PDA

View Full Version : 1960's Lark



Jose
10-09-2008, 09:48 PM
hello everyone,

I'm new here but I am a car enthusiast, collector, and refurbisher.

I have always loved Studebakers since I was a kid, but instead I own two Jaguars (for the last 17 years), and I grew up with MG and Volvo, since my first car in 1969.

Today my GPS took me through a very quiet street where I saw a 1960's Studebaker Lark, one of my favorite body styles. I stopped to look at the car, which is abandoned but very intact, and very little rust. The upholstery and headliner are shot but look original.

Overall I thought the car is easily restorable. The Lark is the kind of car I like to drive everyday, like my 1965 Jaguar S type.

I would like to ask your opinions about what these cars sell for, what I shouldn't pay, and if there are parts available. (I can get any part for my Jags 40+ years later).

The engine looks original. I did take pictures and will link them here later.

thanks for your help.

Jose

tbredehoft
10-09-2008, 10:04 PM
Condition is all important. Almost all parts are available, if not NOS, still usable. Value is hard to tell without lots of information.

[img=left]http://www.alink.com/personal/tbredehoft/Avatar1.jpg[/img=left]
Tom Bredehoft
'53 Commander Coupe (since 1959)
'55 President (6H Y6) State Sedan
(Under Construction 510 hrs.)
'05 Legacy Ltd Wagon
All Indiana built cars

rockne10
10-09-2008, 10:06 PM
Welcome, Jose.

If the parts weren't available we wouldn't be driving them. They are, no doubt, significantly cheaper than Jag parts; or Ford parts or Chevy parts. Open the world of Studebaker by clicking on the "Home" link at the top of this page.

Can't speculate on purchase value without knowing model information. There were some rare, highly desirable Lark models and more common, though equally desirable and less valuable, models.

It would help to have pictures, and even more helpful to have the Serial numbers from the driver's door post and the body tag numbers from the cowl, right side under hood.

Brad Johnson
Pine Grove Mills, Pa.
http://s57.photobucket.com/albums/g233/rockne10/Rockne/th_Rocknegauges.jpg'33 Rockne 10, '51 Commander Starlight, '53 Commander Starlight

wolfie
10-09-2008, 10:16 PM
What Tom said though a project lark is certainly not a high end car.My girlfriend and I are redoing a 63 4 door for a driver and have been amazed at how easy parts are to find and really inexpensive if you look for good usable pieces and not necessarily perfect.We will have less in this car ready to go than I have in the chrome for my 53.The exception would be a solid R-series or Avanti powered car.Good luck,Steve

Jose
10-12-2008, 09:43 AM
thank you for the welcome and info.

I will try to get the numbers you request.

I don't think this is an "important" Lark, just the run of the mill
example, but a restorable one.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/XJ-for-two/Studebaker-front.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/XJ-for-two/Studebaker-rear.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/XJ-for-two/Studebaker-engine.jpg


Jose

JDP
10-12-2008, 02:04 PM
You should be able to buy the car for less then the price of new taillight lenses.:) BTW, the car might be worth a few hundred dollars as it sits, not a lot more. (my opinion only)

JDP/Maryland
"I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."
Thomas Jefferson

Roscomacaw
10-12-2008, 02:48 PM
I'm with JDP here - couple (as in TWO) hundred bucks MAX. And while most of the exterior trim IS available new, the taillight lenses may indeed set you back as much as what we've suggested you pay for the whole car!
Of course, with just a little bit of work, you can fit 59 or 60 taillights and no one except diehard Stude folks will be the wiser.;)

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President two door

58PackardWagon
10-12-2008, 03:10 PM
A cute little 61. If the floors and trunk are solid, I would pay $300.

Jose
10-12-2008, 08:22 PM
quote:Originally posted by 58PackardWagon

A cute little 61. If the floors and trunk are solid, I would pay $300.

1961? everyone agrees with the year? And the engine, does it look original?

