How many classic cars are there?

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

Your question should stir up some heated debate. It just depends on what you call a ?Classic.? Regardless of your personal definition, we seem to all agree that the term is quite out of control. Fifty years ago when this Club was founded, the term had a much different connotation than it does in today?s American English. <P>If you are talking about cars CCCA recognizes as ?Full Classics,? then the answer is probably none, unless the Club changes its rules. Currently CCCA recognizes only certain cars built no later than 1948. There is a list on the web site. You?ll also find quite a bit of information there on what he Club considers a CCCA Classic. <P>Being a realist, I imagine that some day the 1948 date will change, but I wouldn?t hold my breath. Things move very slowly in CCCA. The members seem to like it that way.<P>Now, if you are talking about cars in recent or current production that may have some long lasting redeeming value, well, assuming their computer controls survive the test of time, I imagine there are lots of them. I?m not sure if that is a discussion that is germane to this Forum, but at least for a while, I?ll let the regulars here make that call. We could all learn something if it doesn?t degenerate into a shouting match.<P>Try to be nice guys.

[CBoz]

Hello Dave -<P>For reasons that have been gone over thoroughly on this forum, the term "Full Classic" has been reserved for cars between 1925-1948, while "Milestone" has been applied to distinctive cars after that time (and probably a little too broadly).<P> In some ways it's a shame. While I know there are strongly opposing opinions, I think CCCA could still maintain their core mission and broaden their horizon by having both "Pre-War Full Classics" and "Post-War Full Classics," <I>with the latter label being guarded as jealously as the former has been.</I><P>For example, I could see the Mercedes Gullwing and 300SL convertible, as well as the 1956-57 Mark II as "Post-War Full Classics." They were very expensive, very exclusive, "best of the best" cars in their days. I don't think these cars would show poorly next to, say, a 1931 Fleetwood body Cadillac roadster.<P>Now what about my 66 Mustang? -- not in a million, zillion years <p>[ 07-11-2002: Message edited by: Cecil Bozarth ]

[Guest]

I guess the title of this thread isn't entirely accurate. But, seeing how many classic cars there were in the past. Of the cars produced today, how many do you think would later develop into a classic car?

[Guest]

Grrrrrr !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[CBoz]

Thanks Peter -- I know it was very, very hard to hold back on that one . I do think the CCCA is correct in only applying the label "Full Classic" to pre-war automobiles that meet the engineering, exclusivity and (to a lesser extent) styling characteristics that have been set up.<P>Given that, all I am saying is -- don't the truly exceptional post war cars deserve such a "home", albeit a *different* one from their pre-war counterparts? Would it "dilute" the CCCA to recognize the "best of the best" in years beyond 1948? Right now, a Gullwing has to share "residence" (AACA) with my Mustang. Just doesn't seem right.<P>By the way -- I'm looking at purchasing a Full Classic right now. Leaving pics and value guide printouts where the wife can see them, making the financial case, etc.... wish me luck.<p>[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Cecil Bozarth ]

[Guest]

Cecil:<P>Amen!!<P>I am convinced that CCCA's failure to recognize the postwar era will do nothing to preserve the greatness of the cars of the "Classic Era". Instead, it merely ensures that the CCCA will become more and more irrevalent as time marches on. <P>The general public can't understand why postward "Classics" are not recognized by the club, and neither can I or many of the CCCA's own members.<P>I also think they should lighten up on the list within the classic era, but all this has been said before.<P>Have at it!<P>Bill, Albuquerque

[Guest]

