quote:

Originally posted by L.S. Coren:
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.

You are correct. The MCC/FMC Barth share nothing more then a nameplate and interior trim parts with the Barth Bus style coaches of that era.

Please read this page and several posts and you'll understand it a little better.

http://barthmobile.com/eve/for...061/m/5551070472/p/6

http://barthmobile.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9331087061/m/...291088061#1291088061

What it boils down to is Barth purchased these coaches in a bankruptcy sell and then finished them off. After these fiberglass coaches were done, they kept the chassis and started to put the Barth Bus Style Coaches on their company owned MCC Chassis.

quote:

Originally posted by L.S. Coren:
The statement has been made that this coach "IS NOT" a Barth Regency by any means!

This is the truest statement that has been made to date

quote:

Originally posted by L.S. Coren:
The quality of the MCC title far exceeds that of a Barth unit.

Really???

I wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.

Look at http://www.motorcoachrestoration.com/ for some more info.

I wasn't letting too much go before, because Rusty was an insurance appraiser in a previous life, and, I didn't want to hurt anyones chances at getting a decent payoff for their coach as "You are the professional" and I just keep the lights on here.

By tracking sales of MCC/FMC coaches over at Motor Coach Restoration has led me to believe that this quote "The quality of the MCC title far exceeds that of a Barth unit." is backwards.

Sorry, I couldn't keep it in anymore. Let the debate begin. Please be civil...

quote:

Originally posted by L.S. Coren:
Gentlemen,

The quality of the MCC title far exceeds that of a Barth unit.

I would be interested in the experience and qualifications of anyone making that statement.

If I were interested in an MCC chassis coach, I would much rather have the later aluminum Regency version. Some of that is personal preference, but I have seen no greater quality in the MCC bodied coaches over the Barth-bodied Regencies.

I do prefer the handling and ride of the MCC chassis, however.

A small correction - I wasn't an appraiser - I was a General Lines Agent. Florida law forbids one individual to be both. I did advise several companies' adjusters and appraisers on data processing equipment valuation, but I couldn't do that directly.

And certainly wouldn't get my feelings hurt by being corrected or challenged. That's part of the process here.

What this thread clearly illuminates is the difficulty an appraiser faces trying to determine fair market value (FMV) of a unique vehicle. The repartee and point-counterpoint are, IMHO, valuable - sometimes valuation depends on getting hints and tracking down clues until something like a fact is found.

(This topic actually arose before with Dick & Bev WV's coach totalled by fire right after they bought it).

While certain coach models and brands are fairly easy to price, others (usually those with somewhat limited production) seem to sell for "more than they're worth", like Foretravel, for example. Lance really has no interest in whether a coach is "overpriced", but rather the FMV: "The price at which an item would sell between a willing seller and a willing buyer, in a free market, neither under any undue pressure to complete the transaction."

[soapbox]It's always been my opinion that larger RVs should be insured on a derivative of the Yacht Policy. Watercraft (26' and under) are insured under a derivative of the Personal Auto Policy.[/soapbox] The problem is that, while there are Marine Surveyors who can approximate a yacht's value fairly accurately (and they do use pubs similar to NADA), they have no RV counterparts competent to establish value. A yacht is usually insured under an "Agreed Amount", which means if there's a total loss, the policy limit is paid, End of Story. RVs are generally insured under the basis of either a "FMV" or "Stated Amount" (Total losses to be paid on the basis of "FMV" or "stated amount" whichever is less.)

Which is the issue with which Lance is wrestling.

I'm sure he'd tell us that all information is useful, even if it ends up going nowhere.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
A small correction - I wasn't an appraiser - I was a General Lines Agent.

I stand corrected.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
And certainly wouldn't get my feelings hurt by being corrected or challenged. That's part of the process here.

There, there Rusty... I know.

quote:

Originally posted by bill h:
...but I have seen no greater quality in the MCC bodied coaches over the Barth-bodied Regencies.

Would you go as far as saying that an MCC Body, MCC Chassis, Barth interior coach is less desirable than an MCC chassis, Barth Bodied coach?

While Barth might have finished off the interior and then sold them, they sure weren't designed and conceived as a Barth. The coach in question might be better served by talking to some of the FMC members. They seem to be dedicated to their coaches like we are to ours.

http://www.fmcowners.com/

Their charter states that they wish to only have members who have FMC Coaches. I did a search for Barth or MCC there was no hits from the search engine over there.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill N.Y.:
Would you go as far as saying that an MCC Body, MCC Chassis, Barth interior coach is less desirable than an MCC chassis, Barth Bodied coach?

No, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. A fiberglass MCC Barth is less desirable to me, but that means little, as it is just my own personal preference, and my preferences may not be that of others.

But the market does speak. In economic matters, the market speaks quite accurately. The dictum, "Follow the Money" comes to mind.

To call something more or less desirable in a general sense would mean that it is so to most people. In a general sense, if something is more desirable, more people desire it. Since the market responds to the laws of supply and demand, we would expect sellingprices of a more desirable item to be higher. Notice I said selling prices and not asking prices. Asking prices only indicate the grip (or lack thereof) the seller has on reality.

So, we must ask, do fiberglass MCC Barths sell for more than aluminum-bodied MCC Barths? Not being a professional appraiser, or even a shopper, I don't keep records, but I recall such has not been the case. Surely, a professional appraiser would have an answer to this.

Again, there is more to this than simply compiling asking prices from ads. We may be guided a little by asking prices, if only by the consideration that few RVs sell for more than their asking prices. The real truth lies in the actual selling prices. Unfortunately, the truth is hard to divine in this area, as each party can have reasons for not telling the truth. The seller is loathe to admit his asking price was unrealistically high, and the buyer wants to brag about what a great deal he got, what a shrewd bargainer he is, what a smart shopper he is, etc.

Aside from the ego and personal pride issues, dealers who report "selling prices" to KBB or NADA have a financial interest in fudging their figures.

So, the only realistic determinant of desirability is the true selling price, which can be difficult to obtain. If sold at public auction, the truth is available to everyone, and a diligent motor home appraiser would already have the figures.

Does anyone have any recollections on MCC fiberglass prices?

Five or six years ago I contemplated buying a 35' 1982 MCC Barth. Pristine condition in and out, well-equipped, 3208 Cat., 30,000 miles, price $31,500. & the same color scheme as the burned coach.

I thought it was over-priced. The dealer wouldn't lower the price (I suspect the coach was on consignment), & he wasn't interested in trading.

No deal, no problem, though the coach was a beauty in all respects. I, too, preferred the bus-type aluminum coach for its greater practicality.

The FMC link New York Bill provided in his earlier post ( http://www.motorcoachrestoration.com/) lists 17 FMC coaches for sale, from $6000 to $99,900, a few under $10K, a few over $20K, most between $10K & $20K.

This indicates the range of values sellers place on FMC coaches, the ancestors of the MCC Barth. Having previously contemplated buying an FMC, & having examined both the FMC & the MCC Barth, I would value the Barth considerably higher. It is longer, diesel-powered, & in my opinion, better-finished, & equipped than the FMCs I examined.

As always, fair market value is determined by a willing buyer coming to agreement with a willing seller. In this case the buyer is the insurance Co., the seller, the insured.

I don't envy any insurance adjuster trying to value something as rare and unique as the fiberglass MCC Barth. There aren't enough of them to represent a market. Even the FMC, of which there are many more examples, & many more for sale, would be hard to value given the range of prices asked. The coaches are similar in appearance, but comparing them is as apples to oranges.

quote:

Originally posted by bill h:
...but I have seen no greater quality in the MCC bodied coaches over the Barth-bodied RegenciesWould you go as far as saying that an MCC Body, MCC Chassis, Barth interior coach is less desirable than an MCC chassis, Barth Bodied coach?

While Barth might have finished off the interior and then sold them, they sure weren't designed and conceived as a Barth. The coach in question might be better served by talking to some of the FMC members. They seem to be dedicated to their coaches like we are to ours.

http://www.fmcowners.com/

I mean this kindly, what our opinions are of the pure MCC coaches vs. MCC chasses with Barth superstructures has no value to Lance. Any improvements to the interior by Barth are inconsequential. What Mr. Coren cares about is "What would a buyer of an MCC coach, unencumbered by pressure, pay for this '82 that was lost - before the fire." Whether they were true Barths (like Deb & Eds '82) matters not a whit. Would the MCC owners' dedication to their coaches matter either? Not a whit - unless the owners' opinions of the value of their coaches were substantiated by actual sales of MCC/MCC units. This rationale also disqualifies the FMC coaches from consideration, as they're not equivalents.