I opened the doors and the car is dry and looks unrotted. look at the upholstery. The body looks straight everywhere. As little as I know about Studebaker, I think the paint might be original. What do you all think?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/XJ-for-two/Studebaker-front-seat.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/XJ-for-two/Studebaker-rear-seat.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/XJ-for-two/Studebaker-left.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/XJ-for-two/Studebaker-right.jpg

N8N
10-12-2008, 08:25 PM
yes, the hood, trunk lid, side trim, and nose all say '61. they all look the same from a distance but there are a lot of differences between '59-60 and '61.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

mbstude
10-12-2008, 08:40 PM
Welcome to the Forum!

I'd really like to have that car. Yes, it's a '61. It's such an oddball, even amongst Studebaker, that I'd LOVE to own it!

My daily driver is a '62 Lark four door. Very similar to this car, but it's a 6 cylinder, not a V8. Lots of goofy little trim differences too.

While the 4 door Larks are REALLY underappreciated, they make for excellent drivers. The '62 is just as smooth and (relatively) quiet as can be on the highway. Even without Overdrive (It's a 3 speed), it hangs with traffic just fine. The little motor runs great, just smokes a little at start up.
I think my Granddad paid $400 for it. We dragged it home and put a clutch in it. Then it sat in the yard for a year or more. When I wrecked my '59 pickup, I needed a way to go, so I stuck a set of tires on the '62, and away I went. I've been driving it for 6 months or so now, and (knock on wood), the only trouble I've had out of it is a broken clutch rod. It always starts, and always gets me where I need to go. That $400 was a good investment!

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk179/1959S2D/quadraportle002a.jpg

Sorry to ramble on, but if you can get that '61 for a couple hunnert bucks, I'd jump on it. If you can get it driving, you won't regret it.

BTW, my '59 pickup is completely driveable now. I drove it once, and went right back to the Lark. SO much more comfortable than the truck. ;)


Like Dave G. says.... SEDANS RULE! :D

Am I allowed to say that, being I also own (and have spent a small fortune on) a '63 two door? [:o)]

Matthew Burnette
Hazlehurst, GA
http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk179/1959S2D/quadraportle005.jpg

Jose
10-12-2008, 08:52 PM
Mathew, thank you. Yes, I see the difference now.

The rear of the '61 looks like a Pontiac. (??)

The rear of the '62 looks like an Oldsmobile. (??)

Or do the Pontiac and Oldsmobile looked like a Studebaker? Who copied who?

The "eyebrows" of the '61 (over the headlights) is "sculpted".

The '62 are not sculpted.

Definitely I like the '61 better, a lot more character. And I agree these little cars ride (or rode) like a luxury car. Very smooth. I rode in one when I was a kid.

I'm sorry to burst the bubble but the owner wants $1 grand, which of course nobody here would pay and neither would I.

Well, since you are showing off your '62 Sedan, and I agree that Sedans Rule, i'm going to show off my '65 Jaguar S type, ("S" for "Saloon" or "Sedan"), even though it's not a Stude.

My "problem" is that I drive my cars, daily, for example I drove the Jag from San Francisco (where I bought it), to Nashville, then to Orlando and back to Nashville and Orlando, and it keeps on ticking. Long trips. The Jag is intact, San Francisco weather preserves cars.

This car is unrestored except for a respray in 1984. (I have the receipt, the 1st owner saved it). No bondo except the one that the factory applied. If I could find a Studebaker Lark Station Wagon, in mint condition like my S type, then I can also find a Rambler-Nash Station Wagon, the famous Pink and Black one? That's the one I want, but it has to be mint and it must drive everyday.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/XJ-for-two/front-side-view-S-type.jpg

mbstude
10-12-2008, 09:07 PM
In '62 the back end was redesigned.
Here's the only pic I have. Sorry for the rain. ;)

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk179/1959S2D/rainy_lark-3.jpg

Nice Jag. Some friends of mine have a '57 'drophead coupe'. He and his son restored it, and it wins the highest honor at every Jaguar show he takes it to.