Hi Buick Plus:<P>You are forgetting that the CLASSIC CAR CLUB AMERICA had some very good years when it was completely irrelevant. <P>In our first years, we did not waste time worrying about whether we were "irrelevant" or not. That was NOT a factor in our setting up our Club, or in selecting a little used aristocratic word "CLASSIC' to distinguish the cars we wanted to celebrate within the confines of this particular club.<P>What WAS a factor in our selecting the word "classic", is that straight out of the WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY of that era, it symbolized what kind of cars THIS particular club was all about. Again (for those of you who are not aware of how far the word "classic" has evolved) ....<P>" UNIQUE...FIRST RANK...OF THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE". <P>That was ONE of the two definitions that made us believe THIS particular word was the one for our club name. And explained why very nice, even superior old cars, were irrelevant to our purpose. <P>"FROM THE GREEK...A STATEMENT OF ART....WHERE FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION.."<P>This was the SECOND of the two definitions..and explains why a "moderne" or stream-lined car, such as cars built after the 1930's, were irrelevant to our purpose.<P>We DID it ! In a few short years, we went from being a completely irrelevant group of people who were laughed at for our interest in the large, arrogant luxury cars of the 1920's and '30s, to something "everyone" had to join. Heck..even NASHES were called "classics" by the mid 1960's.<P>Of COURSE the CCCA did not invent the word classic, but we sure as heck made it a word that, in a few short years, became SO desirable to "tack on" to some nice old car one wants to sell, that it is now hard to find a product for sale that is NOT called "classic".<P>BuickPlus has correctly identified a phenomena that might well occur. The Club might shrink in half..and then half again..who knows..unless we start admitting all those nice old cars from the 1950's that everyone wants to unload...we may again become irrelevant. To someone who remembers those "irrlevant" years of really great meets, rally, hill climbs, "hair and hounds" events...etc. I can deal with it..!<P>Should there be a Club for the nice old cars that are "stream-lined"..i.e. came AFTER the end of the "classic" era...? Well...why not? Of course my suspicious mind will note there already is a CAD LA SALLE CLUB, PACKARDS INTERNATIONAL, PACKARD MOTOR CAR CLUB, LINCOLN CLUB, BUICK CLUB...etc...etc...etc. I am or have been a member of all of them - they are great clubs...and have great events.<P>I saw posted elsewhere in here reference to the fact that some non-classic cars now sell for more than many classics. So what ? <P>In the early years, our classics, and our club, was so irrelevant, you couldn't GIVE one away. Does what the average non-technically inclined type will pay, who just wants something to show off at a public car show, have any relevance to what the CCCA is all about..? <P>No-one in or out of the CCCA has a right to tell members or non-members what to think. Please dont tell the overwhelming majority of our members what to do with our Club. <P>We dont own the word "classic". Why not start a club for "post war classics" if you dont like PACKARDS INTERNATIONAL, BUICK CLUB, LINCOLN CLUB, LINCOLN CONTINENTAL OWNERS CLUB, CAD-LA SALLE CLUB, FRANKLYN CLUB, THE PACKARD CLUB (aka "Packard Automotive Classic"....<P>Hmm...let's see...what should we call this new club to HONESTLY reflect why it should be formed...<P> " POST WAR CLASSIC CAR CLUB FOR REALLY <BR> NICEOLD CARS WE WANT TO GET A LITTLE<BR> MORE MONEY FOR....."<BR> <BR>You are wrong, Buick Plus...the CCCA DOES recognize the value of cars we do not accept as "classics". Over and over thru out our HANDBOOK AND DIRECTORY you will find references to mechanisims on how we can have joint events with such clubs, and how we encourage them, and invite them to participate in car clubs that suit their requirements. <P>Come to a CCCA event in ANY car you like ! And PARTICIPATE in your Region's affairs. Who knows....we get enough people participating in Club management.......maybe someday, there will be a spot at a Grand Classic for my Toyota sedan..!<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

PH<P>Your posts are so long they leave me breathless, they are simply too much to respond to point by point. But for the record, I disagree with just about all the points you are trying to make.<P>I can only say for now that the Marque clubs (I too am a member of many of them) include many Full Classics among their marques and these are fine clubs. But the non-marque clubs, like the VMCCA, AACA, CCCA, HCCA and so forth are my personal favorites because I am a non-marque collector. I have owned probably 15 collector cars in the past, and most all of these cars are different marques. Check out the directory, you will see that not all CCCA members collect Packards, though I agree that many do.<P>I think the CCCA has a great niche and has done much for the collector car hobby in the past. I hardly think the club was irrelevant in the early days (don't equate size with relevance) when the CCCA brought special recognition to the large Classics you so revere when the other clubs classified them as used cars or tow vehicles.<P>I think the movement of the CCCA to include newer "fine and unusual" motorcars consistant with their founding philsophy is a natural progression of the club and will provide new energy to the club that the owners of the cars involved and most CCCA members will appreciate, especially as time marches on.<P>I know you don't agree, but so be it. You see the CCCA as some sort of holy enclave that must be protected from foreign invasion. It is rather just an organization of people, and any organization needs some variety of people and interests within it to survive and thrive. <P>Bill<BR>Albuquerque, NM

