyer in the right by coming forward and reporting what he had experienced with this car? I again argue pretty emphatically that this person was and that it’s up to any potential buyer to believe (or don’t believe) this person and to research their story if they’re going to plop down $400,000 on something like this.
Even more importantly, how much responsibility should a live auction house really have here, what kind of fail safes could they put in place to prevent things like this from happening and what are a buyer’s responsibilities in making sure that they’re buying what they think they’re buying?
It’s going to be extremely interesting to see how this situation plays itself out. Especially considering that this car is on offer at no reserve. Will the frenzy of a Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale auction negate what the market is saying here or will this car suffer on the block and deliver what is likely a more market correct number considering?
Let’s be honest. A big part of the reason we love auctions is because there’s oftentimes elements of drama. This should definitely be dramatic and I’ll be watching for sure…..
That’s it for this week…
Darin Roberge