A few short words on why a Classic is a Classic

[edinmass]

THE PENALTY OF LEADERSHIP

In every field of human endeavor, he that is first must perpetually live in the white light of publicity. Whether the leadership be vested in a man or in a manufactured product, emulation and envy are ever at work. In art, in literature, in music, in industry, the reward and the punishment are always the same. The reward is widespread recognition; the punishment, fierce denial and detraction. When a man's work becomes a standard for the whole world, it also becomes a target for the shafts of the envious few. If his work be mediocre, he will be left severely alone - if he achieves a masterpiece, it will set a million tongues a-wagging. Jealousy does not protrude its forked tongue at the artist who produces a commonplace painting. Whatsoever you write, or paint, or play, or sing, or build, no one will strive to surpass or to slander you unless your work be stamped with the seal of genius. Long, long after a great work or a good work has been done, those who are disappointed or envious, continue to cry out that it cannot be done. Spiteful little voices in the domain of art were raised against our own Whistler as a mountback, long after the big would had acclaimed him its greatest artistic genius. Multitudes flocked to Bayreuth to worship at the musical shrine of Wagner, while the little group of those whom he had dethroned and displaced argued angrily that he was no musician at all. The little world continued to protest that Fulton could never build a steamboat, while the big world flocked to the river banks to see his boat steam by. The leader is assailed because he is a leader, and the effort to equal him is merely added proof of that leadership. Failing to equal or to excel, the follower seeks to depreciate and to destroy - but only confirms once more the superiority of that which he strives to supplant. There is nothing new in this. It is as old as the world and as old as human passions - envy, fear, greed, ambition, and the desire to surpass. And it all avails nothing. If the leader truly leads, he remains - the leader. Master-poet, master-painter, master-workman, each in his turn is assailed, and each holds his laurels through the ages. That which is good or great makes itself known, no matter how loud the clamor of denial. That which deserves to live - lives.

What applied in 1915 to the lesser cars still applies to the want to be Classics of today. T/C and all the others. Ed

[trimacar]

So true, Ed, so true. I was always proud of being a member of the CCCA, enjoyed have my true Classics listed in the roster, and have enjoyed some really nice Caravans in the past.

Now, for the first time, I question whether I want to belong to this club. The recent rift in the club over accepting a mediocre vehicle into the ranks has really dulled the shine of the club. I believe Woody fever affected many, and as a result, allowed a car in that did not meet the previously lofty ideals of the club.

The club officers say change is needed. I seem to have heard that before, and while it is sometimes fruitful, change for the sake of change can be very detrimental to an organization. David Coco Winchester Va.

[alsancle]

+1

Is it just me or do you guys find it weird that in the write ups for the board election nobody made their position clear on the number one issue facing the club right now??? Reminds me of Massachusetts politics.

[Guest Twunk Rack]

. . . . . I was always proud of being a member of the CCCA, . . . . . Now, for the first time, I question whether I want to belong to this club. The recent rift in the club over accepting a mediocre vehicle . . . . . . . . . did not meet the previously lofty ideals of the club.

The club officers say change is needed. . . . . . .

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

I disagree strongly with your statement that we have "mediocre" vehicles in the Classic Car Club of Amerca. Baloney. ALL the cars on our present list are excellent automobiles.

True, thanks to the hard work of the "powers that be" in the past thirty years or so, we were able to increase our membership from its traditional 1,500 - 2000, to nearly 6,000, but that was for a REASON.

Some people are in the used car business. The words "classic-antique" help sell cars.

Be fair - if you had a used car you were trying to unload for "top dollar", and you knew that the words "classic-antique" meant a few extra bucks, wouldn't YOU want to use those words to describe YOUR collector car, and WOULDNT YOU BE DAMN MAD IF SOMEONE SAID YOU WERE WRONG IN YOUR USE OF THOSE WORDS? BE HONEST.

The present fuss in the CCCA about admitting the post-war Chryslers is nothing new. Some thirty years ago a fellow figured he could sell more post-war Cadillacs if he could get them called "classics".

I happened to have, at the time, a pretty nice '41 Cadillac Fleetwood. Like the Chryslers that were just admitted, it's a truly great car, vastly superior in so many ways than the ordinary car of its respective era.

It happened that at the time this guy wanted to call his own '41 Cadillac Fleetwood "classic", another guy, who, like me, also owned a '41 Cadillac, wrote in to PROTEST!

His "protest" confirmed the view of the Club membership at that time, including me! We said NO NO NO in articles and in person. We didn't want the Club "dilluted".

We agreed that the '41 Cadillac Fleetwood was a "top-of-the-line" car of its year, much faster, more elegant, more powerful, that the ordinary car of the masses in 1941. We agreed that in ITS era, as would be the case in the classic era, it would be appropriate parked in FRONT of an opera house of diplomatic residence during an affiar.

So the '41 Cadllac Fleetwood, at least in THOSE respects, met SOME of the definition of what was a classic.

The problem was, and is, that '40's cars are STREAMLINED ! They are MODERN cars, in which the headlights no longer sit separately from FENDERS that are separate, - instead, unlike a "CLASSIC" school of design, in which FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION they are of a later era known as the STREAMLINED era. Try to imagine the difference between a '41 Cadillac Fleetwood, and a '31 Cadillac V-16, and you will see the difference between a nice used car, or collector car, and a CLASSIC !