[Guest]

How many current cars will develop into Classic Cars (per CCCA qualifications),hmmm, let me think about this for a moment or two...NONE! The Classic Car denotes both an era and the automotive style of that era. It has yet to be repeated and I do not expect it ever will be. However, if you start seeing a large portion of current luxury cars styled either in pre-art deco or art deco design with chauffeurs and possibly a footman that isn't mass produced and costing anywhere from 5 to 20 times the price of a Ford, let me know. Postscript: I don't know how many Classic Cars exist but there are currently 7,968 Full Classic Cars recognized by CCCA. How's that for a factoid?

[CBoz]

Hello Peter -<P><B>Why the term "Full Romantic" might be more appropriate...</B><P>Sorry, but I really have to call you to the carpet on this one. The gist of your argument for protecting the term "classic" is that only certain cars made between 1925-1948 fit the traditional definition of "classic" and that any attempt to apply the term elsewhere would dilute the true definition. Your case centers around a two-prong definition reflecting a)excellence, and b)a certain type of style. Well, let's see if you are right ...<P>From Webster's New World Dictionary,<I>1953</I>:<P>"1. of the highest class; most representative of the excellence of its kind; having recognized worth."<P>No problems here. The next 2-4 definitions deal with the Greeks and Romans, so are not of direct interest here. On to 5:<P>"5. balanced, formal, austere, regular, simple, etc.; a term variously interpreted, generally opposed to <I>romantic</I>"<P>Now, c'mon, Peter! Is there anything about a V12 Packard, V16 Caddy, Duesenberg that is "austere, regular, simple"? I recall it was you who said that Full Classics were the cars you would see pulling up to the club, one more ostentatious than the other. Hardly "classic" by the definition in place at the time of CCCA's founding, but certainly "romantic" -- and in the very best sense, I might add.<P>So where does this leave us?<P>1. Any argument that only CCCA cars meet the traditional definition of "classic" is clearly wrong.<P>2. CCCA may choose to only allow in pre-war cars, which is absolutely fine. But to say other cars cannot be "classics" requires that the term be redefined to suit <I>CCCA's</I> needs. I humbly suggest that the term "Full Romantic" would be more appropriate.<P>Finally, when it comes to discussions about post-war cars, let's not evade the issue by referring to Toyotas, "72 Dusters", or lawn tractors as if they are representative of post-war efforts. Rather, tell us, Peter, why a Mercedes Gullwing or Lincoln Mark II doesn't meet the definition of "classic" while a Packard V12 does. Hmmm?<p>[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: Cecil Bozarth ]

[Guest]

I was very pleased to see an acquaintance show his fabulous original 1923 Locomobile on the field at this weekends CCCA Grand Classic in Cleveland. He had the car at our Concours d'Elegance at Ault park in Cincinnati (they drove it from Cleveland to Cincinnati) and it has been at other events such as the Meadowbrook Concours d'Elegance. It always seemed out of place sitting in a class of brass cars, though it fits right in with the early classics. At times, it is also a shame to see a 1949 Talbot Lago separated out of the classic class. However, when you look across the board at what was produced in 1949/50/51 the era was dwindling down with the cars that could fit in as Classic being few and far between verses say 1939.<p>[ 07-17-2002: Message edited by: JOHN MERENESS ]

[Guest]