They also have:
'58 Stude Golden Hawk
'55 Stude Speedster
'56 T-Bird
'57 T-Bird
'53 Corvette (unrestored; sat in a guy's living room for 30 years. It's recently been 'approved' by the NCRS.)

The Jaguar is the only car that they trailer to shows. It's too nice to get dirty. The rest get driven.

blackhawk61
10-12-2008, 09:26 PM
Here is a nice 63 MK 2 at a recent show.
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg72/blackhawk61/mk2Jag3.jpg

1961 Hawk 4BC,4-SPEED,TT
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/chevpartsman/61HawkChevypartsmanreduce.jpg
Ken Byrd
Lewisville,NC

Jose
10-12-2008, 09:27 PM
for my taste, these Studebakers had the right proportions and designs. I can't understand how a company that made such beautiful cars like the Lark and Hawk went out of business. The whole thing does not make sense. I'm definitely in the minority. I like Ramblers too.

Jose
10-12-2008, 09:39 PM
oh yes the MK-II, the one everyone wants. Except me.

the S type is the better car. Made from 1963 to 1968, only around 24 thousand were made, in both RHD and LHD (for America).

The S type has the Independent Rear Suspension (IRS) of the famous E-type, whereas the MK-II has a stiff rear axle making for a very stiff ride. The S type rides smooth. That's why the S type is longer and roomier.

It was the last of Jaguar's "Small Saloons", unlesss you count the 2 years of the 420 model, which had the 4.2 engine which debuted in 1968 with the XJ-6.

the irony here is that this Jaguar S type came with and still has, a Studebaker DG-250 automatic transmission. Funny how I ended here in a Studebaker forum. Small world.

compare the MK-II above with the S type:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/XJ-for-two/BackRearShotofJaguar.jpg

barnlark
10-12-2008, 09:55 PM
"I'm definitely in the minority."

Not around here, Jose.;)
You can find a nice Studebaker for a lot less than what it would take to get that '61 presentable for what you want. For one of us, that car would be a good catch for under $400 and would be in running order asap. Find a car in our "member's pictures forum" that you like and pick one style you like the best and go from there for a search. If you like the pink and black look, I know of a '60 Lark convertible that goes up for sale on occasion. Flamingo ext. w/ black interior. It may be available, but it is a nice car to drive right away, so be prepared to pay for that privilege.

Here's a shot of it, but it may not be for sale anymore..
http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh48/newshooter44/DSCN0538-1.jpg
Oh yeah...and it doesn't have any Lucas electrical gremlins.[:o)]:D

studegary
10-13-2008, 01:10 PM
The car in question is a 1961 Lark Regal sedan. The low level Lark then was a Deluxe and the Regal is up level, primarily a better interior and some exterior difference. Only the Cruiser was a higher level Lark sedan in 1961.

The engine appears to be correct for a V8 model. It would be a 259 cubic inch OHV V8.

IMHO, the car should be $300 to $400, unless it comes with a NOS set of tail lights (which cost about that much by themselves).

My recent Jaguar connection is that I spent last Wednesday driving a new XKR (see my post in the Stove Huggers Forum section).

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer

Jose
10-13-2008, 08:29 PM
thanks guys. One item keeps resonating in this discussion: the Tail lights.

When you say the Tail lights, do you mean the Lenses, the chrome housings, or both?

Is it that they have not been reproduced and are therefore, unavailable unless used or n.o.s.??

excuse the dumb questions but I am new to the Studebaker state-of-the-parts-supply.

So if that car has the tail lights in the box of parts sitting in the front seat, or in the trunk, they are worth $400. buckaroos? yeehaw!

Otherwise, if any of you wants to buy the car, I will be glad to help out and put you in touch with the owner and you can do your negotiating directly, since I already decided I'm not going to pursue it.

I like that pink convertible, but a Station Wagon is what I'd like, in Driver condition.


Also I am happy to have joined this forum. Studebaker is for me, as good as Jaguar. Not to mention William Lyons (founder of Jaguar) had a relation with Studebaker since the 1950's, as well as with GM and Ford.