And, of course, the Club was treated to the "just this once" argument - meaning if we just let in the '41 Cadillac Fleetwoods, that would be the end of DILLUTING our Club - the "used car crowd" promised they wouldn't ask for the lower priced post war Cadillacs or Packards to be accepted. Yeah....right !

So I think you are being unfair in saying those nice post-war Chryslers are "mediocre". They are nice cars. BUT THEY ARE STREAMLINED, TOO NEW, IN THE OPINION OF MANY OF THE OLDER MEMBERS, IN DESIGN CONCEPT TO BE CALLED CLASSICS.

Sure, those post-war Chryslers are so much nicer than the ordinary cars of THEIR era, and those that have the "big" Chrysler straight eight perform better too.

Same logic goes for all those lower priced Packards and Cadlllacs that now dominate our Club events.

Please dont call them mediocore. Show some respect for the fact that years ago, our Club movement was invaded by the "used car" types who know what it takes to move merchandise. And the merchandise is very nice !

[K8096]

There was a CCCA regional tour/meet in my area a couple months ago. While I did not attend, I saw the write up it in the regional newsletter. It seems that every "Classic" on the tour was a 1940's Cadillac, except for one 1932 Auburn. If this is the direction the club is going, I think the single marque clubs for pre war luxury cars will experience a resurgence in membership & activity.

[trimacar]

Out of town this weekend, so I can now try to answer Twunk Rack. I stand by the use of the word "mediocre," if you compare a six cylinder station wagon to a Pierce Arrow or Senior Packard. The Chrysler's are fine cars in their own right, but to compare them to what were previously accepted as Classics is tough. And, the word only applied to the current Chrysler discussion, not other cars now in the club.

Regardless, the pride of being in the CCCA for 30 years, for me, fades, in direct proportion with how many borderline cars (using the clubs own definition of Classic) are going to be accepted as Classics by the club.

[Guest BJM]

As a fan of the post war 1946-1951 Chryslers, the design school is pre-war and tasteful. The application of wood to the bodies created a masterpiece BUT the four door models are pedestrian compared to the New Yprker 8 cylinder convertibles.

Having said that, just because the Town and Countrys are neat, what other attributes do they possess to now qualify as a Full Classic? None.

I am not a CCCA member and I do love the post war Chrysler straight 8 cylinder cars. But they could not stand on their own without wood as being a classic.

CCCA should not have accepted those cars and should have at the same time removed - yes removed - the post war Cadillacs sans 75 series.

Everyone now agrees the post war 60S and 62 series Cadillacs are NOT classics - period. CCCA should have the kahunas to delete a car from the list as much as add them.

[Dynaflash8]

I don't mean any harm, but I simply cannot agree with the following quotes from the piece written by BJM. :confused: If, as the writer says, Chyrsler created a "Masterpiece" with the T&C then that car, in relation to the cars being built at the time of manufacturer, would then have to be "head and shoulders above" the everyday vehicle. When applying "logic" to that comment, and I'm not taking sides on the T&C question, "logic" would lead me toward acceptance, if in fact that statement is considered true by the majority.

It would seem to me that if the Club wants to survive past the passing of people like myself (aged 71) who remember the purpose of the club in the 1952 timeframe, then it will become necessary to continuously review the criteria based on the moving target of time in relation to the comtempory competition. Again, to me that is simply applying "logic."

Certainly the Club doesn't want to end up like the "Skaker Religious Sect" sometime in the future. I used that example after visiting the abandoned Shaker settlement in Ohio on an AACA Tour.

As to the post-WWII comments on the Cadillac this writer made, I can only say that the 1946-1949 Cadillac 75 were mostly just bigger than the 62 and 60-S. Use only that as a criteria and you're soon looking at limousine's on up the line.

All of this said, "logic" doesn't always apply in these things. I'm just a very logical sort. As I said, I don't mean any harm...just thinking out loud.

The application of wood to the bodies created a masterpiece BUT the four door models are pedestrian compared to the New Yprker 8 cylinder convertibles.

Having said that, just because the Town and Countrys are neat, what other attributes do they possess to now qualify as a Full Classic? None.

I am not a CCCA member and I do love the post war Chrysler straight 8 cylinder cars. But they could not stand on their own without wood as being a classic.

CCCA should not have accepted those cars and should have at the same time removed - yes removed - the post war Cadillacs sans 75 series.

Everyone now agrees the post war 60S and 62 series Cadillacs are NOT classics - period. CCCA should have the kahunas to delete a car from the list as much as add them.

[Guest Twunk Rack]

c'mon, guys - relax. Let's remeber this is a HOBBY, not a religion. I PROMISE you...PROMISE you, that if I am at a CCCA meet, enjoying the camadre of my fellow car nuts, with my Packard V-12, and a guy pulls up and parks his post-war Chrysler next to mine, when we leave the event, and the stop-light turns green........well...you get the picture...I do NOT see this as a major life crisis.

KICK out cars that the National Board should never have admitted ?.

C'mon...you have a CLUE how much legal fuss that would generate ?

