Barrett-Jackson- WHO Made The BETTER Deal And SMARTER Move? YOU Make The Call!

If you're a fan of cars you know that the Barrett-Jackson has been going on and there has been lots of news like the first production 2020 Toyota Supra bringing $2.1m.

Now it all went to charity so that's a good thing but we can't imagine that person EVER getting their money back on that transaction. That car is a total letdown for us if you're been reading our impressions.

Now, there are the premier auctions that bring the big dough but what we love are the everyday cars that can be had for $25k or less.

You can end up with something pretty fun for not too much.

So here is our question...

If you were going to find something like that what would you be hoping for and to get the creative thoughts going here are two examples where we'd like to know WHO made the BETTER deal and SMARTER move?

First a 2010 BMW 750i with 100k miles and change that sold for a measley $12k. New it was just under 90k.



And second, a 1995 Pontiac Firebird convertible with 27k miles that sold for 10k.



Spies, discuss...

valhallakey - 1/21/2019 2:46:12 AM

+2 Boost

Neither one strikes me as a particularly good deal. If I was forced to choose or loose a finger I would go with the Firebird.

PUGPROUD - 1/21/2019 8:20:48 AM

0 Boost

Between these two it depends on the purchaser's aims and use of the cars. Money is a tool and a means to an end and whether or not its a good deal depends in the end on how each buyer is satisfied or has remorse based on their reasons to purchase From a purely emotionless and economic standpoint both these deals far exceed the guy who paid $2 million for the first Supra...must have got caught up in the moment. Lets check back with him in 25 years and compare his purchase against someone who may have recently purchased a LaFerrari for $2 million.

Foncool - 1/21/2019 8:21:02 AM

+2 Boost

The real collectors don’t go near Barrett-Jackson during Scottsdale week, you’ll find them at Bonhams, Gooding ans RM.

jeffgall - 1/21/2019 9:44:35 AM

+1 Boost

Depends on what you are collecting. Yes, Gooding and RM have more refined vehicles for purchase, focusing more on rare European and American vehicles, many from the 20s to 40s, and 50s and 60s European vehicles with racing heritage. . B-J is more focused on American 50s through early 70s vehicles, big fins and muscle. If it were my collection, I would be at both, as I like a mix of everything. To each, his own.

MDarringer - 1/21/2019 11:23:33 AM

0 Boost

I agree with jeffgall by far on this one.

Foncool - 1/21/2019 4:43:04 PM

+1 Boost

The cars at B-J tend to be more shiny sells, than is it correct.

jeffgall - 1/21/2019 9:47:34 AM

+1 Boost

The Supra may have gone for $2.1M, but in the eyes of the buyer, it is a donation with a fool tax right off. There are many generous people in attendance.

jeffgall - 1/21/2019 9:47:56 AM

0 Boost

This is why you see many from NASCAR and none from the NFL. Had to point that out.

PUGPROUD - 1/21/2019 10:19:39 AM

0 Boost

Good point and with his/her resources getting a deduction while doing good is admirable. For most of us the charitable deduction is a thing of the past under the new federal tax laws. The number of people filing itemized returns for 2018 will fall from just over 46 million to just over 18 million, loosing any tax benefit from charitable giving. Going forward making charitable contributions without any tax benefit will be just as admirable.

MDarringer - 1/21/2019 11:24:39 AM

-1 Boost

Why should there be a tax break for charity? If there is a tax break it is not charity. It's also time to tax churches and non-profits because there is a LOT of money laundering that goes on there. LORDY.

PUGPROUD - 1/21/2019 1:11:36 PM

0 Boost

" If there is a tax break it is not charity." Au contraire Charity is "voluntary giving" Tax deduction or no tax deduction its still charity.

MDarringer - 1/21/2019 1:37:14 PM

-1 Boost

#BS 100% #BS

Drop the uppity "au contraire" and come down to reality.

You know fully well that people "give to charity" to reduce their taxes ERGO they are reducing their taxes and not being charitable.

If they were being charitable, they would not claim it on their taxes.

There should be ZERO deduction for any and all charitable contributions so as to make charity truly charitable. Moreover, charities should be taxed like regular businesses for the part of their income used on administration, salaries, and propaganda oops advertising.

The ASPCA is one especially egregious offender. If you look at how much money they take in versus how much actually goes to the benefit of animals, you'd see it's pennies on the dollar. It's virtually criminal. Ditto the United Way.

Most big charities are just money laundering scams.

Shouldn't the people running a charity ALL be unpaid volunteers?

Anything else would be immoral and hypocritical.

But that's how your tribe rolls.

PUGPROUD - 1/21/2019 2:24:47 PM

+1 Boost

Most people don't give to charities for the tax deduction they give more to charities because of the tax deduction. You are right about checking out charities before giving to make sure money used properly. However, tell me again who appointed you guardian of morality, "anything else would be immoral and hypocritical" WTF