Sign in to follow this  
Dynaflash8

After Long Thread, a majority opinion?

Recommended Posts

Great table Dynaflash. But I think this has all been done just a few years ago, at least for the 31-39 80 series.

Classification committees come and go, but in the past the committee would have a real problem with the high production numbers (well over 10K per year) for the model 81 and 71 sedans. The committee does not respond well to arguments that the car being proposed is "as good or better than the Cad 62" -- since many felt the 62 was an anomaly.

I am struck by the incredibly low production figures for the phaetons, 81C and 71C. I think you might have a better chance trying to get these individual models classified. They clearly are very unique amongst all the prewar Buicks, they are even more unique than the 90 series cars. CCCA has not done that, except you might say that the Chrysler T&C or Lincoln Continental are just special models within a production series.

Good luck, I suggest you contact the classification committee and ask them for any material they may have regarding the previous proposal to classifie the 80 series Buicks.

Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BJM

I vote yes on the big Buicks. 1931 to 1941.

No long winded explanation as this has been well covered thus far, but that's my vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buicksplus I'm told that the 1940 80 Series went through without a bit of problem. It is significant that the only difference between the 1940 80 Series and the 1937-1939 80 Series was the nameplate that said "Limited" instead of "Roadmaster". Frankly, in a 1939 car, I like the lines of the 40 and 60 series cars the best, but they are definitely not Classic, even with low production numbers, i.e. there were only 80-some 1940 Century club coupes. Production numbers don't get it done. There has to be a lot more. I would suggest not including the sedans for those years, but as I understand it, it's all or nothing. Besides, there were 103,000+ 1939 Special sedans and 5460 Roadmaster sedans, plus a few more Roadmaster Formal sedans (303) which had a divider window. That's a whole lot less. We'll see. I'm still just listening to people who know a lot more about the process than I do.

Edited by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jake (BJM). I'm still counting. I truly appreciate all of the thoughts and advice from all you guys, for or against. But, I still need time to do some more research as Mr. Coco asked. Somewhere I have 1939 prices, but I'm not at all sure where. The other years should have been similar I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, to clarify, would that it was so simple as, OK, if it's a wheelbase of more than 125 inches, and cost more than $2000, and they only produced 200 each year, and it had an engine more than 300 cubic inches....again, not that simple, but a place to start for Classic justification.

Interestingly, Auburns may or may not qualify based on some specifications, but it was a sister car to Duesenberg and Cord, that's a tough one, and remember, the 6 cylinder Auburns are excluded from CCCA list. Look at the approved list, and there are exclusions for some well respected names, Locomobile, Peerless, Cadillac, and of course Packard.

Just pointing out that getting specific models of a marque classified as Classics is an interesting process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like advice Mr. Coco. If you would like to give me more, off of the thread, it would be welcome at Forever39z@aol.com. Earl Beauchamp

PS: The Roadmaster was over 125 inches, sold for over $2,000, had an overhead valve straigt 8 engine with over 300 cid. :) I think you knew that. Auburn built a V-12 you know and the '35-36 car was extroadinarily beautiful with a Supercharged Straight 8, flathead like Pontiac and Oldsmobile of course, but if a guy was a young, dashing, playboy who really wanted to sport at the Country Club, an Auburn Speedster straight 8 worked just about as good as any car. A late buddy of mine loved the 1935 and 1936 Auburn Speedster, and his widow still hoards the car in her garage today, not far from where you live. But he liked Buicks too and owned a string of Buick convertibles, but he often told me that a Buick was a lot better car, but it just didn't make his blood run as fast as his Auburn. Nobody will get that unfinished Auburn Speedster as long as his wife lives. Even I could never get it, but I sure would like to have it. But I'm off of the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guys have a great argument. no-one questions those '41 Buicks as being magnificent cars. Anyone who hsn't personally driven a '41 Limited or Roadmaster shouldn't question the statement that they were at least as good as a Cadillac in most areas (just dont try and "corner" one with the same year Cadillac, or keep up with it for very long, on a long extreme-speed trip....!)

No-one questions that our culture has changed, and 2,000 years+ of western culture is now falling apart, so you can assign any meaning you want to any ole word.

Who CARES about accuracy and precision of speech in a country that transferred its industry and much of its machine tool business to Asia ? Let's be happy !

I am especially pleased to see the word "classic" no longer means "form follows function".