Face it, the used car salespeople, the auctioneers, all WANTED to call what they are trying to sell, CLASSICS. They got their cars in because of a monetary interest. You try and kick em out..and you will cause a major, expensive fuss.

I am one of the "hard-liners" who was opposed to letting in the '41 Cad Fleetwoods. Not because they are anything less than SUPER cars, VASTLY superior to the ordinary cars of their day. Simply because they were, in their design concept...STREAMLINED...the very antithesis of "CLASSIC" design - at least the way we used to understand the term, meaning..." FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION..so that a separately standing headlight was a unique styling part from a separately styled hood, radiator, fenders, etc.

And we all knew at the time...if we let in the '41 Cad. Fleetwoods, wouldnt be long before the guys with the standard '62 series and the '41-47 Packard Clipper Customs would want in....

C'mon...man..you ever actually DRIVEN a '41 - '47 Cadillac or Chrysler ? They are FANTASTIC! They ride and drive so nicely, and their interior fit and finish is superb. VASTLY superior to the ordinary cars of that era.

Just as a personal note, the Chrysler isnt my "cup of tea" because they were "slugs" compared to the big-engined Packards and Cadillacs of the same era ( I like the smell of burning rubber in the morning....and afternoon...too...!).

Yes, I agree with you that we should have LISTENED to those who wrote our CCCA HANDBOOK AND DIRECTORY's section on the evils of dilluting our Club. ( I know that section is brilliant....I WROTE some of it....)

True...we SHOULD have followed the lead of the HORSELESS CARRIAGE CLUB OF AMERICA. They havnt disappeared. They have kept their rigid standards. If it was built after (what's their cut-off...1916 or 1918) forget it PERIOD !

What's done is done. Let's try and be more realistic and adult about this whole issue. !

Edited November 30, 2009 by Twunk Rack (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

Twunkrack you must be older than I am, if that's possible.

[Guest Twunk Rack]

Twunkrack you must be older than I am, if that's possible.

= = = = =

Nope..at least, not mentally. My wife figures my mental age and level of emotional maturity...at about 15...(and she may be exaggerating so as to make me feel good...)

[Guest BJM]

I don't mean any harm, but I simply cannot agree with the following quotes from the piece written by BJM. :confused: If, as the writer says, Chyrsler created a "Masterpiece" with the T&C then that car, in relation to the cars being built at the time of manufacturer, would then have to be "head and shoulders above" the everyday vehicle. When applying "logic" to that comment, and I'm not taking sides on the T&C question, "logic" would lead me toward acceptance, if in fact that statement is considered true by the majority.

Dynaflash,

I always appreciate criticism of my posts. I certainly am never offended. The T & C is a beautiful car, but it's a post war car with wood formed around a production body and everything else is Chrysler circa 1946-48.

I am simply stating that you have to draw a line in the sand. Stop. We can all agree the 53 GM "show" convertibles (Fiesta / Eldorado / Skylark) and the 56-57 Lincoln Continental and the 57-58 Eldorado Brougham carry on the "spirit" of the Classic era but enough is enough.

The CCCA should remove the postwar Cadillac 60S and 62 and remove the post war T & C's.

Too bad if there is an uproar. I could care less if I own a so-called Full Classic. I did once - a 1941 Cadillac 60S. I also owned a 36 Chrysler Airflow which had a lot of the CCCA qualifiers.

So the logic isn't in the description but in the administration of the standard to limit the club toa select period. This argument won't be won or lost here, but I enjoy the debate.

[Guest BJM]

KICK out cars that the National Board should never have admitted ?.

C'mon...you have a CLUE how much legal fuss that would generate ?

Face it, the used car salespeople, the auctioneers, all WANTED to call what they are trying to sell, CLASSICS. They got their cars in because of a monetary interest. You try and kick em out..and you will cause a major, expensive fuss.

hy not "adjust" the list -if cars can be added by discussion and debate, they can be deleted with an equal argument.

You suggest that the addition of certain cars is rigged by those with political power. That could certainly turn off some members who feel they have lost a voice in the club. You are in effect saying the leaders of the CCCA are auto dealers and insiders with aninterest in adding vehicles so they can label them "Full Classics".

I guarantee you 98% of the hobby could care less about whether their car is labeled a "full classic". The hobby is vast and wide and virtually every nice old car is referred to as a 'classic' and if you mentioned to the person saying it that they were wrong 'cuz this here club has copyrighted the term - you would get laughed at.

I don't think that was the intent of the copyright I guess.

There would no legal fuss. It's club with by-laws. If a member or leader brought the matter to discussion and the duly elected leaders voted to remove a certain undeserving car, it would be done.

However, I would not mind hearing from a CCCA board member on that thought.

[Buicksplus]

Friends:

When I was in the CCCA for 25 years, I felt the club should embrace all those borderline classics. Bravo for dilution! I eventually left when it was clear that the CCCA leadership prefered sort of an automotive country club atmosphere.

Please don't bore me with all the talk about how a Chrysler T&C or Cad 62 is too streamlined and no way comparable to a Packard V-12. Guess what, a Packard V-12 limo is in no way comparable to a Duesenberg convertible coupe either. No two old cars or classic cars are equal, they are just cars. Each one has their fans and lots of people who like them.