Why not just quit all the bovine droppings...and admit it...guys...what is so terribly wrong or embarssing about admitting the truth...you LIKE the word "classic"...you dont CARE what the technical requirements were, are, or will be... you WANT to "tack it on" to the post-war car you like ( or want to sell) because you like the sound of it !<P>Of course I understand. If I owned a post-war stream-lined luxury car that I liked, and I felt "good" about the word "classic"...of course I'd want to call it a "classic 53 Cadillac" or "classic '53 Buick"...etc. But no matter how loudly you scream the word "classic" at such cars, you can be assured of several things...1) It will "blow the doors" off anything..and I mean ANYTHING from the classic era, for the simple reason..that technology marches on.......2) if the air conditioner is working properly, YOU will find ME asking YOU for a ride in it on a hot, muggy day, rather than drive my '38 Packard Twelve !<P>What is so terrible about going to Cad La Salle Club meets, or Packards International meets, if you like post-war cars ? What is so terrible...about calling a 1953 Packard......a 1953 Packard....?<P>C'mon...guys...be honest...you LIKE the word "classic"... it IS a free country...!<P>I promise you one thing...if it is a hot day, and I need to hitch a ride...and your '53 Packard or Cadillac's original factory air conditioning is working properly...you BET your hinquarters I will say... "that is one COOL car.....! and if that is what it takes to get a ride...of course I will call it a "classic"...too !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

For Cecil - on why those very unique and wonderful post-war cars you suggested, can NEVER be "classics" in the traditional sense...<P>First of all - I'd give my left you-know-what to own one...!<P>Second of all....remember the other REAL definition of the word "classic", as used down thru the centuries...by anyone with even the most transitory exposure to art, engineering, and design theory....<P> " form follows function"...<P>A pre-war Damiler-Benz has separate fenders, headlights, hood, so that each shape of the car, follows its function.<P>A post war "gull wing" is, in my mind, one of the finest examples of "stream-lining". I suspect it would be at least equal in low wind resistance to most cars today! <P>And, a "gull wing" as a car..? Who would question it is overwhelmingly superior in technology, performance, handling, etc. etc..to the ordinary car of its day. <P>But LOOK at it...man..you SERIOUSLY going to tell me you think it is of the same "design school of thought" as a pre-war 500K...?<P>(say...you dont happen to have a "gull wing" for sale...do you...? maybe THATS what this is about...? )<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[CBoz]

Hello Peter -<P>Thanks for the response. Obviously, neither of us is going to change the other's mind, but it's been fun trying! <P>I'll end my contribution to the thread with two thoughts. First, the mission statement of the CCCA doesn't <I>preclude</I> the existence of classics after 1948, but simply states that the CCCA's interest is in classics of a certain period. So what we are really debating are our opinions about the characteristics of certain vehicles outside that range.<BR>Second, this is not about applying the label "classic" to "any old car" in order to turn a buck. As others have said, the label "classic" has effectively no influence on price. Rather, it's about recognizing that there were indeed some very special automobiles that meet the definition of "classic" made after WWII.<P>Gullwing? Me? I don't think I have a chance of getting my 6' 5" frame in one. At least not with my wallet intact. But I've found that the <I>back</I>of a 1938 V16 Caddy is plenty big...<P>PS -- By the way, Peter, I studied Greek and Roman classics <I>in loco citato</I>, so you can be assured my knowledge of what the term means is not "transitory" <p>[ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: Cecil Bozarth ]

[Guest]

for PH<P>RE your constant harping on how "stream-lined" cars should not be Classics. <P>Please lead the charge to get those dreadful Cord 810, 812's out of the club, along with the Cad V16 Aerodynamic Coupes and the Pierce Silver Arrow. Their lines are sooooo, well just plain-- "unClassic", so moderne. How on earth did they slip through the cracks? Yes, don't forget the Heinz Corsair and all those awful Faghoni and Falischi (no, I don't know how to spell it) Delahayes that dazzle Pebble every year. They really look more like boats or a space ship than a Classic Cars. Talk about pontoon fenders!<P>Need I go on? <P>Bill<BR>Albuquerque, NM

[Guest]