I'm sure you all know that all Jaguars have Studebaker, GM, and Ford parts designed into them, and installed at the Jaguar factory.

Jose

N8N
10-13-2008, 08:39 PM
yup, '61 taillight lenses are scarce. Problem is, they are a one year only part, and have vacuum "chrome" plating inside clear plastic. They just don't hold up - neither do the 62-63 lenses, but those have been repro'd. The 61s have not and it doesn't look like they will be until prices for NOS go waaaaay up - it's a niche part, and not enough buyers to make repro'ing worthwhile at current costs/prices.

The good news is that it is possible to fit 59-60 taillight assemblies to a 61, if you don't mind being incorrect.

More repro's are coming out as parts get scarcer though... usually after I finally pony up the ducats for "good used." Happened to me twice; first with a '56 Hawk then with a '62 Lark. Both are now available as new reproductions...

So I guess if you really want to get those taillight lenses made, someone sell me a cheap '61 Lark with busted up taillights. I'll piss and moan about it for a year or so and then finally dig deep and buy a pair. Then 6 months later repros will hit the market :)

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

studegary
10-14-2008, 01:57 PM
There is no chrome part to the 1961 Lark tail lights. There is one piece of plastic that has vacuum deposited aluminum on part of the plastic to give a chrome appearance.
These lenses were reproduced once (1970s). The NOS and repros are nearly gone and the ones still around demand hundreds of dollars. Even good used ones are hard to find.
You mentioned Jaguar using the DG-250. I have worked on a Jaguar transmission and used NOS Studebaker parts. The Studebaker parts were cheaper and easier to obtain than the same parts from Jaguar.

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer

Jose
10-14-2008, 07:07 PM
more thanks for the infos.:D

I went back today to get the car's Serial Number: It reads as follows: Studebaker Corporation, Made in the USA, Serial Number
61V 2378

the above is in an aluminum plate rivetted to the inner door jamb.
I could not find any numbers in the cowl area of the engine compartment. The engine is a V8. I've been told the Cylinder Heads are worth thousands, is this so?

I also checked all the loose parts, there is one Lens with "chrome" as Gary describes. Looks good. I took 2 pictures of all the parts in the box. Here they are.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/XJ-for-two/parts-1.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/XJ-for-two/parts-2.jpg

52hawk
10-14-2008, 07:27 PM
Hi Jose. Seriously.That pile of parts is worth about 10 bucks. Cylinder heads? Thousands?? No Way. Scrap price,or maybe $50 each if they check out ok to be rebuildable. Somebody's feeding you a line of crap.

Oglesby,Il. http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j273/52hawk/100_0824-1-2.jpg
"Studebaker? It must be hard to find parts for those!"

52hawk
10-14-2008, 07:34 PM
Looked at the 2nd side of the pic.... That is not a '61 Lark T/L lense.

Oglesby,Il. http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j273/52hawk/100_0824-1-2.jpg
"Studebaker? It must be hard to find parts for those!"

52hawk
10-14-2008, 07:36 PM
quote:Originally posted by 52hawk

Looked at the 2nd side of the pic.... That is not a '61 Lark T/L lense,or if it is it looks like junk anyway.

Oglesby,Il. http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j273/52hawk/100_0824-1-2.jpg
"Studebaker? It must be hard to find parts for those!"



Oglesby,Il. http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j273/52hawk/100_0824-1-2.jpg
"Studebaker? It must be hard to find parts for those!"

barnlark
10-14-2008, 10:13 PM
Looks like a dirty 61 lens, but can't tell if it's junk or not from that distance. You can afford a ton of '61 lenses if it comes with heads worth thousands. ;):D

Rerun
10-15-2008, 04:24 AM
See the "Oscar the Lark For Sale" thread. That looks like a much better deal for a '61 Lark.