I remember the disappointment when we had the post-war Lincoln Continentals shoved down our thoats on the grounds it would "help increase membership". That was in our earliest years ! And those Auburns ! Ah...good argument - ACD made Auburns as well as Duesenburgs. So why not. Why not Model T's and Model "A" on that logic - after all, the Ford Motor Co. made those superb "L" and KB series Lincolns - so why shouldn't we call a Model "A" a "classic" car, if you use THAT reasoning.

In a few more months, my '81 Toyota Corolla will be an "antique". There is a movement now to stop being so "restrictive" and start calling newer model cars "classics" - after all, one major publication has an article that confirms "any car you like should be a classic, even if it is a new one".

Please - guys... GIVE IT UP ! We are old car buffs ! We can't reverse the flow of history. The fight over which cars should be called "antiques" or "classics" was lost YEARS ago. Let's just relax, enjoy our hobby, and help our fellow hobbyists out with the best info. we can get them.

Sic Transit Gloria...

Edited by Twunk Rack (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment about Auburns may have been misinterpreted, TW. I don't agree that they should have been included just because they were sister cars to the Duesenberg and Cord. Every marque (and model) should stand on it's on merits. My comments was that, at least, the 6 cylinders were excluded. Aren't there some of the Town and Country models that are 6 cylinder cars? I can understand the reasoning of including large 20's cars, when 6's were the norm, but a 1940's car with a six?? Doesn't make sense to me.

I actually think that the single make car clubs have it easier, things don't get this twisted. Model A Club, don't see any '31 Chevrolets in that. The Pierce Arrow Society, of course a favorite of mine, no question there what's accepted.

I'll look forward to you (TW) bringing your Toyota to Hershey. I may not walk down that row, by choice, but the AACA will be willing to have you bring it. And, as a collector, participant, lover of old cars, it's all about choice, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Auburns are an interesting one. I'm especially fond of the 35/36 blown variety and my dad has had at least 8 including a few speedsters.

Flashy cars with many unique features. However, they seem to me to be more of middle to upper middle class car then cream of the crop. BUT, in the long line of questionable entries - at least they are right in the Classic era. The ones that bug me are the later cars, the caddy, the T&C and the continentals.

post-31305-143138142182_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twunk Rack, I'll put you in the 'NO' column. I think I understand where you're at, anyway.

you are wrong !

True, I do NOT agree with what the CCCA National Board did when they "admitted" the '41 Cadillac 60 Special. But they did. Then came the cheaper series Cadillacs, and the '46-'47 Packard "Custom" series Clippers.

Like it or not, this "dillution" / "inclusiveness" IS CCCA policy and has been for well over 30 years.

As an AMERICAN PATRIOT I am a great believer in representative democracy. The overwhelming majority of young people today think the Buicks discussed in here are "classics". That IS the way it is, so I would be PLEASED to see a car as nice as one of the top-of-the-line Buick Roadmaster/Limited cars participate in CCCA meets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Twunk Rack, I'll put you in the YES catagory then. I guess there aren't enough people who come on the web site for me to really know what to expect. Well anyway, after Feburary when I go off the AACA Board I'll have free time on my hands, so I'll sit down and gather the facts and write up a "case report" and submit it. As I said before, nothing beats trial but failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point 1: The Packard 160 started at well under $2000. Point 2: Rolls Royce and Bentleys from the 1940's were 6 cylinders, asn I believe there are other forein "Classics" with 6 cylinders fro that era. Pont 3: except for the weird suspension that the Zepher shared with the Continental, the Zepher is an exceptional car - the coupes may be the best design ever on an automobile, and the convertibles are breathtaking. Point 4: I vote yes on the big Buicks. Point 5: The 1941 Cadillac 4 door convertible and other s shared the same body with the Oldsmobile. The exact same body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, laddie, it be much appriciated, it 'tis.

One of the stated missions of the original members was to perserve extradornary cars that were not old enough to classify as antiques. Unfortunately, the luxury cars, even those over 25 years old, today, suffer a simular fate. They have been scrapped for their engines, and their complicated air conditioning systems cause the owners and passengers to want for comfort. It is very unlikely that cars will every be manufactured again that will emulate the post Classic era luxury car, an era that ended in the mid to late 1970's. Something should be done to highlight and perserve this era of fine motoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aye, laddie, it be much appriciated, it 'tis.

One of the stated missions of the original members was to perserve extradornary cars that were not old enough to classify as antiques. Unfortunately, the luxury cars, even those over 25 years old, today, suffer a simular fate. They have been scrapped for their engines, and their complicated air conditioning systems cause the owners and passengers to want for comfort. It is very unlikely that cars will every be manufactured again that will emulate the post Classic era luxury car, an era that ended in the mid to late 1970's. Something should be done to highlight and perserve this era of fine motoring.

