64 original convertible trade for restored 67 bug-equal trade?

Offhand it sounds like a fairly even trade. I'm not sure what each is bringing in the market, but keep in mind the '67 is a very desirable one-year-only car with 5 lugs & 12 volts (& they look great too). Also keep in mind an unrestored original car like the 'vert is more desirable than a restored car (even non-perfect originals are starting to get more points at shows than near-perfect resotrations). I guess it really depends on which car your father likes best. I'm sure you'll get other opinions; don't base your decision just on my thoughts. :-) ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"

Giggle Cream - it makes dessert *funny*!

I've been into VWs for 20 years. In my opinion, a '64 vert is more desirable that a restored '67 sedan. However, if someone was born in 1967, then I can understand why a '67 sedan is seen better than a '64 vert.

Yeah.

For me, a sedan would have to be rather a lot older *and* in much better condition to be more desireable than *any* convertible. (Or the convertible in question would have to be a Super. ;-)

I'd swap my rather rough '70 convertible for a mint sedan of no later than 1959 vintage, if said sedan was equipped with a ragtop, bumpers with overriders, and preferrably dark blue. (Dad's first car, y'know.) I'd swap a Super convertible for any pre-'70s sedan in the same condition, though. (Don't come running: that's why I never owned a Super convertible ;-)

Why? Okay, my convertible is the same year as I am, but that's a coincidence (I looked at anything pre-Super), and I can't see what's so special about that. I think we all have our favourite model years (mine would be '55, '59, '66, and '69) where we like the details better than in the models before or after, but I don't think this has much to do with one's own year of birth.

Airhowlingly yours, Erik.

Is that why I have the '61??? Not really... just worked out that way. Besides, it was actually mfg. in the summer of 1960 and so is more than a year older than me!