I understood the point of the club was to recognize "fine and unusual cars" . There are many of those out there, including plenty of borderline classics and yes, postwar cars too. But the club what it is and we all get to decide what sort of club we want to join.

Enjoy!

[Dynaflash8]

I joined CCCA again, because (1) I had some friends down here in Florida who are in it, and as my AACA duties come to an end in another couple of months, I wanted more to do with my cars. I also joined VMCCA for the same reason. (2) I had hoped to perhaps convince the leadership that the Series 70 & 80 Pre-1942 Buicks were appropriate to consider; not because I want to make my 1941 Roadmaster 4-door convertible worth more (it's already worth a bundle) but because I just wanted to be able to participate. Yes, I could buy a '41 Limited, but this 4-door convertible is more desirable, and I am already one over my garage stall limit and I don't want to sell any of the cars I have that I have a garage stall for. I have not and do not seek any sort of approval for financial gain; but I also don't want to leave my own comfort zone as an all-Buick collector.

[Guest Twunk Rack]

. . . . . Please don't bore me with all the talk about how a Chrysler T&C or Cad 62 is too streamlined . . . . .

I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION. YOUR POSITION IS PROBABLY THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THAT 'BIG PUSH' TO INCREASE CCCA MEMBERSHIP IN RECENT YEARS.

OF COURSE YOU DONT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT WHAT THE WORDS TRADITIONALLY MEAN. THAT IS THE WAY THINGS ARE NOW, AND YOU ARE RIGHT ! PEOPLE GET BORED, EVEN ANGRY, IF YOU QUESTION WHAT IS PRESENTLY 'POLITICALLY CORRECT'. I.E. CALLED 'CLASSIC'...

I understood the point of the club was to recognize "fine and unusual cars" .

WRONG WRONG WRONG...THAT IS THE EXPRESSION THE USED CAR DEALERS WHO TOOK OVER THE CLUB CHANGED OUR CLUB'S PURPOSE TO BE. THESE FELLOWS KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING - TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR OBJECTIVE OF DILUTION, OF COURSE THEY DELETED THE LONG-STANDING TEXT OF WHAT THE CCCA WAS ALL ABOUT.

FOR NEARLY TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF WESTERN LANGUAGE HISTORY, THE GREEK WORD "CLASSICUS" HAS MEANT TWO THINGS...A DESIGN CONCEPT OF 'FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION"...NOT ART-DECO STREAMLING....AND....'SOMETHING UNIQUE, REPRESENTING THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE'

SO AGAIN, YOU ARE CORRECT. AS WE DRIFT AWAY FROM BEING A FIRST WORLD CULTURE, OF COURSE WE DONT NEED TO BE BORED WITH PRECISION-OF-SPEECH AND CLARITY OF THOUGHT.

LET'S SEE...MY 91 TOYOTA RAV 4 will be an bona fide 'antique" IN ONLY A FEW MORE YEARS !

Enjoy!

sure do !

Edited December 1, 2009 by Twunk Rack (see edit history)

[Guest Twunk Rack]

As the Packard grill narrowed, so did their minds, and thus the end of the brand.

I disagree - David - what killed Packard was not the "old school" Packard execs., who LIKED building cars. It was a later generation of "business school" types who hated the manufacturing process so much, they wanted OUT of it, "out-sourcing" everything they could, and devoting less and less time to build quality as the years wore on. Actually, Packard displayed some very open-minded ideas with the introduction of the '55's - they just couldn't be bothered putting them together right !

Now - getting back to the main subject of this "thread" - and a point a fellow was trying to make - that somehow we could just kick out the cars some of us STILL dont want in our Club !

This guy who thinks we can kick people's cars OUT of the CCCA - you apprently either did not read, or do not believe my explanation of what has happened - so I will re-type it here.

Again, LOTS of people have devoted a LOT of time, money etc. in changing our Club. They doubled then TRIPLED our membership, to insure the old "traditionalist" grumpy guys like me could be out-voted.

You really think that if we HAD the votes to kick cars out, we'd do that ? Even in theory, it is an impossible idea - too many of even us old grumps know enough about legal matters to know this kind of war would wreck the CCCA for everyone. Aint going to happen.

[Guest bkazmer]

I have to be blunt, Pete: "streamlined" as an antonym to "classic", as you've continued to sell, is completely off-base. Not trying to start a flame war, but consider:

Look at a typical (if there is such a thing) prewar Delahaye or Delage with Figoni and Falaschi bodywork. Streamlined. Classic. I don't think anybody is trying to call these cars non-CCCA.

If want to define a club for styling approach of upright radiators and fared in headlights, OK. (Watch out for those pesky Pierce Arrows). Maybe a minimum drag coefficient to exceed?

I think the issue is the level of mass production/commonality with little cousins. Nothing to do with form following function or streamlining. Hand crafting is not necessarily better than machine produced (don't repeat the babbit vs, insert rant here, but it applies). It's more about the exclusivity of the design.

By the immediate prewar period, the distinction between luxury cars' "senior" and "junior" models was less clear cut. Cadillac 62, Packard 160, Continental vs. Cadillac 61, Packard 120, Zephyr. Clear differences and clear similarities.

[Guest Twunk Rack]

I am so excited about continuing this discussion of "what cars should be in the CCCA, I am going to say.....er...ah...."A S P A R A G U S !

