I am with Spider on this one. I have owned cars that have done around 60-70k and they have had a mid life crisis.
If you get one with more miles it has probably had all of the stuff done, but of course you have to be careful it doesn't need doing a second time.
The other issue is that if you pay a premium for a low mileage car (Say 50,000 miles) then rack up another 50k you will have lost more money in depreciation than if you had bought a 100k car and added those 50k miles.
I have to disagree.
It's swings and roundabouts.
In most instances the condition of a car with lower mileage will be better, it has less time on the road, so less stress and less exposure to conditions (driving style ommitted). Items such as the interior and exterior condition on most of the high mileage examples I have seen is inferior to that of a low mileage car (the Alfa leather seats don't wear well with age and use). If this applies to the visual aspects of the car then it will also apply to the mechanical aspects such as drivetrain, steering, clutch, box, wishbones, drive shafts, wheel bearings, exhaust inc down pipes/flexi's, manifolds, suspension general etc etc. There are also plenty of examples out there at 100k ish that have apparant FSH that has quite clearly been stretched due to either financial constraints of the owner or just incompetance.
£3k for a 110k miles 3.0 V6 on a T plate
£4K for a 60k 3.0 V6 on an X plate
3 years driving at 10k per year (assuming condition reflecting age and mileage)
The T plate will be worth what at 140k miles? £1300-£1600??
The X Plate will still be desirable at 90k miles, so worth £2500-£3000 maybe more?
Swings and roundabouts.....