BuickPlus :<P>Excellent point - I agree with you....everything...CCCA included...has inconsistancies. My own personal opinion as that the Aburn is NOT the kind of "top dollar high quality" car that should have been in the Club in the first place...same for the Lincoln Continental. But what is done is done. While these guys are insisting adding "classic" to their car's names, does not boost their value, the FACT is....just WATCH what would happen if you tried to take someone's "classic" status away-you have a "proprietory-economic value" dispute beyond compare.<P>If I may suggest so, it is more relevant to think about where we are going, then errors of the past (and if you think I am the only one who thinks letting the Lincoln Continentals have "classic" status...may I suggest a phone call to Bob Turnquist...?)

[Shawn Miller]

as an owner of the so called "lesser full classics", some of you guys will find it suprising that I really don't think we should accept cars built after 48. In fact I think the cut off used to be 42 and was changed at some point in the 70's since most cars built in the years right after the war are basically the same as those built right before it, at least structurally. 42 was fine by me!<P>Back to this guys question...Although this club and undoubtedly the milestone club (if it ever gets resurrected) will probably not expand their lists to include "neo classics" as I call them-there are some nice cars being made these days that do cost 5 times what a ford costs. they generally are foriegn, like Jags, Aston Martins, Ferraris, lamborghinis, Bentley, Mercedez, etc., although detroit has jumped on the bandwagon from time to time with the viper, prowler, ZR 1, etc. these are low production cars. they do have very high build quality.<P>It is not inconceivable that in the year 2025 or 2035 these will be classified as "antiques" and will be "collector cars". They may represent a "good buy" as they reach the bottom of their value curve (usually at the 10-15 year old point).<P>Shawn Miller<BR>Indiana Region

[Guest]

Shawn - you are a little "behind the loop" on your use of the word "classic" and "antique". If you go to any large magazine or book store, where they have current auto buff magazines, you will be hard pressed to find a car more than a few years old, that is NOT called a "classic"...or an "antique" or "antique classic"...or whatever combination of words the owner and/or writer likes.<P>This is consistant with the evolution of our language from its earlier period of precision, towards what we are changing into (change from a first world manufacturing economy, where precision in speech is essential to precision in mfg/production type enterprises, to a third world and/or "service" economy.)<P>Without the need for precision in speech, it is normal and natural that a culture's speech patterns will evolve towards the flamboyant. As a one-time student of languages and how they reflect a culture, I can tell you I am impressed with how much "richer" a culture's language is, as you go down on the evolutionary scale. You ask a northern european-descent individual what the weather was like yesterday, and you will get something like this...<P> "scattered clouds, light winds, temps. <BR> in the 70's". <P>You ask the same question of someone from a culture where precision of speech is considered a hinderance to communication, and you will find a much richer expression of how the individual feels...<P> " well it was such a nice day my mother<BR> was in a good mood, and the cows were<BR> giving better milk...etc".<P>In the automotive hobby, we USED to say that in order for a car to be "antique"...well...(this may be tough for you "young uns" to follow.....) it had to BE an "antique" car.<P>Now...in order to determine whether a car was an "antique" or not, it would have to have "antique" features...and to determine that...you had to 1) find one to look at 2) understand what you are looking at. Some of the typical features of an "antique car", were "T" head motors, no electrical systems other than the magneto that drove the ignition (if there was lighting at all, it was by carbide /accetylene gas) and two wheen EXTERNAL CONTRACTING brakes. Once we start seeing on-board electrical systems, such as storage batteries, self-starters, electric lighting, "ballon" type tires, and "internal expanding" brakes, we know they are too "modern" to be "antique", and thus would classify them as "vintage" era ( roughly 1918-1925). Obviously, there are a number of exceptions to this - but such is life.<P>We have already discussed the elements of classism, and have noted that at the time our Club was formed, our educational system was such that there was a fairly clear understanding that the word meant BOTH<BR> " unique, first rank...HIGHEST standard<BR> of excellence"....<BR> AND<BR> " a school of design ..in which "form<BR> follows function".<P>Of course NONE of this matters today, to the average car buff. We have seen how well-meaning but un-informed chatters in here got all excited over the use of radial tires on a '41 Cadillac, because they didn't understand the basics of car wheel design evolution. We cannot critisize our fellow chatters for getting confused and agitated over langauge and information discrepancies.<P>I therefore suggest events have long since over-taken your above "post". And I fully understand and appreciate your irritation over comparisons - we had a very "avante garde" governor in Calif. a few years back, who made a lot of friends, and probably won the election, on his campaign slogan of<P> " LOWER YOUR EXPECTATIONS "...<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Shawn:<P>I certainly agree that there is no shortage of cars built after the Classic Era and even today that are constructed with the philsophy, quality and prices similar to the cars CCCA accepts as classics today.<P>Some of my candidates for postwar classics might include various custom bodied Rolls and Bentleys, the Continental MkII, the MB 600, some MB 300's (like the SL or other custom bodied models), the 57-60 Cadillac Fleetwood Broughams, some exotics like Ferraris, Maseratis, Lambos, etc. How about a 53 Packard Durham Limo, I just ran across one of them the other day. Maybe those original Cobras, if you could find one that was really original.<P>There are no shortage of candidates, but we all know that. There is a shortage of energy to take the steps needed to make this jump. Certain notions will need to be cast aside and some antiques who have petrified the CCCA may have get off their high Full Classics! Only then can we "stream-line" this process! Hey, don't forget my '64 Ford Pickup. I'm getting ready to sell it....Can't you see it at Pebble, worth millions I hope. Then I can make up for those stock market losses!<P>BTW, I plan to enjoy the CCCA as long as I can, no matter where it goes. I am convinced that it's going to change eventually, time has a way of marching on, CCCA or not.