[Guest Twunk Rack]

. . . . .again, when everyone is forced to complement every owner on every car that shows up, the grumpers have a point. Until then, live and let live.

= = =

Your post confuses me. We "old grumpers" do NOT consider ourselves "forced" to complement ALL the cars that show up at old car events, CCCA or otherwise.

We do it because we LIKE to ! We are CAR BUFFS !

I LIKE to see well-maintained cars of collectable interest. Even if they were not the kind of cars that we "hard noses" wanted in the CCCA !

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, I am impressed by a well-maintained post-war Chrysler!

And every one of my garralous grumpy old buddies I know, are typically right alongside me admiring the hard work and dedication someone took to make HIS choice of a car into a well-running nice appearing resemblence of what it was like when in service.

So I agree...live and let live (except for the guy who screwed up Owen's dad's 1938 Series 90 so it gets only 5 mpg.....!)

[Guest BJM]

Twunk Rack,

OK agree to disagree. You are in fact correct that no one would have the nerve to suggest a reduction in the admitted cars.

I just had no idea the club was so political and controlled rather then open to all voices and positions.

I think all senior 40-41 Buick Phaetons should be admitted. It takes a lot of work to create a 4 door pre war convertible. Are the same Cadillacs admitted?

[Buicksplus]

Unlike Buick, most prewar Cadillac Phaetons are admitted, only a few are excluded: such as if they happen to be a model 61. I think most production Cadillacs are classics, there are just a few that aren't.

Except for custom bodies, CCCA does not classify according to body style, but rather series. (maybe they should??). Almost all the recognized production Buicks are 90 Series sedans and limos, there were very few phaetons built in that series (there were some in the early 30's). If the 1940 Buick 80 Limited built a phaeton (I think they did), that car would qualify. But the '40 is the only 80 series Buick that is a recognized classic.

I think years ago the classification process may have been even more political. If you were connected and had a friend that you wanted to join and he had a relatively rare luxury car, you could get it classified. Seems to me the flak over accepting the Cadillac 62 made the classification committee extremely cautious. I don't think they added a single production car to their list after that, save for a few obscure makes with a handful of survivors out there.

Before the Cad 62 fiasco, it was fairly common for CCCA to add new production cars (such as the Buick 90's) to their list.

Boy, I sure hope they reclassify some of my Buicks, I'll be rich and I can finally go to CCCA events again!!!!

[Marty Roth]

I think that the largest series Buick Phaetons/ Convertible Sedans should certainly be admitted.

Our 1937 Buick Model 80C was the largest OPEN Buick for its year, and certainly the rival of Cadillac for pure quality and excellence. This particular one, with fewer than 10,550 miles from new, was used by New York City as Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia's Parade Car. You say its body wasn't coach-built? - balderdash! With only 1100 created, and the only Buick that year to not use rear "suicide" doors, and with an estimated survival rate one can count without removing shoes - these are as significant as any "Full" Classic.

The 1937 Buick Model 80C Roadmaster Phaeton fully deserves "Classic" status alongside our 1930 Packard Phaeton and 1941 Cadillac 6267D Convertible Coupe.

[Dynaflash8]

QUOTE: Except for custom bodies, CCCA does not classify according to body style, but rather series. (maybe they should??). Almost all the recognized production Buicks are 90 Series sedans and limos, there were very few phaetons built in that series (there were some in the early 30's). If the 1940 Buick 80 Limited built a phaeton (I think they did), that car would qualify. But the '40 is the only 80 series Buick that is a recognized classic. UNQUOTE

The only difference between a 1940 Buick Series 80 Limited and a 1939 Buick Series 80 Roadmaster is the nameplate that says "Limited". It's simply a glitch that Buick used the name for those extra bodies in 1940 when they introduced their "all new" Roadmaster under a new Series, the Series 70.

As for production figures, there were 312 1941 Series 71-C Roadmaster 4-door convertibles (Buick called them phaetons, but officially the term doesn't apply) built. But, that doesn't end the story for the 1941 model. This car had dual carburetors which Chief Engineer Charley Chayne told me were the forerunner of the four-barrel carburetor. They had a form of ram air induction that had not appeared before, and did not reappear after 1942 for years to come. They had a form of positive crankcase ventilation with a tube from the air cleaner to the valve cover. You can argue that it "really wasn't" but it was still a forerunner of an idea that didn't really reappear for years to come. So then, (1) the car was expensive (2) it was rare (3) it had some advanced engineering ideas (4) it was bought by wealthy people in many instances (mine reportedly by bandleader Ted Weems) (5) it was fast and powerful; (6) with 165 hp standard engine output it exceeded all in the industry (unless you added an aluminum head to your Packard); (7) it was top of the line in open cars in its line and rated with top of the line among all of its contemporaries, including Packard and Cadillac. Now that doesn't make it a 1936 Packard V-12, a 1933 Auburn V-12; but a 1948 Lincoln V-12 has modern styling and doesn't compare with those examples either. I think it's a matter of viewpoint, and back years ago when CCCA was formed, Buick was not an included make. Remember this, though. "Nothing is Forever". I just found Gottlieb's book "Classic Cars and Specials" on eBay yesterday and bought it for old times sake. At 16, I wrote Mr. Gottlieb about my first car, a blue 1939 Buick Special with dual sidemounts and full leather interior (I have it's twin now, see the picture) and he actually mentioned the car as a "Special Interest car" in this book. I go back as far as most of you. I wrote the case for the 1931-42 Buick Series 90 Limited which was accepted. I didn't want to bite off more than I thought I could sell at the time. Now it's a new time. Everybody just sit back and contemplate for awhile. No matter how pure CCCA ever was, or wants to continue to be, there were always differences between the accepted Full Classics, be they a Duesenberg or a 1934 Auburn Straight 8. It's not too late to think in terms of newer thoughts on differences between accepted cars. After all, "we're not dead yet."

