Comments on: Collector car finder’s guide http://www.collectorcarbuff.com/collector-car-finders-guide Collector cars and car collections Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:43:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0 by: Don Adair http://www.collectorcarbuff.com/collector-car-finders-guide#comment-77 Wed, 08 Feb 2006 01:09:30 +0000 http://www.collectorcarbuff.com/collector-car-finders-guide#comment-77 Dear Sir: Thanks for the publicity! I'm sorry that you find our column worthless, but I would like to make a couple of points: 1) you dismissal of female car reviewers is off the mark. It matters not whether Teresa is a buff or not, but whether she can effectively represent a vehicle from a female perspective. The point being, of course, that many buyers are women and their needs have been traditionally under-represented in the motoring press. We're proud that we were among the first reviewers in the country to include a female perspective and have been surprised and gratified to find that men seem to appreciate her views as well as do women. 2) the comparison with Tom Cahill at Popular Mechanics is inappropriate for a couple of reasons. First, we write for a general consumer publication, whose readers are casually interested in cars. Generally speaking, they are not buffs, nor would they read a piece intended for that market. That's why there are buff books. Secondarily, I believe you will find that the tenor of automotive writing has changed considerably since the days when Mr. Cahill held forth (and, yes, I am a one-time reader). Even such august publications as Popular Mechanics and Road & Track are much more likely to hold their punches than they were in the halcyon days of the '50s and '60s, due to pressures exerted by the manufacturers. I don't believe this is a good thing, necessarily, but it is the way of the marketplace. Finally, it is also true for the most part that there are very few "steaming piles of crap" for sale these days. There are better cars and worse cars, of course, but by and large there is a car for every market and every pocketbook. Regular readers know how to read between the lines to determine which cars we prefer and those we don't, but that is largely a matter of personal preference, which should have as little to do with an automotive review as possible. At the very least, the writer's preferences should be made obvious. Thanks again for your interest in our column. Sorry we don't do a better job of pleasing you, but I'm afraid you represent an audience that's better served by a type of publication other than a daily newspaper. Best regards, Don Adair Dear Sir:

Thanks for the publicity!

I’m sorry that you find our column worthless, but I would like to make a couple of points:

1) you dismissal of female car reviewers is off the mark. It matters not whether Teresa is a buff or not, but whether she can effectively represent a vehicle from a female perspective. The point being, of course, that many buyers are women and their needs have been traditionally under-represented in the motoring press. We’re proud that we were among the first reviewers in the country to include a female perspective and have been surprised and gratified to find that men seem to appreciate her views as well as do women.

2) the comparison with Tom Cahill at Popular Mechanics is inappropriate for a couple of reasons. First, we write for a general consumer publication, whose readers are casually interested in cars. Generally speaking, they are not buffs, nor would they read a piece intended for that market. That’s why there are buff books.

Secondarily, I believe you will find that the tenor of automotive writing has changed considerably since the days when Mr. Cahill held forth (and, yes, I am a one-time reader). Even such august publications as Popular Mechanics and Road & Track are much more likely to hold their punches than they were in the halcyon days of the ’50s and ’60s, due to pressures exerted by the manufacturers. I don’t believe this is a good thing, necessarily, but it is the way of the marketplace.

Finally, it is also true for the most part that there are very few “steaming piles of crap” for sale these days. There are better cars and worse cars, of course, but by and large there is a car for every market and every pocketbook. Regular readers know how to read between the lines to determine which cars we prefer and those we don’t, but that is largely a matter of personal preference, which should have as little to do with an automotive review as possible. At the very least, the writer’s preferences should be made obvious.

Thanks again for your interest in our column. Sorry we don’t do a better job of pleasing you, but I’m afraid you represent an audience that’s better served by a type of publication other than a daily newspaper.

Best regards,

Don Adair

]]>