Frankly, from what I know (very little) and Coren's thought processes, I thought he had come up with a very reasonable value (meaning: Certainly within the useable range) for the lost MCC. Had the insured been my customer, I'd have suggested he consider the value carefully. Is the value totally acceptable? Maybe, maybe not, but surely within a range worthy of some adjustment.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Whether they were true Barths (like Deb & Eds '82)...

Here is Deb and Ed's 35 foot MCC Chassis 8.2L Detroit Diesel with a Barth Body.

Barth would build a coach on any frame. Before MCC went belly-up, you could have bought a frame from MCC and brought it to Barth to have them build you a coach.



Here is an MCC Chassis and Fiberglass Coach that was fitted with interior items by Barth.



And another, from the previous page.



The Euro, Regal, Monarch, Regency, Iveco, Sovereign, Aristocrat, travel trailer, etc... was conceived, designed, and manufactured by Barth.

The MCC Coach, that we are discussing, was designed by MCC and was discontinued when inventory ran out. The way I understand it, from past discussions, the only reason Barth purchased the bankruptcy assets of MCC was to get it's hands on a chassis company.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Your coach is definitely a Regency, however, even if some advertised as such, weren't.

I sure wouldn't call it a Regency!!! If I had to class it, I would call it like NADA does. NADA calls the 81 and 82 models "MCC by Barth". I would start there.

quote:

Originally posted by L.S. Coren:
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.

Could you please direct me to where you have found a comparable "MCC by Barth". 33k for that coach is very generous, but that's just my opinion.

The reason we don't see the "Barth Magic" in these coaches was because Barth had nothing to do with the design or manufacturing of that coach. Hanging cabinets and laying down carpeting shouldn't qualify as a manufacturer of a coach.

The MCC Coach was a fiberglass coach. It was nothing like any Barth that I know of. Now, ask yourself... Why didn't Barth keep building these coaches? They owned the rights to build them without spending any money on design cost.

Now, look at this Iveco Barth. You can see the Barth body grafted onto the Iveco cab and chassis. Barth would build a coach on any chassis.



IMHO: The MCC Regency, like Deb and Ed's 35' coach, is more Barth then most of our members coaches. Seeing that Barth now owned the MCC Chassis, you could easily argue that the MCC Barth Regency was the most complete Barth package available.

*Note the broken 10 foot pole.

The 1982 Motor Home Magazine test article titled "MCC by Barth" does not have the word Regency anywhere.

They call it a "Barth MCC".

I can't recall what was on the glove box doors of the MCCs I looked at.

here is just one incident on a BARTH MCC


http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/969/969.F2d.421.91-1868.html


ZIM

quote:

Originally posted by L.S. Coren:
it is also stated that MCC built the body also and Barth only finished the inside walls and trim.

Where is that stated?

MCC supplied the chassis and fiberglass body components. Barth assembled those into the coach shell, added an inner aluminum cage frame, sprayed on a thick layer of foam insulation and attached aluminum armor alloy sheets that served as the coach's interior sidewalls and ceilings.

That is considerably more than "only finishing the inside walls and trim."

quote:

Originally posted by bill h:
That is considerably more than "only finishing the inside walls and trim."

I have looked, but I can not find the article that talked about the bankruptcy and Barth's purchase of the MCC assets...

Then, for the MCC Units, Barth was a kit car builder kit RV builder? Ok, maybe I've oversimplified that statement.

I still believe the following to be true... Barth used up what components it had purchased from MCC. Once old stock dried up, they only built the Barth Bus Type units. Is this statement wrong?

Didn't MCC rise out of the ashes of the FMC bankruptcy? Then MCC failed and Barth came along to buy the chassis. They then took the inventory and finished up the building of those MCC units. Is that statement wrong?

I am going off of memory now. Unfortunately, I can not track down the article I read in the past. In that article it said something to the effect of what I just stated. If I should stumble onto the MCC Barth article I read before, then I might be in a better position to discuss the other points.

26+ years after the MCC/Barth purchase, it makes it hard to track down what is fact and what is fiction.

Gentlemen,

Your wealth of knowledge & insight into MCC & Barth is mind boggling!

All of the comments are sincerely & greatly appreciated!

The appraisal process for any type of a motor vehicle follows ONLY two (2) guidelines set forth in the USAAP's (Uniform Standards For Automotive Appraisal Procedure)that are published by the International Automotive Appraisers Association (IAAA)as submitted to the Appraisal Standards Board in Washington, D.C., and the All-Auto-Appraisal-Industry-Conference. The IAAA is the main governing body in the United States & Canada that qualifies individuals as registered, tested and certified automotive appraisers.

