I am researching the value of a 1982 Barth MCC 35 coach.

I believe that the order of value and desireability is as follows:
Monarch, Regency, Regal, Breakaway.

Is this correct?

Is there any enhancement value for an MCC model unit, opposed to a Monarch or Regency 35-36' coach?

Thank you for any feedback/assistance in this regard.

Lance Coren
TheAutoAppraiser.com
lscent@hotmail.com

quote:

Originally posted by L.S. Coren:
I am researching the value of a 1982 Barth MCC 35 coach.

I believe that the order of value and desireability is as follows:
Monarch, Regency, Regal, Breakaway.

Is this correct?

No, that's not correct. It looks like you went to This Page and just read from the top down.

Using what you have there it would be Regency, Monarch, Breakaway, Regal.

Within each model, you have features that are more desireable. IE: A widebody/standard body. Propane generator/diesel generator. Powerplant. Etc...

Would you happen to have the data tag number for this unit? Do you have a picture of this coach? It'll help us to answer these questions for you.

Welcome to the asylum, er, Forums.

Bill N Y succinctly redid your impressions. The Regal was gasoline-powered (with the exception of a very few front-engine diesels [FREDs]). From the very few Regals I've seen, the appointments were in the Breakaway class, which means, compared to SOBs (Some Other Brand), quite upscale, but not quite Monarch or Regency caliber.

But note the mantra here: "No two Barths are the same". I have the prototype for the '94 and later 28' Breakaways, and the interior fittings are more Monarch/Regency than Breakaway. That is, except for the driver/passenger seats, which are cloth (my preference) instead of leather.

The MCC-based Barth was, IMHO, a separate class, akin mostly to the Regency, but without counterparts on the Spartan or Gillig chasses. Many owners state that it's the best-handling of the Barths, being on that MCC chassis. The downside in many cases is the dearth of replacement parts, since the chassis has long been discontinued. Many MCC-Barths also sport the 8.2L GM diesel, also not particularly highly regarded, but few real issues have been reported here on the Barth forums.

As I have mentioned here ad nausiem, "The real charm of a Barth (any Barth) is that it won't fall apart faster than it can be fixed". Any used coach will need work. A Barth won't collapse on your head while you're getting that work done. By background, I'm a recovering marine engineer, and I have little patience for coaches that, under the skin, are basically crap. Actually, the skins of many SOBs are crap as well. One has the choice of a Barth with all-aluminum build, or an SOB with #4, non-pressure-treated pine, as the underlayment. For me, the choice was easy!

Thank you Bill NY.

You have some burned photos of this coach on this site.They are the photos that depict it in it's burned state (burned 80% to the MCC chassis.

I have attached a copy of photos from my file of the left front/side, rear and the driver's cockpit.

I do not have the data tag number.

I do have the following information.

1982 Barth MCC Model 35
MCP Model 225 Chassis, 225" WB
Chassis # 1RPAA586XC1MS1041
GVWR 20,000 lbs
305 Detroit Turbo Diesel V8
rebuilt + punched up to 330)
Allison AT-545 4-speed auto trans
90,000 miles
Good - Very Good overall condition.
Well cared for & fully serviced.
Options I Know of:
6 polished Alcoa wheels
Remco polished/heated mirrors
Thermo Pane windows
12 cu. ft Dometic frig
Garmin GPS 260W
Sony 20" flat screen TV
All standard equipment for the attached
photos of the coach.
It was reported that the interior was refurbished during November, 2000 (couch/chairs/dinette @ $4441.35), the A/C unit was recently replaced along with the microwave. New carpeting was installed along with new cabinets and a refrigerator during July, 2007.
The brake system was also upgraded (very nice & big calipers & rotors)

If you can direct me to any additional information that you need me to supply to you or to research, I would be glad to assist in this regard.

I have valued this coach at $33,375 by using comparable Barth Regency's that are on the market or have been on the market within the past 10 months.

Your input and assistance is greatly appreciated.
I wish to verify that my value is correct and really reflects the coach's retail value at the time of the loss.

