House of the Day: 60 Montgomery Place

I was in this house and can say the following:

-Need total renovation inside, and you know that if the BROKER is telling you this, it needs a lot more than that. It's not in good shape, hence the lack of any interior pics.
-No real yard, it's barely a small square.
-It's in the shadow of a gigantic coop building right behind it.

Let's not forget that 52 Montgomery Place, just a few houses over, is still on the market after many, many months and a brokerage switch. 52 Mongomery is in much better shape, but is not moving at that price.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 1:39 PM

geez, this place looks gorgeous. and on one of the most beautiful streets in park slope.

i think it's worth it. a place like this will continue to hold it's value and i wouldn't be surprised to see a 4 million dollar plus home in park slope in the next 2-3 years.

something special like this place would be a family home for the generations so it will be worth it to someone for sure.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 1:40 PM

No yard = no deal

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 1:49 PM

One of the best blocks in all of NYC, Making it one of the best blocks in all of the world. (If you believe in this kind of shit). Which I do not.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 1:51 PM

Co-op in my (tiny) backyard = no deal.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:02 PM

The price is high given that it needs a complete renovation. But the fact that it has windows on three sides makes it so much more desirable. I think $3.4 is close to what this house could fetch.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:04 PM

Only in New York would so many people talk so much smack about a gorgeous old mansion.

I also think 3.4 sounds fair.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:06 PM

You can see the windows from that massive co-op in the picture. Live maps shows you a great view of the co-op literally in your yard, as well as the shadow it casts all the way down to 52 Montgomery (just be careful because live maps doesn't peg the right house when you type in the address; just scroll over and it's the first house after the front-facing mansion on PPW.) Too bad. For me, THAT is the deal breaker. If I'm laying down $3.45, I don't want to see the co-op when I look out my back windows, nor do I want to be in permanent shadow.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:06 PM

Look, 52 Montgomery (see previous HOTD) which is only 4 houses over and is in move-in shape, even if you'd have to maybe update some mechanicals, has not moved at a mere $200K more. This means that buyers at that price point are being very discerning and want a better package for their dough, even if you're on Montgomery Place.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:13 PM

This is a very special block. 45 Montgomery sold for over 6 Million this year. There is a lot of renovation going on this block, but good luck if you think you can renovate a townhouse for a million in this day and age. I would put the renovation (if high-end) at least at 1.6-2.2 million.

In this price range there is a smaller pool of buyers, but as we've learned, this place in Manhattan would be closer to 7-10 Million.

I think it's a great deal.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:18 PM

Who gives a shit what is would cost in Manhattan. This is not Manhattan. It's BROOKLYN. Two different PRICE RANGES.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:23 PM

Sorry, 45 Montgomery and this house are two completely different properties. Re-read Brownstoner's HOTD for 45 and you'll see why:
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2006/10/45_montgomery_s.php

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:26 PM

52 Montgomery is FAR from move-in condition. The bathrooms and kitchens when I saw it in the summer were maybe from the 60s, and there were wires hanging in some places... definitely untouched for at least 35 years.

The renovation for a house like these would cost no less than 1.5 million, and that is for high quality but simple finishes. So a total of more than 4 million... too much even for 3 exposures in such a lovely block as the house has some obvious drawbacks.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:28 PM

" i wouldn't be surprised to see a 4 million dollar plus home in park slope in the next 2-3 years."

I guess you missed the article in today's Metro section about the serious slow-down on Wall Street and the universal projections of a recession in the city?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/nyregion/22economy.html?em&ex=1193198400&en=c134c0bdbacb4aa6&ei=5087%0A

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:34 PM

I agree -- a renovation would cost at least 1.5 million, unless you DIY... so 5 million for a gorgeous brownstone on one of the best blocks in Park Slope -- That might be a lot, but it's certainly 50% of what you'd pay for something similar in manhattan.

Also considering that they're asking 2.8 or 3 million for brownstones in other parts of Brooklyn that are less grand --- houses that still need work -- it doesn't seem out of line. I'm surprised the other one on Montgomery hasn't sold.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 3:16 PM

and it would cost half that picie in NJ. Why the hell do people keep comparing stuff to Manhattan. That is a DIFFERENT MARKET!!!!

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 3:23 PM

But how much would it cost in Ohio?

