Can anyone tell me if a 1995 Regency is all (or mostly) aluminum construction on the exterior? Better yet, perhaps someone knows what years are not aluminum.

I had a bad experience with delamination and am looking at Barth as an opportunity to get away from that specific failure defect. That way I can enjoy other defects instead I suppose.

I would really appreciate the information and hope I have found the right spot. Soon perhaps I'll be able to talk about my Barth!

Corey in NH

Welcome Corey, and I'm not even going to begin to answer your question, not out of disrespect, but because there are a ton of guys here who will do a much better job of it. BTW, you ARE at the right place.

Welcome to the forum!

A '95 Regency is all aluminum except for the upper nose cap, as are all Breakaways, and AFAIK, all Regals.

Dave or another grizzled veteran on the BarthWorld may know if any Barths were skinned with plastic; I'd suspect if any, it would have been a few after Barth took over MCC - and I think the MCCs were Regencies.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Welcome to the forum!

Dave or another grizzled veteran on the BarthWorld may know if any Barths were skinned with plastic; I'd suspect if any, it would have been a few after Barth took over MCC - and I think the MCCs were Regencies.

Some gassers had a glass front. They were called the Euro and have been nicknamed Glassnose.

The first two or three years of the MCC were fiberglass. They look like a stretched FMC. They were badged "MCC" on the front and had a Barth decal on each side. Later Barths on the MCC chassis looked like what we know and love, with metal skin riveted to aluminum channel body framing. The later ones were described as Regency 35RD on a "Regency Model 225 chassis."

Some of the really late Barths had a double skin of aluminum with something spage-age in between. I think the material came from Germany.

Not wanting to cause drift but just wondering, early Airstream mh and Argosys were Al. Were there any others? Beaver coach or Hawkins? ,of course Prevost and Blue Bird.
Also any reason Monarchs seem to be less valuable than Regency?

A lot of early Bluebirds were steel. They were made on the school bus line and had to meet rollover standards. I think in the late eighties they switched over to the commuter bus line and no longer met the rollover standards. There is a classic bird site that will have more complete and accurate information. Beavers, I think it depended on the year and model.

"Also any reason Monarchs seem to be less valuable than Regency..."

The Regents have a "classic" (corrugated sides) look, together with striking paint schemes (mostly horizontal) that emphasize the body lines and make it appear lower and longer i.e. sleeker; most of the Monarchs have (imho) garish, unattractive paint schemes that mimic the RV hoi polloi.
The Monarchs, with their Spartan chassis and Cummins -325HP8.3 or 400HP- w/Allison 6-speed, are (again, imho) superior mechanically, not to mention the amazing amount of basement storage including -in my case- a 10+'X 8'X ?high pass-through with double compartment doors on each side.

quote:

Originally posted by Gunner:
"Also any reason Monarchs seem to be less valuable than Regency..."

The Monarchs, with their Spartan chassis and Cummins -325HP8.3 or 400HP- w/Allison 6-speed, are (again, imho) superior mechanically.

Would you care to elaborate on the superiority of the Spartain chassis over the Gillig?

quote:

Not wanting to cause drift but just wondering, early Airstream mh and Argosys were Al. Were there any others? Beaver coach or Hawkins? ,of course Prevost and Blue Bird.

Safari Treks are all aluminum, but pop-riveted, not buck-riveted, and the frames are much more widely-spaced. I'm pretty sure the Safari Serengetis are all plastic, but I only looked at a couple.

quote:

Originally posted by bill h:
A lot of early Bluebirds were steel. They were made on the school bus line and had to meet rollover standards. I think in the late eighties they switched over to the commuter bus line and no longer met the rollover standards. There is a classic bird site that will have more complete and accurate information. Bevers, I think it depended on the year and model.

It was announced this summer that Blue Bird was selling its RV division to concentrate on school buses, here.

"Would you care to elaborate on the superiority of the Spartain chassis over the Gillig?"

Operative caveat was/is: IMHO (in my humble opinion). That noted, how many Barth Gilligs have 8.3 Cummins/6-speed Allison? Primarily, it's "the amazing amount of basement storage including -in my case- a 10+'X 8'X ?high pass-through with double compartment doors on each side" which the Gillig doesn't have.
I won't attempt to elaborate on the "garish, unattractive paint schemes that mimic the RV hoi polloi"statement; it is self evident.

Gunner, Our 1990 Regency doesn't have the corrugated sides. I think of that as sort of a lapstrake look.
Ours has the large alloy panels, I would say similar to the Breakaway's.
The sides are made of only 3 panels running all the way from the front to the back. One goes from the bottom to just above the wheel openings, then another that goes up to just below the windows and the top one that goes up to meet the radius of the roof. The joint between the panels is hidden by a trim piece that runs from the front to the back.
The front of the coach is made of one large section with cut outs for the lights, rad etc.
No two were built alike I think!
Don

quote:

Originally posted by Gunner:
"Also any reason Monarchs seem to be less valuable than Regency..."

The Regents have a "classic" (corrugated sides) look, together with striking paint schemes (mostly horizontal) that emphasize the body lines and make it appear lower and longer.

"corrugated sides. I think of that as sort of a lapstrake look."
Picking nits: (IMHO) The "classic look" is that of the original lapstrake sides, even though it is smooth; I bet yours has a "horizontal" paint scheme (and looks really good). The Monarchs have the same 3 panels; the difference is the swoopy paint design and the "modern" front end.

You have to keep in mind that no two persons taste are alike. Some people, like Gunner, have a fondness for the "Classic Look". Some like the "Modern Look". If all things were equal I would choose the "Classic Styling" too.

But, that doesn't mean that I would ignore a more modern paint scheme. You sure wouldn't catch me "kicking it to the curb" nor would I call it "garish." Just less desirable, "to me", In My Humble Opinion.

Paint can be changed. The bones are mostly the same. I think, IMHO, that a Chevy is better then a FORD. But, I do have a FORD 460 in my coach. Gunner has never made it a secret that he doesn't like the "Swoosh Designs"... I'll bet that you could find several or more posts of his about this.

IMHO: "In My Humble Opinion" is just that, his humble opinion, and shouldn't be thought of anything more then that.

Thanks everyone for your opinions, humble or otherwise. It helped me make up my mind and I've decided to buy the 1997 Monarch owned by Ed that is advertised on this site. My wife Cheri and I are very excited to join the group. I love the old designs too, but opted for the low mileage and great layout of the 34' Monarch. I'll let you all know how much I love it after I pick it up next Thursday.
Thanks much for all the advice.
Corey

Wow!.....Joined the group, made two posts and bought one Monarch, all within 48 hours.....I like that !

Welcome!... Please post your exploits......