Edited December 2, 2009 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

While the 1941 Cadillac 62 convertible sedan is admitted as "Classic," the corresponding Buick (such as what Earl has) is not admitted as Classic. I don't feel uncomfortable at all in saying that the Buick is a better car, both mechanically AND physically. Compare the two dashboards, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Compare the "ride-and-drive" and you'll know what I'm talking about. There's nothing like the smoothness of a straight eight vs a V8.

While I'm in the camp that does not appreciate the dilution of the CCCA, I (like Pete) certainly appreciate the cars that have been recently accepted (within the last 30 years). I like all cars (well... most), and while I think that the Series 62 Cadillac does not belong in the CCCA, this should not imply that I do not like the car. My family currently owns a convertible, a convertible sedan, and a sedan, and they are all wonderful cars to drive (not as nice as the comparable Buick, mind you), but I'd much rather drive the 734 Packard Speedster on a CARavan, and I'd much rather see comparable cars participating with me (even something as modern as a 1939 Packard 12).

[Guest BJM]

I think that the largest series Buick Phaetons/ Convertible Sedans should certainly be admitted.

You say its body wasn't coach-built? - balderdash! With only 1100 created, and the only Buick that year to not use rear "suicide" doors, and with an estimated survival rate one can count without removing shoes - these are as significant as any "Full" Classic.

Agreed. Even non CCCA classic four door convertibles (Pontiac / Dodge, etc) had so much hand work involved in getting them made. Now add to that the details, styling, powertrain of a late 30's Buick and you can not tell me they weren't the equal of Cadillacs of the same era that are already admitted.

[West Peterson]

That's not being disputed. In fact, as I just said, the Buick (in my opinion) is a better than the Cadillac.

Should a Chevrolet be accepted into the Model A club just because it's as good or better?

[K8096]

"Agreed. Even non CCCA classic four door convertibles (Pontiac / Dodge, etc) had so much hand work involved in getting them made. Now add to that the details, styling, powertrain of a late 30's Buick and you can not tell me they weren't the equal of Cadillacs of the same era that are already admitted.<!-- google_ad_section_end --> "

BUT, the problem is.....are any of these cars you just mentioned,. either the Cadillac OR the Buick, even in the same ballpark as a late 30's REAL Classics? (Packard Twelve, Lincoln K, Pierce 12, or Cadillac V 16). That's the issue. Neither the Cadillac 62 or whatever Buick you want to add comes close to what the forementioned cars are or represent. Why dilute the club further? Why drive away people who own the real Classics even more? The Cadillac 62 has diluted the CARavan scene. Why would someone with a late 20's or early 30's car even want to go on a CARavan anymore - just to be blown off the road by a sea of modern 1940's cars? Just as West said, I like 1940's Cadillacs, and we actually have three of them in my family as well, but we recognize what the CCCA is supposed to be about, and 1940's cars are not supposed to be the primary focus. I wrote in to the board over the summer against the T & C. The comment I made to them was this:

I look at the height of the Classic Era being the years 1928 - 1933. These years were the height of the Salons, height of the Custom Body era, all the multi cylinder cars were introduced in this time frame as well. The years prior to 1928 were sort of a crescendo to this, and the years after 1933 were sort of a decrescendo. The cars of the 1940's, save for some limousines and customs (Packard Darrins & LeBarons), were the start of a new era of mass production. While yes a few carryover cars should be in the CCCA, the 1940's is not supposed to be the whole focus of the club. And that's where I see it headed.

Let's talk briefly about the GM ladder. Cadillacs were reserved for upper management. Buicks were for middle or lower management people. During the Classic Era, if a low level manager of a company showed up at work with a new Cadillac, that would be looked upon as trying to "show up" his bosses and he might be shown the door. This was true even into the 1950's. Now a days, you have people on welfare driving Cadillac Escalades! How times have changed.

[Restorer32]

Just to muddy the waters even further...A 1948 Buick shares the identical body shell with the 1947 Cadillac (Full Classic). Now, the 1948 Buick Estate Wagon (Woody) was "Custom Built" by Hercules on the 1948 Buick sedan body shell which also happens to be the 1947 Cadillac (Full Classic) body shell. If that Woody body were on a 1947 Cadillac chassis it would certainly be a Full Classic, would it not? The result being an assembly line built '47 Cadillac Sedan is accorded Full Classic status while a custom built 1948 Buick Estate Wagon is not. 25,834 Series 62 Cadillac Sedans were produced in 1947 while Buick Estate Wagon production was less than 2500.