[Shawn Miller]

I tried (really hard) not to read Peters most recent diatribe, but just couldnt resist. so peter here is my response...I hope you take it in the good nature it is put forward.<P>The definition you just put forward for "antique" (t heads and the like)is in keeping with your general viewpoint, which seems to be forever stuck in the 50's, prior to the development of many cars that are considered "antique" TODAY by any reasonable standard. (Generally agreed upon as being 25 years old or older). <P>Wake up Peter!(or should we call you Rip?) 50 years have just gotten past you! HA!<P>To Buicksplus...If adding the cars you have mentioned is so vital to the ongoing success of our club, why did the Milestone Car Society fail?<P>If you 2 really want to hash this out why not start some threads yourselves with this as the subject?<P>This poor annonomous soul was simply trying to find out what cars we would consider to be the cream of the crop of todays models (I think, although he hasnt been heard from since he started this thread)<P>There are several that will be significant or collectable cars. Maybe this should be on the AACA forum versus ours, but then again they recognise anything older than 25 years if i am not mistaken, while we are obviously more selective.<P>Cant we just HAVE FUN discussing things instead of always coming back to the same tired arguements which have little to do with the questions posed? <P>Shawn Miller<BR>Obnoxious Youngun<BR>Indiana Region

[Guest]

Shawn...EXCELLENT choice of words..."collectable car"...I salute you...like that...now...we are talking...! Unfortunately, I, as I noted above, believe you are "whistling in the dark". Of COURSE the CORRECT terminolgy, if anyone CARED any more about technical accuracy...would be "COLLECTABLE CAR". But..be serious...look at the response to my posts...who CARES....!<P>People like to call their cars "classics"...and "antiques"...and they have a good point...if you 25 year old cars are to be called "antique classics"...why just limit the word "antique" or "classic" to them..? <P>After all....just LOOK at a 25 year old car today. Isn't a 23 year old car just as good a "classic" or an "antique" as a 24 year old car that will be 25 next week..?<P>Of course the 20 or 30 or even 40 year old car is typically a short stroke mono-block over head valve V-8 with a hydraulic automatic transmission, independent suspension, four wheel brakes, and a robat-welded sheet metal bodynice and stream-lined...with electric motors powering the seat, the windows...maybe even a AM-FM radio and cassette deck....<P>Of course a REAL "antique" car of the pre 1918 period is a whole different kettle of fish. But..who CARES. People today KNOW what they want, and the LAST thing they want to hear is some purist like you telling them their 18...or 23 year old car isn't just as good an "antique" as a 25 year old car.<P>Personally...I think my '98 Sears Riding Mower SHOULD be admitted to the Grand Classic. Heck...if all else fails...I could even cut the grass with it...!<P>Pete Hartmann<P>P.S.. Shawn...c'mon..man..lighten up...be honest...you are certainly better informed than the average modern car buff...do you REALLY disagree with ANY of my posts..?