Thanks everybody for your assistance.

Lance Coren
TheAutoAppraiser.com

Lance,

I was a general lines agent for 30 years - I understand the difficulties in valuing a loss of a unique item, which any Barth coach is, and moreso the MCC Barths. I do think the GVWR is incorrect (my 28' is 16,000 lbs., 30s are 18K, and 32s are 20K, and that's for the lighter Breakaway; Regencies, like this MCC Barth, should be in the 25K+ range)

IMHO, your assessment is likely close to FMV, but possibly a bit understated; as I mentioned above, the MCC chasses were prized for their handling (for that era); although the DD 8.2L engine wasn't in the class of a Cat 3208T (common in the Regencies of that vintage), it was cheap to maintain, overhaul, or replace, so that's not a real downside. The replacement A/C would have been in the $1,500 range (I just replaced mine). A 12 cu. ft. reefer ain't a cheap upgrade - (standard is around 8 cu. ft.): about $3K. New cabinets could have cost a couple of thousand dollars, or several thousand. Thermopane windows were optional on Regencies AFAIK, also an upgrade in the $3-4K range (but based only on claims by owners that mentioned the price - I couldn't substantiate).

Of particular note is the Barth's construction - the superstructure is all-aluminum, with buck rivets and a birdcage framework design (built like an airplane); while in a major fire, this would fare little better than FRP, with regards to inherent vice or other deterioration (principally dry rot and delamination), it would have none of the drawbacks of the non-pressure-treated wood superstructures common in coaches of that vintage. In short, the superstructure could rightly be assessed as "factory new".

The only semi-comparative coach would be Safari Treks and Serengetis, also all aluminum above the "waterline", but with far fewer (and lighter) formers and stringers, and assembled with pop rivets, and those are of later production.

This comparison may be of no use, but I'll throw it out for your consideration. In 1994, my wife's uncle bought a new Fleetwood Bounder 34' diesel pusher (wood and FRP) when Bounder was F's top-of-the-line. He paid ~$70K. My modest '94 28' Barth diesel pusher sold new in '93 for $116K.

To add to your concerns, there have been Barths listed as "Regencies", which aren't (there are three known instances in the past year - they were the less-expensive Breakaways) - one Breakaway even had "Regency" decals, but Barth never branded their coaches - one would have difficulty even finding what it is by perusing the owner's manual! Your coach is definitely a Regency, however, even if some advertised as such, weren't.

Hello Rusty,

Thank you very much for your perspective and comments. They are greatly appreciated!

Considering the information you have now, am I low by $5,000? Or ?

Does anybody else have a perspective on this valuation?

As I mentioned, I am always of the opinion that the real fair market (retail) value is due on any properly documented loss to a motor vehicle. This case is no exception!

Thanks,

Lance Coren
TheAutoAppraiser.com

Hi, Loren,

You're certainly welcome! As you're becoming aware, the uniqueness of Barths makes them difficult to value (even when a sale is imminent), as there really are no comparables to other makes. Even those of us familiar with the marque are clueless, unless one is way over- or under-priced.

My comment that the value might be understated was based on the value of the upgrades (reefer, cabinets and other joinery, and the new air conditioner - which may be like-kind, but considering the vintage of the coach, probably a partial upgrade).

If those were included in your estimate, then I think you're as close to FMV as is humanly possible to get. From your comments, I think that the only thing of which you might have been unaware is that the reefer was probably an upgrade (from 7.5 cu. ft. typical to 12 cu. ft.), which would be on the order of about $800-1,000. Labor would be about the same as for a like-kind replacement, so only the unit's price differential would count.

My opinion - worth its cost - nothing , is that the original figure you mentioned is well within reason. Hopefully other Barthers will chime in with theirs. You might want to PM Deb&Eds35, as they have an '82 35' MCC Regency - which looks entirely different - see below.

BTW, what was the cause of the fire?

quote:

Originally posted by L.S. Coren:
You have some burned photos of this coach on this site.They are the photos that depict it in it's burned state (burned 80% to the MCC chassis.