Then why don't you restart the Milestone Car Club instead of constantly trying to water down the CCCA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why don't you restart the Milestone Car Club instead of constantly trying to water down the CCCA?

As to the CCCA, I just hope the dilution stops where it is now, it's already over-watered. No further comment on that.

And sorry for taking this a bit off-topic, but what ever did happen to the Milestone Car Club? Dead as can be without a good reason other than the wrong people in charge? If I ever saw an opportunity for a national club that had defined a terrific niche of interest and would be successful, that was it. It certainly wasn't the lack of interest in the cars they intended to encompass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE: Then why don't you restart the Milestone Car Club instead of constantly trying to water down the CCCA? UNQUOTE

The days of cold starting a club are, in my opinion, over. It's going to be all the current clubs can do, just to survive. Young people today are interested in electronics, computers and such; but not cars. We who number among current car enthusiasts are, on average, arriving at an advanced age. It's no secret what happens to each of us as we progress through advanced age. The cars young people see and drive are just no more than complicated, jelly-bean styled blobs on wheels to go from here to there, very dependably with little care, as well as with little ability to arouse enthusiasm. That's a good thing for John Q. Public, but not something that will instill lasting enthusiasm in automobiles. Modern automobiles have become throw-away chattel and nothing more, even the most expensive of them.

I did join CCCA, so I can speak as a member for now, and therefore do not feel like an interloper in giving my opinion. I've just finished reading a 1956 Trends Book again called "Classic Cars and Specials" by Robert Gottlieb. Gottlieb was one of the original guru's of the Classic car hobby. He refers to "Special Interest" cars and "Semi-Classic" cars in that book, repeatedly. It seems to me that a smart direction for expansion without dilution would be a separate Division of the Club where specifically identified autombiles, identified by an expert panel, would be designated as meeting those criteria (to be identified that panel or a separate panel of experts) that set them apart from the ordinary; and invited into a parallel but separate Division of the Club. As part of that, there could even be some redefining of current status; meaning those automobiles already involved in heated discussion. Or, they could be grandfathered. That seems to me like a very logical course that is both conservative and progressive. And again, the idea of there being cars that almost did, but didn't quite meet the definition of a "full Classic" was advanced by Mr. Gottlieb over fifty years ago; long before he could have realized there may come a day when there could be an "aging" of the old car hobby. A number of one car clubs have gone to having a separatge Division for "modified" cars of their brand, a road, in my opinion, gone too far. Of course that's my predjudice perhaps, that I don't need to go into here; other than to say that all of the clubs are recognizing the aging problem, and different ones are facing it in different ways.

Edited by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Milestone Car Club Forum sure isn't getting much use. Maybe they should change their name to the Postwar Classics Car Club or the Postwar Thoroughbred Car Club and cater to the people who like Packard Caribbeans, 50's Lincolns, 60's Bentleys, etc. NOTE: When I wrote this, I hadn't noticed that this forum had been deleted.

Edited by jeff_a (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BJM

I had no idea the Milestone Car Club was defunct. Although I had not heard anything about it, I assumed it was operational.

The AACA replaced it. The CCCA - that people can understand. The Milestone Car Club, what does Milestone mean to the average Joe and where would that end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K8096 Why don't you get you and your buddies to get the "real" classics out to events so we don't have to look at the "watered down" stuff? Actually I live in the desert, and water is a prized commodity here.

I looked at the cars participating on the Carivans this yeaqr, and it didn't seem to me to be overrun by newer cars.

The 1930 Nash Twin ignition 8 was not on the original list. So has has that addition watered down the club? There are about 1/2 dozen Nashs listed. Wow what watering!

K80 (I am watering down your name here, what really hurts the club is the constant bickering of what is and what isn't a classic. That attitude does huge damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello to all! This is my first of comments to the forum. I have read with interest the comments about allowing 80 series Buicks into the CCCA. I agree with most comments made so far. The last photo uploaded by dynaflash 8 spurred my interest in another Brunn bodied Buick. The 1941 Buick Limited Brougham Towncar.

About 20 years ago I saw it for sale in Hemmings. It was listed for $175,00 and ran for 3 or 4 months. That last time it ran the price dropped to $115,000.

Does any one know the where abouts of this car, who owns it etc. etc.? Did it land in the late John O'Quinn's collection?

It was a great Brunn bodied car and only one was made. I'm certain CCCA would recognise it as a "Classic"

Dave

post-65569-143138150576_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this