Inclusion of vehicles through 1951 that are identical to 1948 design

[trimacar]

In discussing value vs. CCCA accepted list of car, I think that numbers show that CCCA acceptance equals greater value.

Town and Country cars were valuable, but it seems that the asking (and selling?) prices surely went up after the cars were added to list of approved Classics.

I personally was involved in a deal with a late 40's car, that missed being a Classic by JUST THIS MUCH, and the discussions were very much "gee, if it was a Classic, the asking price wouldn't be bad, but for a REGULAR ANTIQUE CAR, that pricing sounds high" (yes, bold letters mine, just trying to make a point, as we all are...)

So anyone who thinks that the "list" doesn't equate to more value, you're dreaming. There are big bucks out there, controlled by people who want to make sure the cars they buy are the "best of the best", and CCCA recognition surely helps that perception.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

David, I understand the overall influence but am speaking to the latest change in particular, with my focus on the Bentley Mark VI. If identical models show no price variance today, pre-post 1948, what would suggest inclusion on the list will drive up their prices now? My roster shows 21 Bentleys 1946 - 1948 if my count is right or IMO, a relatively small % of surviving cars based on what I see on market activity. Could be owners of these are just active in other clubs?

On the T&C, I would argue the PRICES on these cars has risen, not sure if it is permanent or a bubble, but the value of them has not changed, if that makes sense. I feel bad for anyone shelling out a 30 - 50% premium for a Classic most membership rejects if that is the primary motivation for purchase. No one's fault, buyer beware but that to me is a ridiculas situation to put yourself in.

Actually, I agree it is an influential list. There are a few cars on the list whose value is at least in part derived from inclusion on the list rather than the vehicle itself. All I am saying is that while a Classic would be nice, for me it is not going to drive my choice entirely; there are plenty of somewhat later vehicles that fit the definition more closely in my mind, than may of the cars on the current list. (Not lobbying for inclusion at all, it is just my perception when thinking about some of the cars Dave F. points out vs. some of the cars on the list that share bodyshells with regular mass produced sister cars, and were in some cases, what would be considered "near luxury" today.)

Having sold my "old car" recently I have been thinking about what's next, and certainly looking at CCCA cars, wouldn't be a member if I didn't have the interest.... This thread has helped me put "the list" in perspective by making me think about what is more important, an imperfect list or the most interesting car you can buy for the money. I am not criticizing the club or the list, it is just that that is crystal clear, for me...

Edited July 20, 2012 by Steve_Mack_CT
added info (see edit history)

[dep5]

One of my pet peeves . .

there is already a generous list of undeserving automobiles accorded CCCA Classic status.

Each candidate for Classic status is to be accepted on its own merits and not because a similar vehicle is recognized. This sounds noble and high minded but it only means that the majority rules, re: ACD, Cadillac and Packard.

For example, this policy and the way it is administered allowed a 1932 Auburn 8 but a 1932 Chrysler 8 is not acceptable.

[Guest Water Jacket]

Dep5 -- Good point regarding the Buick/Hudson-class Auburn 8 being a CCCA Classic, but not the same years' Chrysler 8, especially given the Chryslers' superior engine bearings and hydraulic brakes.

In my 'umble opine, the Auburn 12, the best bargain in automotive history, is the only Auburn that should be a CCCA Classic. The eights should be strictly "special interest autos,"

interesting old cars and call it a day.

The Auburn/Chrysler 8 disparity is the sort of thing the CCCA should be focused on, NOT further diminishing the concept of the club by letting '50s cars in on a technicality so people whose principal interest in vintage cars is glomming on to the word "Classic" so they can feather their nests.

BTW, notice we don't see owners of later Talbot-Lagos, etc. whining about not being "Classics." They're too busy enjoying their cars to worry about what some "classification committee" thinks. It's always the usual RR/Bentley/Cadillac contingent, even the already accepted examples being overrated.

But that goes to adroit marketing and an entire other thread.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Water Jacket (see edit history)

[Shawn Miller]

As the former owner of a 1949 Alfa 6C2500SS which is EXACTLY like the 48 model I don't see where we are heading down any kind of slope. the only cars that are virtually identical post war, are limited production European luxury cars, like my Alfa. They wont overwhelm the CARavans, its not going to lead to XK120's being admitted. it just keeps people from having to claim that their Alfa is a 48 in order to get to take it to a CCCA event, just like people used to have to claim their Model A Duesenberg is a 25 and not a 22 (also used to have one of those-actually the first pre 25 car approved by the club).

My feeling when I had the Alfa was that it was the Club's loss, not mine, that it couldn't participate. I still feel that way.

[Guest Bill Miller]

Frankly I would vote to eliminate all post-war cars, period. And I think we've gone backward too far as well. The late teens, even early 20's and the late 40's are not part of the "Classic Era" in my view. Nothing wrong with the cars made then but they just don't fit the time frame I envision for truly "classic" vehicles. My 41 Cadillac drives like a 54 Buick, almost like modern iron, and even though it qualifies as a true "Classic" I feel like I'm cheating if I drive it on a Caravan. Earlier cars are slower and just can't keep up with the post-war cars and they seem out of place together on a tour. There are plenty of VMCCA, HCCA Nickel-Era, and AACA tours and shows around for those cars exclusively and I enjoy them greatly, but I think "Classic" era cars are something special and the trend toward wider inclusion of both newer and older cars for the sake of increasing membership appeal is misplaced. I would rather see smaller membership than more members with cars that just don't fit together as a group. But that's just my opinion and I can't conceive of dropping my CCCA membership because I disagree with the broad scope of eligible cars. But I can see a day not too far in the future when we will allowing Continental Mark II's to participate.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Shawn I cannot help but wonder if there is any material difference in value between a 1948 and 1949 example of your Alfa? In other words, does CCCA eligibility increase the value of such an already special car?

