Caraval or Globetrotter-better resale?

[AnnZ3]

All things being equal (I know they *never*are) which would have a better re-sale value...Caravel or Globetrotter?

[roger n cindy]

yes they never are ! IMHO the caravel wins price wise ? why you ask ? because size seems to matter ! and smaller is better ! this as i say is, In My Humble Opinion.
roger n cindy

[85MH325]

Strictly in terms of resale, I'd have to say that vintage '61-'63 Bambis are probably in the highest demand closely followed by '65-'67 Caravels. The demand is what keeps resale high. Later Caravels at 18', GTs and Safaris at 19', and 22'/23' respectively would probably be next in the demand scale; but the early Bambis and Caravels seem to be the most sought after as they weigh the least.

There's nothing at all wrong with the 18'-23' trailers, they just weigh more, and with each increment in weight you've lost a small part of your potential resale audience.

Bambis and Caravels will always at least return your initial investment, and may actually make you a few dollars if you can buy them right.

Roger

[JohnG]

Depending on the year a Caravel was 17' or 18' and a Globetotter was 19' if I have my facts straight. So I would think that the value may only increase between the two if it were the rarer year Caravel at 17'. Other than that I would think that they would both be equally matched in value.
I would personally prefer the Globetrotter, but I have to admit that it is because I like its name.

[rluhr]

I think the choice between Caravel and Globetrotter is splitting hairs. Both are very light and appeal to a similar buyer. We were looking actively for a GT when we found our Caravel.

I actually think the Globetrotter is a better buy and harder to find. And ultimately the difference in re-sale is far overshadowed by the condition of the trailer.

We would have happily snagged at GT if we could have found it -- but now that we've got the Caravel with a gray tank, I think there's no turning back.

[roadeo]

I do not know if there is much variation.
I remember reading just a few weeks back, somewhere in the bowels of this forum that Caravels were the model that at one time in the sixties AS chose to build by using up leftover parts and items from all the rest of the models.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, might even have some benefits.
But if true there would be a possibility of great "non-uniformity" in that model.
Again this would not have much effect on prices for among other reasons few buyers or sellers would even be aware of it. It might be a headache for trying to find parts, buy axles, etc.

[bredlo]

I bought a GlobeTrotter based on the fact that it still looks pretty small compared to the majority of Airstreams... it's kind of like the oldest kid in the batch from a second marriage.

We wanted to be a bit more comfortable if we tried to bring another couple with us to the Boundary Waters, or Indiana Dunes, etc. The few times I've mentioned this on the board I've been told in no uncertain terms that we'll still be very cramped with 4 adults, but I feel very good about striking a perfect balance between the cute Bambi's and the more spacious Safaris.

[85MH325]

Originally Posted by rluhr

I think the choice between Caravel and Globetrotter is splitting hairs. Both are very light and appeal to a similar buyer. We were looking actively for a GT when we found our Caravel.

I actually think the Globetrotter is a better buy and harder to find. And ultimately the difference in re-sale is far overshadowed by the condition of the trailer.

We would have happily snagged at GT if we could have found it -- but now that we've got the Caravel with a gray tank, I think there's no turning back.

Rich, the Caravel is an interesting beast. The '65 is essentially a rebadged '64 Bambi II. the '65-'67 Caravels were slightly larger Bambis. By '68 they'd become 18' long, acquired the new body and subsequent weight. In 1965 the Caravel's dry weight was 2250. By 1969 the Caravel Special LY had grown to a 2880 lb dry weight, an increase of 630lbs. Clearly, an increase in weight of over 20%. The 1965 Globetrotter 19' tipped in at 2980 lbs. and by 1969 had grown to a 21' trailer that weighed 3330 dry.

My point is that the early Caravels and GTs are very different trailers from the later Caravels and GTs, particularly if you're looking at a lightweight tow vehicle where every pound counts.

Roger

[bredlo]

Originally Posted by 85MH325

Rich, the Caravel is an interesting beast. The '65 is essentially a rebadged '64 Bambi II. the '65-'67 Caravels were slightly larger Bambis. By '68 they'd become 18' long, acquired the new body and subsequent weight. In 1965 the Caravel's dry weight was 2250. By 1969 the Caravel Special LY had grown to a 2880 lb dry weight, an increase of 630lbs. Clearly, an increase in weight of over 20%. The 1965 Globetrotter 19' tipped in at 2980 lbs. and by 1969 had grown to a 21' trailer that weighed 3330 dry.

My point is that the early Caravels and GTs are very different trailers from the later Caravels and GTs, particularly if you're looking at a lightweight tow vehicle where every pound counts.

Roger

Great point, Roger. Couple your info with the fact that many times trailers seem to have all slightly different lengths, at least that's what I've read on many occassions.

So the difference in size between a '61 GlobeTrotter (19') and a '68 Caravel (18'), with the plus or minus factor of several inches... might you even find overlapping coach lengths?

I guess it all comes down to what is available when a particular person is looking, and what condition it's in. I think for an educated buyer, that'll ultimately determine the value. Strictly from a collector's viewpoint though, the early 60's Bambi's seem to have the edge as far as name recognition.

[Stefrobrts]

Originally Posted by 85MH325

Rich, the Caravel is an interesting beast. The '65 is essentially a rebadged '64 Bambi II. the '65-'67 Caravels were slightly larger Bambis. By '68 they'd become 18' long, acquired the new body and subsequent weight. In 1965 the Caravel's dry weight was 2250. By 1969 the Caravel Special LY had grown to a 2880 lb dry weight, an increase of 630lbs. Clearly, an increase in weight of over 20%. The 1965 Globetrotter 19' tipped in at 2980 lbs. and by 1969 had grown to a 21' trailer that weighed 3330 dry.

My point is that the early Caravels and GTs are very different trailers from the later Caravels and GTs, particularly if you're looking at a lightweight tow vehicle where every pound counts.

Roger

Actually, Roger, the 68 Caravel is identicle to the 65-67, with the addition of interior fiberglass endcaps. The weight fully loaded for a trip is 2800#. 68 was also 17ft, like it's predecessors.The 69 however has a completely different layout, and of course the new front wing windows etc. So I consider 65-68 to be one style, 69 another.

Having compared a lot of Caravels, they all have their little differences but I wouldn't say they were hashed together from spare parts! They definitly each have their own style and feel a little different inside. But basically 65-68 are pretty similar.

At rallys I have found people are far more interested in Bambis than Caravels, and at 'open house' when I tell them it's a Caravel, they frequently lose interest. I think because it's so close to being Bambi size, people are attracted to it, and then dissapointed to find it's not. I don't know what it is about that Bambi name, but people love it. I think the Caravel is a far superior layout.

So considering you're not dealing with that 'magic' name, comparing the Caravel and Globetrotter really is just a matter of size. The layouts are identical. People travel far and wide to find one because that's what they are looking for, a Caravel because they want a small one, or a GT because they want more room.

[rluhr]

Roger, you're right that the 1969 and later model years are entirely different. But I agree with Stef's clarifications as well. 1969 was the big changeover year, where all the models got a foot longer and much heavier.

I should also add that in the pre-69 model years, whether Caravel or Globetrotter, you're looking at a trailer with a GVWR of 3,500 lbs or less. This means they can be towed by small SUVs and minivans, which is part of the reason I said they appeal to similar markets. The only Airstream that lightweight since then is the Bambi 16, which wasn't offered for nearly thirty years!

[85MH325]

Stephanie and Rich,

I stand corrected on the '68 Caravel! Thanks for the clarification.

Roger