[Shawn Miller]

Peter,<P>The light speed at which you responded amazes me. Are you really just constantly trolling these boards? Do you have a real job? Oh yeah, as old as you are, you must be retired, and living in the middle of a desert, there probably isnt much else to do I guess. (said in jest- not trying to [censored] off retired people or desert dwellers in general)<P>Yes, I disagree with most everything you say.<P>Well maybe not everything, but I do disagree with the way you put it, and the long winded nature of your posts. Noone likes to be called stupid, and unfortunatley that is the way your comments come off most of the time. The 8 and 12 cylinder Auburns are certainly deserving of full classic status. you need educated on this one. <P>It appears you think all the rest of us are a bunch of wannabee idiots bent on getting the model A (ford not duesenberg)certified as a full classic.<P>One must keep in mind that sarcasm doesnt read well in print. If you are being faceious (sp), it just isnt coming across well.<P>lets take this discussion off line if you want to respond, although I bet you a beer at the next grand classic, that you cant do it. You seem hell bent on always having the last word.<P>Shawn

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

It seems that some people might actually be interested in questions like "How many cars were produced that CCCA now considers to be Full Classics?" <P>To satisfy that curiosity, I set up a new page on the CCCA Web Site today. It has some really interesting figures. Jon Lee, who is currently the CCCA Classifications Chairman, wrote the article. I believe it was originally published in the New England Region's magazine. To take a look, follow this link:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.classiccarclub.org/by%20the%20number.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.classiccarclub.org/by%20the%20number.htm</A> <P>If that doesn't work, go to the CCCA Home Page and click on "Classic Numbers."

[Guest]

100 points for Peter. In my humble opinion (having been in the old car picture for 5/6 ths of my life. There have been no "Classic" or "classic" or however you want to spell it since the second world war. Having owned about 26 post war cars, and being unable to afford a "Full Classic" I still would put my 1930 Pontiac ahead of anything 1942 and newer.<BR>Happy hobbying

[Guest]

Shawn.....how could you say such a thing...ME...get the "last word"..c'mon..guy..i have been married for 37 years...by definition...that means I havnt had the last word for 37 years...!<P>PFH<P>P.S....Job...work..? Such vulgarity....shame on you for using such profanity....!<P>P.P.S. Actually, Shawn, I really am retired. I am building our "dream house" out here on our ranch in northern Arziona. I'm finishing up the roof...and it is damn hot..even here in the "high country"... so....I "come on line" at around 6:00 am Arizona time..check my E mail and messages...then work till around 8:00, when I have breakfast. Work then till around noon..stop for lunch...play with the computer while I digest my lunch..then back up on the roof. By this time, it is like an inferno up there...so..you guessed it...I will come in and screw around with the computer for a while as a "rest break".<P>So...I can see where you get the idea I live on this thing...but...brace yourself..I really do have a "life" beyond worrying about the CCCA...!<P>PFH

[Guest]

Hey Ried....<P>Note of caution...I have serious reservations about the sanity of anyone who takes me, or the issues we discuss in here... too seriously....!<P>Hard to believe...but last time I was at a car show with my '38 Packard Twelve, parked on one side was a '32 Ford "low boy" hot rod...(NOTHING on it was authentic old Ford..entire thing was modern car)...and on the other side..some kind of non-descript mid 1930's economy car.....and....MUCH to my surprise...NO unusual seismic readings were recorded by the Cal Tech Seismograph...the earth did NOT open up .....nor did the birds stop singing...(not even the one who pooped on my hood....!).<P>PFH<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Chuck,<P>I'm suprised at your response right after the original post -- "Your question should stir up some heated debate." I disagree completely!<P>:: HUGE DOSE OR SARCASM :: <BR>:: DOPEY SMURK :: <BR>:: BULLSEYE ON CHEST ::<BR> <P>Oh, and thanks for the page you created answering how many "Full Classics" were manufactured. Any educated guess on how many remain?<P>Peter<p>[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: peterg ]