Can someone refresh my memory? Does anyone know where these pictures are?

The only "Burn Job" that I know of is a Regal.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
BTW, what was the cause of the fire?

I'm going to go out on a limb here Rusty. Based on the photo link of the first picture, I'm going with...

The Maxwell's had an Engine Fire in their 1982 MCC 35' Barth.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v237/Maxwell222000/motor%20misshap%202%2011%2008/82BarthMCC35LF.jpg

Would anyone like to bet against me?

I wonder if it was an oil fire (power steering/motor oil/transmission fluid), fuel fire or electrical fire? Seeing that it was burned to 80%, they might not even know.

Under "Barth Sightings," scroll down to "'82 MCC Barth."

link:
http://barthmobile.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6241087061/m/7561066313

quote:

Originally posted by Neil T.:
link:
http://barthmobile.com/eve/for...1087061/m/7561066313

Now I remember

Gentlemen,

The coach was burned so bad, it really was not known what the cause was BUT, based on the viewed burn patterns and the fact that the upper portion of the coach was severely affected, I am of the opinion (and also that of the claims investigator)that this was an electrical fire that was not put out quickly!

This was really a tragedy, since the coach was really in very nice condition and the owner loved it so much. It is a hard claim to handle. I am now confident that my research and valuation were completed appropriately.

Thank you again gentlemen, all your comments and information are greatly appreciated. If I can ever be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Lance
Lance S. Coren, C.A.A., C.M.A.
The Ferrari/Maserati/Lamborghini Appraiser
The Rolls-Royce/Bentley Appraiser
The Aston Martin/Lotus Appraiser
TheAutoAppraiser.com
Multiple Certified International Automotive Appraiser
Post Office Box 429
Prather, CA 93651-0429 (Central CA - Fresno area)
Office Phone: 559.299.0429
Office Fax: 559.299.0437
Cellular: 559.908.5008
Primary E-Mail: lscent@hotmail.com
Secondary E-Mail: TheAutoAppraiser@GMail.com

quote:

Originally posted by L.S. Coren:
Gentlemen,

The coach was burned so bad, it really was not known what the cause was BUT, based on the viewed burn patterns and the fact that the upper portion of the coach was severely affected, I am of the opinion (and also that of the claims investigator)that this was an electrical fire that was not put out quickly!

Was the coach plugged in to shore power or was the genset running at the time?

Gentlemen,

I believe it was on Shore Power.

Another issue has come up now (Friday the 18th).
Since the coach is actually an MCC by manufacturer
as MCC manufactured the chassis, it is also stated that MCC built the body also and
Barth only finished the inside walls and trim.

I can take this at face value and accept it as valid, since it is logical.

Is the fact that the coach is an MCC chassis and exterior body, and Barth ONLY finished the interior, a big selling/value point?

The statement has been made that this coach "IS NOT" a Barth Regency by any means! The quality of the MCC title far exceeds that of a Barth unit.

Can someone advise me if a Regency nameplate correlates to a specific set of interior trim parameters? Or?

Thank you very much for your input on this.

Lance Coren
TheAutoAppraiser.com

Oh, boy! Lance, you've hit upon an issue long debated on these forums: "What the heck is that [or any] particular coach?".

Only after several years' production did Barth give a name to its models.

Barthmobile's founder, Dave Bowers, spoke highly of the MCC Barths, and I think he would confirm (hopefully he'll see this thread) that the MCC Barth would most assuredly be considered a Regency. Barth didn't produce the Breakaways until well into the '80s (c. 1987?), and the Monarchs, the '90s (c. 1995?).

Dave compiled a CD of Barth photos, and the MCC Barths are all listed under "MCC Regency"; an '82 so described is pictured below. In fact, his archives would indicate the MCC Barths were the first to bear the "Regency" name, starting with the '91 MCC Barths.

If you need a copy of that CD for your records, it can be ordered from Bill N Y, for (IIRC) $25.