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 3:37 PM

um, brooklyn is at least part of new york city.

new jersey is...well new jersey.

lots of people compare, 3:23. you do realize that the majority of people moving to brooklyn come from manhattan, or are you really THAT stupid.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 3:37 PM

I'm not 3:23, but Brooklyn is NOT Manhattan, not will it ever be Manhattan. Period.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 3:41 PM

Hey, if 104 and 108 Lincoln Place houses are both worth ~ $2.8 million needing renovation, then this place is easily worth ~ $3.5 million. Far better house, and certainly a better location.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 3:44 PM

The link to the broker webpage is no longer working... what's up?

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 3:44 PM

Not to say that the house is not worth it. I think that the price is in the ballpark- but the renovation- if it needs upgraded mechanical, a new facade, roof, all new baths and a new kitchen, wood restoration- definitely north of 2 million.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 3:52 PM

Brooklyn is far better than Manhattan in certain respects.

People who haven't caught onto that idea watch too much Sex in the City.

In another 10 years, Manhattan will be nothing but a big mall.

We've got similar issues in Brooklyn, but it becomes more the cultural center of New York City with each passing day.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 3:52 PM

Bottom line: Brooklyn is not Manhattan. That is good for some people, not so good for others. They are/have always been different markets, so you can't compare what a townhouse in one costs to what you'll pay in another.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 4:00 PM

Actually, 4:00 when most people who are moving to Brooklyn are from Manhattan, you'd have to be a fool not to compare.

Let's see....I can buy a 2 bedroom is Chelsea for 2 million dollars, or I can buy an entire house in Ft. Greene or Park Slope.

See where I'm going with this?

Need it further simplified to see how Manhattan and Brooklyn's real estate markets are related???

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 4:09 PM

Manhattan prices are relevant in terms of what you get for the same price. But NO ONE who is considering spending 8-10M on a house in Manhattan thinks "Oh, I could get the same thing for 4M in Brooklyn." That is a totally different group of people. It is relevant to point out that this price would get a large 3 bedroom on CPW, for example.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 4:36 PM

i think this would get you an OK 3 bedroom on cpw. nothing special.

or you could have a mansion on one of the most gorgeous blocks in one of the best neighborhoods in the country.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 4:39 PM

Does anyone know how this compares to other recent sales in Park Slope, including the places that sold on Berkeley and Lincoln in the same price range?

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 4:54 PM

Berkeley/8th went for 3.4 million.

Berkeley/7th went for close to 2.7 I'm told and it was a total fixer.

Not sure about Lincoln...

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:01 PM

Um...Berkeley & 7th was REDUCED to $2.575 (advertised by a NY Times real estate post) after being on the market for a long time, and only then did the ads disappear. So it did not sell for $2.7.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:16 PM

first of all, i said close.

i know the family.

and secondly, it was on the market less than a month. i live across the street.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:21 PM

5:21: I saw that house as a prospective buyer two months after it was featured on HOTD, so it was not on the market for less than a month unless they were still showing it after having a signed contract.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:22 PM

5:21 - "I live across the street" - so if you're telling the truth, you have a vested interested in talking up the sale.

If you're lying, then you're a broker.

Hey, maybe you're both!

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:26 PM

You are mistaken, 5:22. Or what you say is true about them continuing to show it.

The sign was up for less than a month. I can see it from my window and I was the one who sent in the tip on the home to be featured for HOTD.

It doesn't really matter. It needed a ton of work and sold for between 2.5 and 2.7 million.

That was the point of the question by the poster....to get an idea of prices in the neighborhood, not hear us fight about how long it was on the market.

It sold very fast considering it was a retired friend of the family selling it for sale by owner.

And I also toured the home. Like I said I live across the street.

It was a lot of money for a home that needed at least 500K worth of work.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:29 PM

5:26...

Doesn't everyone here live across the street from somewhere?

I'd say there are very few posters here that have no vested interest in the Brooklyn Brownstone market.

Isn't that why we're here reading?

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:30 PM

Does anyone know if the kind of extension put onto this house is original or if not, when it would have been added? On Live Maps only a few houses on that same side of the street have the extensions.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:31 PM

When I say that house, Ray had already taken the sign down. There was no sign on the front of the house, anywhere. A month later, I saw the ad in the NY Times for $2.575, reduced from the original listing price. That house had a ton of really nice detail, something lacking in most houses I've seen in Park Slope. And you're right, it needed a lot of work.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:34 PM

What I'd like to know is, if these "rare" mini-mansions on Montgomery Place are so spectacular, then why hasn't 52 Montgomery sold yet (after a price reduction, broker change)? What makes anyone think this one will fly off the shelf in its condition? I think this shows that wealthy buyers are more picky about what they spend their millions on, and it has to be a great place to justify spending $3.5 or similar.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:40 PM

I thought it had been marked down from 2.9 million to 2.7 million.

