Mo, some observations and comments for what they're worth.
1st, I posted earlier about a preference for the '69 one owner car... I wrongly assumed you were purchasing direct from the original owner so that their records were available...
I also wrongly assumed you had direct access to the vehicle... so could test drive, have it checked by an independant mechanic familiar with the SL's of this era.... see fine details, check numbers, etc.
What I now see is that the '69 is being sold by an agent, no access to the original owner, no records, no up-front and personal inspection. Basically you would be buying the car sight unseen so to speak... your whole faith and trust in the marketing methods of the agent.
That said, I'll comment on the observations I made from the photos.
1) I doubt there are only 32K miles on this vehicle... I'd say more likely 132K... the odometer on it's second round. I make this assertion because the state of the engine compartment isn't as clean and well cared for as I would think would be the case for a MB mechanic original owner. It's in about the same shape as mine was with 116K original miles.... serviced and cared for faithfully and regularly from '68 to '84 by the same MB mechanic... all service records available for that entire period... both from the owner's records and from the mechanic's office records.
That isn't to say there's anything wrong with the engine or it's details... but I'd guess there are 132K miles on it rather than 32K. A complete long block rebuild (Metric motors in LA) would cost on the order of $4K + up to $6K for accessories rebuilt or reconditioned/replaced, injection system re-done as necessary, all labor (remove, re-install, etc) taken care of, so it gives you some perspective on costs in US west coast prices if you needed to put the engine mechanicals in good / excellent shape and the 'original' owner mechanic didn't really do all that this might imply. Notice there's no statement that the mechanic religiously maintained this engine, and the appearance of it gives one reason to suspect it may not have been given any more care than a regular owner might have given it.
2) I don't think the soft-top not being latched in the back is significant or relevant... the picture takers just put it up to take the pics with the soft-top up in my opinion. They may not have been comfortable with the extra 'slam' the tight fitting soft-top needs to get the rear to lock down.... and the fit's tight ---- see the sway between the supporting bars. It's not new though as evidensed by the rear window, so it's been down (in the boot) since the canvas isn't faded or worn... or maybe the sun's not as damaging as it is in my state (CA).
3) I don't see the significant left to right gap difference in the rear hood to body gap.... there may be a slight differnce but it could as easily be due to the rubber bumper missing on the rear hood on one side as an artifact of the photo itself... shadow at edges. Unless the sun was shining exactly in-line with the length of the car any subtle or possible appearance of a difference in the appearance of the gap is probably an artifact of the light's orientation with respect to the car.. that aside though, without personal inspection anything's possible.
3) No hard-top shown! Based on the lack of sun damage fading to the soft-top, the car apparently had the hard-top on it more often than not. This may not be in as good appearance as the rest of the repainted car.
4) The observation of the right (passanger side) headlight's cant (camber) is extreme... as observed also by Rodd. Something's definitely out of whack, so indications are that the passanger side front fender's been replaced / repaired by a less than competant body repair shop. The extent of prior damage/repairs beyond that can't be ascertained by the photos... need for compentant 1st hand inspection.
5) I'm uncomfortable with the all red pre-'68 (230, 250) tail lights on a '69 280. They appear to be in almost perfect condition... worth ~$500 each if really the original one-piece (chrome & red plastic) tail lights in the kind of condition they appear to be in. I question the integrety of the mechanic owner if he swapped the original and easily replaced two piece two tone tail lights of the 280SL with the much more difficult to obtain and expensive pre-'68 variety. Why replace the originals on the '69 in the 1st place... faded, cracked? rear-ended? Again, you could only assess the real reasons with a personal inspection and talk with the owner.
6) Noticed 2 things on the boot cover... the corner wrinkles in the vinyl/leather, and the retainer's line under the vinyl/leather .... both of which give me cause for concern that this has been redone but not with much attention to detail... another reason why I'm skeptical of the degree of care given the car by the MB 'mechanic' owner... or perhaps this was quickly redone by the 'agent'.
7) A NY car's underbody has got to be a critical aspect of the state of the car.... completely free of rust? I don't think so, at least not from original parts. I live in CA... San Jose, so not near coastal salt or inclement weather, in very low humidity climate, no salt on snow, or the like. You can keep the car garaged and ventilated, but you'll get some rust tarnish here and there, and especially on the exhaust even here over 10 years time... much less 30 years.
I'm therefore actually thinking that much of what's visible in pic's may have been done to give the car a nice look by the 'agent'... but I think the 'agent' is the owner trying to turn a quick profit with some fluff maneuvers to the uninformed buyer. Go to
www.carfax.com with the vin and look up it's ownership history... state inspection milages and dates, etc.... there are public records on the car to check against if you have the NY VIN (note that the VIN of record may not be the entire chassis number... but will include the last numeric section at least).
Bottom line is a personal inspection by an experienced SL owner or mechanic is required for an outlay of $20K+ for this car. Too many things pics don't show, and even the pics provided already show some things to be wary of....
But the kicker to me is that to buy a 1 owner '69 SL from an 'agent' for the owner with whom you aren't allowed to make contact is a red flag. Especially considering the claim that it was owned by an experienced MB mechanic.. one would have to be daft to think the guy wasn't interested in exclaiming the virtues of his care and feeding of his classic car to the next owner.
My point is I've never known a long time owner who took care of their SL's to NOT want to show the car off to the prospective buyers. So you have to question the implied degree & type of care by the owner MB mechanic when you're unable to discuss the car with them, obtain any available records or receipts from them, etc.
What you pay for an SL has to do with what you want to do with it, how long you intend on keeping it, and the degree or amount of money you want to spend on restoration details and whether you're willing to put more $ into it than it's market value at any given point in time with what you've put into it.
Longtooth
67 250SL US #113-043-10-002163
95 SL500