Jim Bradley
Lewistown PA
'64 Daytona HT "Rerun"
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd35/bradley71771/Rerun.jpg

studegary
10-16-2008, 01:12 PM
The serial number plate on the door jamb should NOT be "rivited on." It should be spot welded to the A-pillar. I would be concerned with a possible S/N plate change/ownership/title/misrepresented car problem.
The body plate on the engine side of the firewall should be held on with two Phillips head screws.

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer

52hawk
10-16-2008, 04:29 PM
Gary ,I caught that too,surprised no one else mentioned it. It is possible that it just fell off though,and somebody used rivets to re-install it,I guess.

Oglesby,Il. http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j273/52hawk/100_0824-1-2.jpg
"Studebaker? It must be hard to find parts for those!"

Jose
10-16-2008, 05:55 PM
actually I assumed the plate was rivetted-on after I copied the number, I did not look very closely at the four corners of the plate, so indeed the plate may be spot welded. As to the engine compartment body plate, I did not find any.

This car seems whole, I've been messing with old cars since age 16, (I am now 56), and I can tell this Lark is completely original, except for the upholstery.

I did test the Lens against the body housing and it fits fine, it is the original lens unless the housings were changed.

But I could not open the trunk to find the other lens. The keys were in the ignition switch. There is a big and a small key. The small key fits the trunk's lock but I couldn't turn it open, and I didn't want to force it and break the key inside the lock, so I left it alone until I come back with WD40 or Rust Buster.

The engine is a V8 and the "XIII" emblems are there. Someone painted all the emblems and other trim in Red, except for one.

I talked to the owner. He wants $1,000. with him doing the paperwork, or $800. with the buyer doing the paperwork/Title search. He stated the owner died. I told him the car is really not worth $300. as is. There is rot and rust under the doors and door sills, (yet the door hinges are solid).

If anyone wants it for parts, I'll pass the name and number of the shop's owner and you can haggle with him, otherwise I am no longer interested in it. I want a driver, one that will get me home. And after looking at some of the Member's cars here, I'm not even sure I want a Lark anymore. I actually liked the green Hawk with a/c in the Member's Cars album.

But as an old car enthusiast, I would hate for that Lark to go to the crusher, it's good enough to restore and at the very least, a great parts car.

Jose

barnlark
10-16-2008, 08:46 PM
Sheesh, Jose, that poor Lark went from being one of your favorite body styles to having you not even want a Lark any more. [:0] That car is worth the parts, for sure if the price will come down. BTW, the accidently painted emblems should be "VIII" for the V/8 in there, unless you found the one rare V/13. The trunk lock is probably seized up, you're right. Who knows what lies in there, too? There are plenty of nice Hawks for sale recently for you. Hope you find a nice one. Have you discovered the 1953 Starliner models yet?

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh48/newshooter44/DSCN0611_2-1.jpg

BobGlasscock
10-16-2008, 09:06 PM
Bulletnoses rule!!

'50 Champion, 1 family owner
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg316/studebakerbob/SDC%20avatar/Studebakerstuff019.jpghttp://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg316/studebakerbob/SDC%20avatar/Studebakerstuff018.jpg

Dan Kay
10-16-2008, 10:00 PM
Larks Rule - but yeah, that one I would not pay more than 400 for myself - even with the tail light!

Dan Kay
61 Lark VIII Regal
62 Lark Daytona Conv.http://s374.photobucket.com/albums/oo183/grizzlywbvmcor/th_61LarkVIIIRegalpackage.jpg

Steve T
10-16-2008, 11:06 PM
Dan--

That bright red 61 looks really nice...got a bigger shot of it?

S.

Dan Kay
10-17-2008, 10:06 AM
quote:Originally posted by Steve T

Dan--

That bright red 61 looks really nice...got a bigger shot of it?

S.

I will try - but I just figured out how to post images, so it might take a while...

Dan Kay
61 Lark VIII Regal
62 Lark Daytona Conv.
http://s374.photobucket.com/albums/oo183/grizzlywbvmcor/Studebaker/th_61LarkVIIIRegalpackage.jpg

Dan Kay
10-17-2008, 10:30 AM
quote:Originally posted by Dan Kay

[quote]Originally posted by Steve T

Dan--

That bright red 61 looks really nice...got a bigger shot of it?