It was 2.9 when I saw it in July.

Whatever. Gorgeous house...I hope whoever bought it will take good care of it.

It had a ton of potential.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:41 PM

Yes, I agree 5:41. (When I saw it it was $2.7, later marked down to $2.545.) But it was special, mainly because of the detail and the nice vibe. The basement was awesome too.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:46 PM

yeah, that doctor's office level was nice. looked like it had been redone more than the rest of the house.

very homey vibe indeed. in fact, a good cleaning and staging could probably have gotten them a much better price in the end, but their circumstances around selling were such that they just wanted to get it done fast (family stuff).

very warm home.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:55 PM

2 questions related to this HOTD on Montgomery:

-Are you all serious when you say it would require 1.5+ to restore/renovate this home? (earnest question)
-I too would like to know if that extension, which minimizes the yard, is original or not. I have seen many homes on that same block that do not have that long extended section.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:59 PM

Berkeley and 8th may be comparable, since that was the same price, $3.4. Was that a reno job too?

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 6:26 PM

No, Berkeley & 8th had just been totally renovated with hi-end finishes and gadgets. See http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1070981&ohDat=

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 6:29 PM

this is to 2:23.

I moved from Manhattan to Brooklyn. It was a choice between a loft in SoHo or a Brownstone in Brooklyn. I grew up in one of the roughest neighborhoods in Brooklyn so I'm an O.G.. Brooklyn and Manhattan are now similar to the "Left and Right banks" of Paris. As years go on it will continue to become more seamless between the two. I know many Manhattanites who never even knew Park Slope exhisted. When they venture to my neighborhood they're like "holy shit. I never knew this was here. And look what you get for the $."

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 6:49 PM

It's all anecdotal, though. For every "holy shit. I never knew this was here. And look what you get for the $" person you describe, there is another person who strongly believes Manhattan is unique and preferable over Brooklyn. The latter would rather live in a 1 BR than in a townhouse as long as they get to stay in Manhattan. It's all about your personal preference and lifestyle choice. I don't think any one group necessarily outnumbers the other.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 6:59 PM

The two limestone mansions recently sold by Townsley & Gay, and shown on their site, look like MUCH better values than this house. They get some interesting listings.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 7:25 PM

Wow, Townsley and Gay does get great listings. Thanks!

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 7:49 PM

The differences between Manhattan and Brooklyn are as pronounced today as ever.
Lets face it, Manhattan is where the real money is. I love Brooklyn, but I like it because it is kind of crappy and run down and not everyone has a stick up their ass all the time, except maybe the people who have recently bought for megamillions and are having buyer's remorse (can you hear me Heath?). 99% of Brooklynites are real people, family types, not Prada types. Whoever buys this house for 3 million dollars will probably regret it. Brooklyn is not Monaco, it is not Malibu, it is not SoHo. There are loads of poor people here, ethnic people here, and colored people here. we ain't moving, and we ain't becoming refined.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 8:00 PM

I believe the extension on this house is not original. It must have been added much later.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 8:02 PM

Would it be a travesty to remove the extension IF it is not original? Has anyone ever done that?

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 8:07 PM

You can augment the rocks in your skull with the demolition rubble.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 8:15 PM

8:15 must be that eccentric dude who owns the house. What's the problem?

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 8:21 PM

Just curious as to why everyone, even brownstoner, is assuming you have to put at least 1 million into this house. Seems like an awful lot of money for a renovation, especially if you're already paying $3.5.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 8:42 PM

yeah, i think a million sounds excessive as well.

people are jumping to conclusions.

if the mechanicals, roof are all in good shape, you can easily redo the interior for 500-700K and do a super high end job.

montgomery place is such a freakin nice block. someone will fall in love. this looks like a real gem.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 9:17 PM

Richardsonian Romanesque is one of my favorite if not the absolute favorite architectural styles. A tiny backyard is unfortunate, but there are stunning things you can do like a courtyard concept for a small backyard. A yard beautifully designed is always better than a yard that is merely big.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 9:36 PM

If all it needed were cosmetic work, 9:17, I don't think the realtor would say it needs a complete renovation. The mechanicals likely do need complete updating, and new roof. But even still, it should not be $1.5 million. I would never give Brooklyn-based contractors $1.5 million. They aren't THAT skilled.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 9:40 PM

Houses regularly sell for over $3 million in this area, even houses that need serious renovation. If you were looking to spend that kind of money, you could save a little money and get the house on Lincoln place, but Montgomery Place is Gold Chip of the Gold Chip and will hold its value better than anywhere else.