[Guest BJM]

That's not being disputed. In fact, as I just said, the Buick (in my opinion) is a better than the Cadillac.

Should a Chevrolet be accepted into the Model A club just because it's as good or better?

West, I apologize. I had not gotten to your post before posting my response.

In reading your post, there is nothing I disagree with. I am coming around to the notion of leaving the 62 series Cadillacs alone. They are fine cars. The Buick dash of 1941 with it's engine turning was highly detailed however the 41 Cadillac dash is very nice too.

[Guest BJM]

"Agreed. Even non CCCA classic four door convertibles (Pontiac / Dodge, etc) had so much hand work involved in getting them made. Now add to that the details, styling, powertrain of a late 30's Buick and you can not tell me they weren't the equal of Cadillacs of the same era that are already admitted.<!-- google_ad_section_end --> "

BUT, the problem is.....are any of these cars you just mentioned,. either the Cadillac OR the Buick, even in the same ballpark as a late 30's REAL Classics? (Packard Twelve, Lincoln K, Pierce 12, or Cadillac V 16). That's the issue. Neither the Cadillac 62 or whatever Buick you want to add comes close to what the forementioned cars are or represent. Why dilute the club further? Why drive away people who own the real Classics even more? The Cadillac 62 has diluted the CARavan scene. Why would someone with a late 20's or early 30's car even want to go on a CARavan anymore - just to be blown off the road by a sea of modern 1940's cars? Just as West said, I like 1940's Cadillacs, and we actually have three of them in my family as well, but we recognize what the CCCA is supposed to be about, and 1940's cars are not supposed to be the primary focus. I wrote in to the board over the summer against the T & C. The comment I made to them was this:

I look at the height of the Classic Era being the years 1928 - 1933. These years were the height of the Salons, height of the Custom Body era, all the multi cylinder cars were introduced in this time frame as well. The years prior to 1928 were sort of a crescendo to this, and the years after 1933 were sort of a decrescendo. The cars of the 1940's, save for some limousines and customs (Packard Darrins & LeBarons), were the start of a new era of mass production. While yes a few carryover cars should be in the CCCA, the 1940's is not supposed to be the whole focus of the club. And that's where I see it headed.

Let's talk briefly about the GM ladder. Cadillacs were reserved for upper management. Buicks were for middle or lower management people. During the Classic Era

Certain Buicks should be included and are, that's because Harlow Curtice went after the markets previously set aside for Cadillac, Lincoln and Packard. The other great makes were gone. So, yes - I think the senior Buicks are no less worthy then t"true" classics from the 28ish to 1935 period.

The Limited of 1941 is an impressive, purposeful car and includes new technology (compound carburation). Surely, none of these cars compare to the Duesenberg or the V16's but that would be a pretty small car club.

In 1941, the 60S Cadillac and any 4 door phaeton should be included, everything else should go to the AACA or CLC.

[Guest Twunk Rack]

" . . . . . . . . . . Why dilute the club further? Why drive away people who own the real Classics even more? . . . . . . I wrote in to the board over the summer against the T & C. .

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX !

Seriously, the Club answered your question years ago, by ignoring the results of those "National Club Policy Surveys" that were done many years ago, when the term "classic" first started to arise in the car buff consciousness.

The results of repeated "National Club Policy Surveys" were clear. WE DID NOT WANT OUR CLUB DILLUTED.

The answer was obvious - flood the CCCA membership with new members who typically did not own the big engined REAL classics, and/or had no clue why we formed this club in the first place.

We went from a membership of about 2,000 people, many of whom owned "REAL" classics, to the present membership approaching 6,000 (well, some have quit in disgust, but I think that's silly). So, by cleverly "flooding" our membership with people who do not own the REAL classics, (and often resent those of us who do) of COURSE they got what they wanted (use of the term "classic" to sell more and more used cars of various descriptions.

You should NOT be surprised that they dont give a damn about losing a few old coots with big engined super-cars of the 20's and '30's. If you doubt that, go look at what shows up at CCCA events these days.

Can there be any question that technology moves foward, giving us ever more comfortable cars to drive ? Can there be any question that a guy who wants to sell a 1941 Cadillac is going to scream the word "classic" from the roof-tops, to try and get more money for it ?

READ the various car buff magazines of today. They direct much of their content to the buying and selling of old cars. The idea of falling in love with a particular car and keeping it for what it is as a technological wonder of its era, has pretty much disappeared.

I noted elsewhere that at a recent prestegious car show, the owner of a beautiful Rolls Phantom ( around 1929) expressed surprise when he had it judged, and was asked to start it. Of course he was surprised. He didn't own the car for what it was - he owned it for the STATUS.

So - of course modern car clubs represent what modern folks want.

What did you expect ? The CLASSIC CAR CLUB OF AMERICA decided many years ago it didn't want to be like the HCCA (a small club for a specific kind of car - antique cars with antique features, meaning built before the 1920's).

My recommendation is that people "get with the program" and accept what has happened, and live with it. In a recent major car buff publication, it was explained that the word "classic" is ANY car you like (or want to sell!) even if it is a new one....!

There is a vulgar expression about trying to fight the evolution of history. It is a sailor's expression, about the lack of advantage of urinating into the wind.....!

