Those Absurd Prices

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Sir,
The November editorial equates strangely with later advertisements in the same issue at prices similar to the very ones deprecated. Since it should be presumable that the editorial is an expression of policy, it is an important extension of this policy not to promulgate such provocative matter. I stoutly defend the right to submit these advertisements but even more so the Editor’s right and duty to refuse publication. Let us see no more of them; there have already been too many.

It does encourage me to see one car at £395 apparently unsold since the August issue, and I hope this means the buying public is showing good sense and temporary self-abnegation as a protest against this growing opportunism. Less exotic vehicles may afford equal satisfaction to owners who have worked and suffered over their improvement and restoration, and such may still be found with diligence at prices not too bizarre. Certainly I face the future more tranquilly with my 1928 open Riley Nine than I would with a £6,000 1929 Bentley-4, since my car is for motoring—I have already motored over 300,000 miles in it—not for speculation. Moreover the spares position, both new and second-hand, is more favourable. When my crankshaft broke this summer, fitted second-hand eight years ago, I had a free replacement from a Register owner from Stourbridge in three days.

It grieves me to think of the unpleasant plight approaching the owners of certain makes, pumped in with the followers of Mammon who, by their commercial rnortmain, will be depriving more worthy men. It is said that this at least preserves cars for posterity which would otherwise be lost. To hell with this I say. Keep a few in museums by all means, but let the rest be liberated for enthusiastic use or let them perish.

Liverpool. J.E. McGowen.
[Re the opening paragraph of this letter, I refer you, with regret, to the footnote on another page.—Ed.]