All those "Manhattan is a totally different market" screeching is ridiculous. I'm a life-long Manhattanite and I just bought in Brooklyn because I like it better. Yes, I'm getting more space for my money, but I love Prospect Park, the neighborhood feel, blah blah... Anything I love about Manhattan I can still enjoy -- it's just 20 minutes away! Sure, some people I knew would never consider moving to Brooklyn, barely know where it is in fact, but many many others do..
I think people here may not realize how expensive Manhattan is right now Look at what you get for $4 million in Manhattan -- a nice, but not spectacular, three-bedroom condo. Instead of that you get a mansion with room for children, guests, home offices, rec rooms, etc..

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:01 PM

well, if you want to make it a single-family home befitting someone with that kind of dough, you'll need to knock down a lot of walls and stairways, reconfigure a lot of rooms, change all the plumbing, electrical, HVAC, windows, new kitchen, new bathrooms, probably interior detail work which I can't imagine -- floors, built-in cabinets, wood stripping, new paint, masonry, millwork. Perhaps you could do it for less than 1.5 mill if you did it on the cheap, but I don't think anyone spending that kind of money is -- instead they'll get a reputable architect (another 15%-20%) and a high-end contractor (another 25%)

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:08 PM

ALL neighborhoods' pricing affects everybody, in that regard it's true 10:01. For those committed to staying inside NYC, they are having to weigh all the alternatives for the same money. For many, hastily built crappy condos aren't too appealing. Whether it's debating Manhattan condos vs. Park Slope brownstones, or Park Slope condos vs. the up and coming fringe neighborhood brownstones.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:10 PM

Umm... I think most people realize just fine how expensive Manhattan is, seriously now. That doesn't mean they'll pay ANYTHING for a house in Brooklyn just because it's a better deal than Manhattan. And not everyone wants to live in a large house anyway. Also, I could afford this house, but I don't want to spend that kind of money to be staring at a 20-story tall apartment building in my backyard. Would you?

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:10 PM

To 8:00 PM:

umm.. there are a lot of poor people in Manhattan as well... and lots of places in Brooklyn are selling for over $3 million -- which is peanut feed in Manhattan these days

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:11 PM

It's only 2 duplexes, 10:08, not a tenement apartment building. It wouldn't be "lots of stairways" and "a lot of walls" to remove. I still say 1.5 renovation is ridiculous. That's solid gold toilet seat style renovation.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:12 PM

Ok, not everyone wants to live in a house -- that's for sure -- but I don't think there's any housing that everyone wants to live in... sure seems like a lot of people do want to live in a large house.

10:10, you say ANYTHING as though this is some outrageous price. We've seen prices close to this in Ft. Greene and Clinton Hill -- this is one of the most exclusive streets right off the park. So that makes up, to some extent, for the deficits.

I can see your point about the co-op. Perhaps I wouldn't want that either. But I know to some people outdoor space is not much used and not that important. Anyway, I haven't seen the house, so I don't know what crap it is. But the location, the style and the size should get something very close to this.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:15 PM

Ok then. Let's say this price point is reasonable for a fixer-upper (!). Why then has 52 Montgomery not sold after many months. At least from the pics it looks like a mighty nice house, same style, only 4 houses over on this "Gold Coast" block you all describe as highly desirable. Wouldn't it have been snapped up immediately, especially since it hit the market months ago, before this whole credit fiasco?

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:18 PM

This is 10:08. I'm assuming the house is in crap shape, needs complete updating and that the wealthy owners want to get it into tip-top condition. With all the reconfiguration you'd need to do, plus all the mechanicals needing changing, you're basically talking a complete gut job. It's a 5560 (or something -- my math may be breaking down) square foot house -- 1.5$ is less than $300/square foot, which is a bargain for high-end renovation in NY these days.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:21 PM

Sorry--here's link for 52 Montgomery discussed above. (Someone previously posted the link to when it was HOTD on brownstoner.)

http://www.prudentialelliman.com/Listings.aspx?ListingID=861765&rentalperiod=&SearchType=houses&Region=NYC