The guidelines are inclusive of only two ways to legally appraise the value of a motorized vehicle.

#1 = By using a minimum of "2" comparable vehicles that are or have been advertised within the retail marketplace (with adjustments for mileage, equipment & condition).

#2 = When comparable vehicles are not available: By using a minimum of "2" dealer or expert value quotes for the subject appraised vehicle, that are averaged to produce a compliant value.

Of course there is more to this language and the requirements, but this represents the majority of the published requirement language. The requirements mimic the I.R.S. (personal property) appraisal requirements and the California Department of Insurance Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations (2695.8).

What all this boils down to is; what is the "retail fair market value" of the subject loss vehicle (1982 MCC Barth 35)on the date of the fire, with all equipment and conditions present and included.

I venture to say that most all "registered, tested & certified" automotive appraisers do value a motor vehicle in RETAIL terms (unless requested otherwise - liquidation value/etc)so that the proper retail value of the loss vehicle is stated.

The real process is to accurately and fairly value the loss unit, not under-value it to save the insurance company money in the short and long run. As I know you are aware of, this could be debated for quite awhile.

My appraised amount for the terminally burn damaged 1982 MCC Barth 35 is the summation of my research of comparable units that were found (with adjustments for year of manufacture and mileage). I really do feel good about this value and that is it proper (legally & ethically)for the loss vehicle.

The fact that the insured feels my valuation is $10K less than what he believes it was worth, is just an issue in the overall process that will be addressed by possible negotiation or by legal means under the policy language (arbitration/ appraisal clause hearing process).

Thank you for permitting me to use all of you as a sounding board and to enlighten you a little bit on legal vehicle valuation regulations and insurance procedures for disputed value claims that are in place. I will let you know what transpires! I assure you that this site is on my favorites list!

My utmost thank you's to all of you and happy travelling!

Lance Coren
TheAutoAppraiser.com

Bill, I first found this forum after looking at a Barth just south of Circleville, OH in early 2002. I was TDY there for an inderteminate period and looking for alternatives to motels. Returning from an errand I saw this MCC Barth, stopped and looked it over, got the scam from the sales agent/park owner and then checked the web (the venue of all truth). I don't remember the length or year any longer.
When I found this sight I registered and emailed Dave Bowers. He was gracious and provided me with a wealth of knowledge about the MCC.
1. Charles Kuralt would travel on no other chassis.
2. It handles like a vintage Jaguar, elegant ride with great control.
3. It is an orphan and I should contact ... about the unit and options of upgrading and repair.
Been here ever since.
I did not buy the unit, it was overluved and undercared for, had its own challenges and I had my 35 Chris at home needing two engines. One more engine and eight more tires were a little more than I decided to take on.
Thanks for the sight, Dave thanks for being there back then,
the 1 mpg boater, thinking about the 8 mpg life

quote:

Originally posted by L.S. Coren:
My appraised amount for the terminally burn damaged 1982 MCC Barth 35 is the summation of my research of comparable units that were found (with adjustments for year of manufacture and mileage). I really do feel good about this value and that is it proper (legally & ethically)for the loss vehicle.

I believe that you have done the best that you can. If you used the "MCC by Barth" NADA guide, and gave it every option under the sun, it still wouldn't equal what you have appraised it for. The MCC Chassis Barths, whether MCC or Barth Bodied were, from all reports, one of the best riding coaches you could get. Seeing that they upgraded the chassis and brakes would only add to it's value.

quote:

Originally posted by L.S. Coren:
The fact that the insured feels my valuation is $10K less than what he believes it was worth, is just an issue in the overall process that will be addressed by possible negotiation or by legal means under the policy language (arbitration/ appraisal clause hearing process).

I think he should be happy that you used the premier line of Regency to come up with a value. There were very few of these (MCC/MCC) units that were produced.

quote:

Originally posted by L.S. Coren:
I will let you know what transpires! I assure you that this site is on my favorites list!

Don't be a stranger, I would love to find out what the outcome was.

BTW: If you would like, you can give a blurb about your company and what services you provide. I am sure our members would like to know a little bit more about you. For instance, is it possible to give us a value of a coach based on pictures alone? If so, what would it cost and how long would it be good for?

Let's say I contacted you via your website and my insurance company wanted an appraisal before they would insure it for agreed upon value. Can you do this via an email exchange?