S.

I will try - but I just figured out how to post images, so it might take a while...
Got it!

http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo183/grizzlywbvmcor/Studebaker/61LarkVIIIRegalpackage.jpg?t=1224295783


Dan Kay
61 Lark VIII Regal
62 Lark Daytona Conv.
http://s374.photobucket.com/albums/oo183/grizzlywbvmcor/Studebaker/th_61LarkVIIIRegalpackage.jpg

Dan Kay
10-17-2008, 10:30 AM
quote:Originally posted by Dan Kay

[quote]Originally posted by Steve T

Dan--

That bright red 61 looks really nice...got a bigger shot of it?

S.

I will try - but I just figured out how to post images, so it might take a while...
Got it!

http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo183/grizzlywbvmcor/Studebaker/61LarkVIIIRegalpackage.jpg?t=1224295783


Dan Kay
61 Lark VIII Regal
62 Lark Daytona Conv.
http://s374.photobucket.com/albums/oo183/grizzlywbvmcor/Studebaker/th_61LarkVIIIRegalpackage.jpg

8E45E
10-17-2008, 01:13 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dan Kay


quote:Originally posted by Dan Kay

[quote]Originally posted by Steve T

Dan--

That bright red 61 looks really nice...got a bigger shot of it?

http://s374.photobucket.com/albums/oo183/grizzlywbvmcor/Studebaker/th_61LarkVIIIRegalpackage.jpg


This thread has a bigger shot of it...

http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20619

Craig

8E45E
10-17-2008, 01:13 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dan Kay


quote:Originally posted by Dan Kay

[quote]Originally posted by Steve T

Dan--

That bright red 61 looks really nice...got a bigger shot of it?

http://s374.photobucket.com/albums/oo183/grizzlywbvmcor/Studebaker/th_61LarkVIIIRegalpackage.jpg


This thread has a bigger shot of it...

http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20619

Craig

Jose
10-17-2008, 07:09 PM
indeed they are VIII, not XIII !!:D[8D][8]

Jose
10-17-2008, 07:09 PM
indeed they are VIII, not XIII !!:D[8D][8]

Jose
10-18-2008, 06:51 AM
to Dan:

do you have a picture of the rear? ....(so I can understand those famous tail lights!)

Also, is the front/nose grille supposed to have a "Studebaker" emblem mounted on the left side and at an angle?

thanks
Jose

8E45E
10-18-2008, 08:12 AM
quote:Originally posted by Jose

to Dan:

do you have a picture of the rear? ....(so I can understand those famous tail lights!)



The only pic I took of the rear of Dan's car is this one!!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/2950877657_236438a943_b.jpg

Craig

Jose
10-18-2008, 11:02 AM
yes, that's the tail light lens I saw with the car, though the chromed area is a bit faded, nothing that plastic polish wouldn't revive. However, there's no rubber gasket/seal, and certainly no reverse lamps.

There's also 4 additional hubcaps with the Studebaker logo, an additional radiator, and two spares with wheels in the trunk.

Jose

Jose
10-18-2008, 11:02 AM
yes, that's the tail light lens I saw with the car, though the chromed area is a bit faded, nothing that plastic polish wouldn't revive. However, there's no rubber gasket/seal, and certainly no reverse lamps.

There's also 4 additional hubcaps with the Studebaker logo, an additional radiator, and two spares with wheels in the trunk.

Jose

barnlark
10-19-2008, 07:38 AM
All pictures above are how it is supposed to look when you drop the dollars and time on it, Jose. NOS tail light lenses are worth the large dollars..not so much faded ones. I'd be very careful with the polish if you buy the car. He's still dreaming with the 1K.

barnlark
10-19-2008, 07:38 AM
All pictures above are how it is supposed to look when you drop the dollars and time on it, Jose. NOS tail light lenses are worth the large dollars..not so much faded ones. I'd be very careful with the polish if you buy the car. He's still dreaming with the 1K.