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:26 PM

I have no idea, 10:18. I haven't seen the 52 Montgomery House. Maybe the price is just a little too high and the owner is inflexible. But houses needing work have definitely sold in the 3.0-3.4 range in this area. According to streeteasy.com, 52 Montgomery is no longer for sale -- perhaps that's in error.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:27 PM

542 First Street just sold 2 months ago for 3.45 mil and i hear they are doing a gut job.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:34 PM

this house is 1 foot wider than 52 montgomery.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:37 PM

If someone can afford the $3.5 and the $1 million+ to renovate this home, I would think that the same person can spend, let's say, $4-5 million for a house in better shape, with a full-sized yard and plenty of natural light that is unobstructed by a gigantic apartment building. Of course I'm only speaking from my own point of view. I fully understand that at the right price, there's a buyer for everything.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:37 PM

I actually thought the 3.4 Berkeley/8th was underpriced given what an excellent interior it had...so open, light and spacious.

It came on the market after the credit crisis...and I think that I saw it sell in under 2 weeks.

So I think that one was a little bit of a bargain, shall we say and that had that place hit the market at it's prime, it could have gone close to 4 million.

Now buyers are just being a little more cautious.

That's actually a good thing. Selling 3.5 million dollar homes without a little work to find the right buyer is back to a normal real estate market. Let's embrace it. There's plenty more time left to get to the 4 million, 5 million dollar brownstones in Brooklyn.

Don't rush it.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:41 PM

I saw Berkeley & 8th house. I don't think it was worth $3.4 for one main reason: lack of original detail. For buyers at this price point, I would think that original architectural details would be important, even if the place needs to be restored. Berkeley & 8th was awash in ugly recessed lighting and uninspired renovations and seemed to be to be totally lacking in charm. I much preferred the Berkeley & 7th home, a total fixer-upper but absolutely "dripping in details" and with an amazing old-world vibe to it.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:45 PM

I just went back and read the discussion when 45 Montgomery Place was originally listed in Nov 2005. Everyone was shouting about how the market had collapsed and it would never sell -- la plus ca change....

Montgomery Place: I think all the park blocks are considered highly desirable, the housing stock on Montgomery is particularly notable, and being a one-block street makes it incredibly quiet, hardly any traffic

But that's a good point about the small yards

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 10:59 PM

I personally don't think the small yard is a deal-breaker considering you are across the street from the park (the biggest yard you could ever want!). I just think that the location of this particular house is highly unfortunate given that you are in the shadow of that condo building, and that it pretty much abuts your property. That is the true shame.

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 12:07 AM

10:59, except that this differentiates today's market from that of 2005:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/nyregion/22economy.html?em&ex=1193198400&en=c134c0bdbacb4aa6&ei=5087%0A

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 12:47 AM

"The world's biggest bankers said Sunday their greed made them powerless to prevent the train wreck in credit markets, even though they recognized that markets weren't pricing the risk of subprime default appropriately."

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 1:18 AM

i know this is neither here nor there but 25 montgomery was sold a little over 10 years ago for under 400k ........how insane is that..
and it is a 30+ foot wide...6000+ sq feet
Just think it is crazy how much prices have risen.... where are people getting this money it is not like the salaries have increased similarly

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 11:26 AM

My old apartment on the upper west side was in a townhouse....the landlord bought the building in 1997 for 400K and sold it last year for 8 million.

Prices have risen indeed.

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 12:33 PM

Wow! I bought my place in Lefferts Manor in '88 for 350K and it was recently apprasied at 999K. I thought I had done well.

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 1:42 PM

350k for a home in Lefferts Manor in 1988??

I would have guessed more like 35K.

It was ROUGH back then.

You could have picked up a 4 story brownstone in Park Slope in 1988 for a lot less money than that...

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 2:03 PM

Re: Brooklynnative 10:45 PM
"As a fifteen year resident of Park Slope, can someone please explain to me why Montgomoery Place is considered such a great street?"

Read the AIA Guide to NYC. Montgomery has the most varied Victorian architecture of any block in the city. It is gorgeous from that point of view. And since it's not a through street it is an unusually quiet street to live on.

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 2:44 PM

12:33: I guarantee you either have your numbers wrong or your landlord got that 400K house as part of some other type of transaction and did not pay full market price back then. I've been working in the UWS real estate market for over 20 years, and while yes, prices have risen exponentially, your numbers are off.

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 3:24 PM

sorry...he bought it in 1993. Not 97.

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 4:29 PM

Has anyone seen this house with the broker?

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 7:59 PM