Edited December 4, 2009 by R W Burgess (see edit history)

[Mark Huston]

There is a vulgar expression about trying to fight the evolution of history. It is a sailor's expression, about the lack of advantage of urinating into the wind.....!

Classic expressions never go out of style.

[Dynaflash8]

QUOTE: I'd much rather drive the 734 Packard Speedster on a CARavan, and I'd much rather see comparable cars participating with me UNQUOTE

West, I am not sure I understand this sentence among all the rest that you said. Are you saying you'd rather not have to participate with a car like mine? That, after all the nice things you said about it? I'm buffaloed in Florida.

[West Peterson]

Earl

I love your car. I'm green with envy. I love the Cadillac Series 62 (I love the Buick better). I love all cars, and in my opinion, this hasn't been a discussion about what cars are better than another, it's in regards to what the club is about. I'm in the camp that thinks it was a mistake to have these modern cars accepted into the CCCA. Aside from the special cars themselves, I think the "Classic era" should have as much to do with what cars get accepted. And the "Classic Era" was over... done... never-to-be-seen-again, before the last Packard 12 went down the production line in 1939.

My previous analogy went unnoticed I think. Let me try another one. To me, it's like a 1934 Ford V8 owner asking to have his car accepted into the Model A club because it's just as good if not better.

That said, and since the cows are already out of the barn (along with the chickens, horses, pigs and most of the farm machinery), I highly suggest you continue to pursue getting that 1941 Buick convertible sedan accepted. It's a wonderful car and I would enjoy following it on a CCCA CARavan in my dad's 1941 Cadillac convertible sedan. It just wouldn't "feel" like a CARavan to me... more like a Milestone Car Society "Safari" (If anyone besides me remembers those... or the club, for that matter).

Edited December 3, 2009 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

Mentioning the Milestone Car Society, West, I went to a website that was supposed to take me to a book about the Washington Senators baseball team, and came upon a book apparently written on that subject by Richard Langworth.....I can't believe that's the same author who wrote about cars, but maybe so. I haven't actually been trying to get the '41 Buick 71-C accepted, at least not yet, but have merely been testing the waters. Like Doug Seybold, I think the '41 was the greatest Buick ever built, even though I'm a "born again" '39 Buick lover. All of this discussion has been interesting. I know the drill about Classic cars. I was reading about them when I was 13 years old in 1953 and I'm in love with some Auburns, but man should not dilute his basic loves and knowlege base....ask Tiger Woods ....and my Dad only raised Buick lovers, so I'm stuck in this bubble of my own making. Seriously, West, I enjoyed following your long-long Packard in my little ole blue '39 Special all around PA on that Glidden Tour. Next time I'll see if I can blow your doors off..........maybe while you're changing another tire I can do that.

By the way, the 1946-48 Lincoln Continental's have been accepted since ever I can remember (that being a shorter period of time with each passing year) so I have to wonder about this pre-War/post-War, streamlined/classic styling discussion. However, I understand the argument. And all of the old-timers are definitely speaking truths about the ideal time of the Classic era, but I sort of think it might have drifted down to a natural conclusion rather than just stopping one day. And perhaps while that was happening, styling and merchandising was in an on-going process of change. As for the 40's cars being modern, all I can say is that driving them "ain't" like driving my 2005 Park Avenue....now that's a car I call modern. Looking back over the last 30 years of autombiles really makes one realize the tremendous change that took place in the automobile between 1922 and 1942 or even 1932 and 1942. After that things sort of stayed the same until the "Glitz era" of the 1950's.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

Yup. I think the dilution of the ranks started even before the ink dried on the bylaws in 1953 (referring to the postwar Continentals).

It is the same Richard Langworth, by the way. Dragonwyk Publishing, if I remember correctly, in Contoocook, New Hampshire.

[Dynaflash8]

QUOTE Dave Fields: Where are we going when the most popular threads are the wining and complaining threads? UNQUOTE

Dave, There's been some whining perhaps, but mostly this thread has been, I think, enlightening discussion. That said, discussions such as this can help identify the pulse of the hobby. At least it begets lively discussion among the club threads and so long as it doesn't get nasty, that's a good thing. Hopefully, nobody gets nasty. Having been in the forefront of the 1965-1973 battle to achieve the 25-year rule in AACA, I have to completely agree with you on your AACA comment. By the way, I think I met you at Hershey, standing in front of that fabulous silver-gray Lincoln custom-bodied car.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[alsancle]

Even the AACa changed its rules. Some rods, built and raced in the 1950's and 1960's are accepted now. And, keeping to the 25 year rule has not deluted the AACA in any way, but made it bigger, stronger, and more diverse. We can all choose what cars to look at and what tours to attend, and need not criticize other cars.

See, that's the problem. I don't want a "diverse" CCCA and I don't want the CCCA to to turn into the AACA. Clubs are supposed to be about people with "common" interests not "diverse" interests.

Also, West is trying to make the distinction between appreciating a car but at the same time saying it is not appropriate for the club. Many of you don't get that. Of course the ability to understand and appreciate rules and standards seems to be less valued in today's society where "change" and "diversity" are really valued.

[Guest Twunk Rack]

...... Many of you don't get that........to understand and appreciate rules and standards seems to be less valued in today's society .

wow ! great post. well said. So sad and SO TRUE !