[Shawn Miller]

Not only no, Hell NO!

I dont think people are wanting their cars included because it increases the cars value, and I dont think the club has ever included new cars with an eye towards increasing membership. I have sat in on more than my fair share of Classification Committee meetings. Potential new members are NEVER one of the things they look at. Its all about the car/chassis, the importance of design, engineering, etc.

For the record, while on the board I voted against the Town and Country. It was a close vote. Later the Town and Country was included and we all know what wrangling that caused. The Town and Country is a Post War car. They were already expensive prior to inclusion and I dont think they ave gone up since inclusion.

The 6C2500 Alfa Chassis debuted in 1938 or so. Its a Pre War Chassis. Period. End of story. We're talking about VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL cars here...NOT bringing in 56 Continentals or 57 Eldo's.

But while were on that subject, I used to think that bringing in Post War cars would ruin the club, and was unabashedly against it. Now, I'm not so sure. Sometimes I think we're clinging to 50's doctrine. It is 2013, after all, and from the outside looking in we may seem a tad hairsplitting to the vast majority of the population, who think of a 57 Chevy when the word Classic is mentioned (and no Im not suggesting we take in pedestrian production cars, I'm just stating a fact). I do occasionally look around the room at any given meeting and wonder what the room will look like in 10 or 15 years. Will the handful of us in my age group be sitting there by ourselves? Face it the number of members we have under 55 is a pretty small percentage, but the same thing can be said of the AACA. People tend to "graduate" to this club and hobby really, so I am hopeful we'll be OK.

Change is difficult for organizations like the CCCA. People dont like change.

Change, however, is a daily fact of life today.

Recognizing Identical Cars isn't change-it's common sense.

Luckily this isn't my problem to solve, and I will never quit this Club over the inclusion or exclusion of any given car. I love this Club and the people in it. This is a Great Club I am honored to be a member of.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Shawn Miller (see edit history)

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Thanks for the feedback, Shawn. I think all agree the Classification Committee has good intentions but has not made 100% perfect decisions. I still contend that you can put 10 of us in a room and no one's personal list would be identical. I get the CCCA mission, and support it. That said, I think by not including the handful of European Luxury cars with prewar roots that are identical in nature is a lost opportunity for the club, not the owners. Hence my question to you on value. No way do I believe the small group of Alfa owners, or larger but still not huge group of Bentley MK VI owners are up nights worrying about CCCA acceptance. Another thing that is different from the 50s - their are plenty of other venues to enjoy one's car, and even the most exclusive concours includes many non CCCA eligible cars. So your point about the club's loss vs. the loss an owner of a potential candidate for inclusion might feel is dead on. (that is loss of interesting vehicles, not members)

I do think the desire by an owner may be a lot more relevant in the Chrysler vs. Auburn example previously noted - an American car in the heart of the Classic Era (say '28 - '38 but again, opinions on this vary also) is somehow a different animal -

Edited April 3, 2013 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)

[alsancle]

Throwing the Mercedes out is a specious argument. A Mercedes Diesel delivered through Mytropia Motors in the 1930s was a 4k dollar car in the U.S.A. Maybe the Popes at the CCCA knew that "factoid" when they added it to the list?

[trimacar]

So the new criteria for a Classic car would be a pretty good car of the 50's or 60's that old people are capable of driving? That's really a good direction to go in.....

The better direction is to have CCCA events which are family friendly and affordable. I haven't driven a Caravan for a while, but the ones I did in the 80's and 90's cost thousands of dollars each when all was in and done. A lot of people own true Classics, but aren't in the CCCA, nor would they attend current events, due to the feeling it is an "old rich man's" club and the cost of the events.

[Shawn Miller]

One more thing that hasnt been addressed here and then I think I have said my peace on this issue. The Classifications Committee does not approve cars without member input, a prime example of which is this discussion.

Step 1.They make their recommendation to the board (who we elected to represent us).

Step 2.Board Approves Recommendation

Step 3.Recommendation published in Bulletin for some period (I forget off the top of my head, but I think its at least 2 bulletins) to allow member feedback.

Step 4. Board finally Approves Recommendation after member feedback (or lack thereof in most cases-No feedback assumes there's no big problem with recommendation).

So while the membership doesn't vote on each and every recommendation (which would be quite cumbersome) we do get the opportunity to chime in on every one of them before they are finally approved.

From what I'm gathering this "virtually Identical Post War" proposal is dying or has died because of negative feedback, so the system works!

Keep in mind these volunteer board members spend a lot of their time and money attending these meetings at their own expense. If you are flying in (like many are) I bet it runs at least $500-750 per meeting. I drove there and it still ran me about $250 with hotel room, gas (I drive fast), and meals. Trust me the people on the board have no hidden agenda, they are simply trying to do whats best for the club in an ever changing landscape.

We need to appreciate their efforts and thank them for their hard work, whether we agree with their recommendations or not.

Always Remember- Its a Hobby-its supposed to be FUN!

[Guest studepeople]

Here we go again.I went to the National Meeting when the TOWN AND COUNTRY crap was talked about . Many ,Many members beat out the board about their thinking about this.They didn't listen. Most if not all no longer sit on the board Why? Was their decision correct.....or was there a monitary reward? The Club was a Pre-second world war car club. Because that is when all the custom body makers were in bussiness. We have fought over encluding to damn many cars that weren't Classic. If you want more make them Prewar.If you ask about pre 1925 cars many had custom bodies . So you could enclude all of them as to cost of manufacture and custom body.That could be a hell of alot of Brass era cars....more members right?