[Guest]

Shawn:<P><BR>I don't know if or why the milestone car society failed, perhaps the name wasn't "classy" enough or sounded too much like millstone. If it did fail, I doubt if it was because there were no cars of the postwar era worth honoring.<P>More likely, it didn't have decent publications or events or leadership or members to run events and keep up interest in the club. These are all features the CCCA does have, and it does these things very, very well. The main reason I have been in this club for almost 25 years is because of the publications, they are excellent and informative. The pubs alone are well worth the dues, I would say.<P>I harp on the CCCA not because I think its survival depends on expanding the classics list. I agree with Peter that it will survive, just like the HCCA survives with its brass horseless carriages. But I think the CCCA will almost certainly become, with time, a smaller, older and less active club if it continues to avoid all consideration of updating the classics list. And failing to try things might make the club more attractive to younger members. <P>Our regional club has virtually no activities at all. The members are delightful, but by and large they are either too old or too busy to want to tour or show their cars or do much of anything. We have one annual pot luck dinner, and that is all. No newsletter, no tours, no nothing. This is why I am sensitive to the issue of keeping the club not just alive but thriving.<P>Just for the record, I own only one postwar collector car, a 54 Austin Healey that I have had for 30 years. All my other collector cars are pre war, and I much prefer pre-war cars. But if selectively and carefully adding a few post war cars would liven up the CCCA, I'm all for it, though it would not change my personal preferences in automobiles. Nor, I am sure, would it yours.<P>Bill.

[Shawn Miller]

Peter,<P>I drink expensive beers like Moosehead and Heinekin. that was the easiest bet ever! HA!<BR>I now know to take most of what you say as tongue in cheek. <P>Bill,<P>The Milestone Car Society was kind of based here in Indy although, there seems to be a few other factions that existed elsewhere. their list of cars was pretty good although it was somewhat exclusionary, for instance the MGA twincam was accepted but other MGA's weren't. But they you could apply to get a model or car approved just like you can in CCCA.<P>They probably did fail due to lack of ever getting a network of chapters established, or lack of regular publications. The point I am trying to make is that accepting post war cars in and of itself wont really change things. I think these cars are very different than full classics and should have a separate club like milestone. <P>Someone needs to start a club like this. I certainly don't have the time, although most of my collection fits more into this catagory than pre war.<P>Glad to see we are being civil here, finally.<P>Chuck,<P>Thanks for posting that list. It was most informative, and very helpful for this thread I think.<P>Shawn

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

Thank Jon Lee for the list. He did all the hard work. I just had to make it fit on a web page. <P>As to how many cars are left, well, that's a pretty good question. The Club directory lists 7968 (give or take) in CCCA. An educated guess is CCCA might be lucky enough to be the home for 20-25% of the Classics that still remain. We may be doing better than that, but I somehow doubt it. Maybe Jon has some more accurate conjecture on this. He?s quite good at keeping tabs on this kind of thing.<P>As for CCCA's success, I totally agree that it has survived and thrived because of our high quality events and publications. As long as we keep doing these things well, I firmly believe there will be a place for this club. It's certainly where I am trying to focus my attention as long as I am on the Board. The dates, arbitrary or not, give us lots to talk about. That's not an altogether bad thing. <P>In my three or so years as Web Master, I've learned that there is really no lack of interest in our cars. You guys are interested enough to spend part of your day in banter about these cars. You?re not alone. For everyone who posts something, there are hundreds who surf by, ?just looking.? I?ve found that with a little education, courtesy and patience, the light bulb frequently goes off, and a newcomer becomes a convert. Even when we agree to disagree, the interest is still there. <BR>

[Ed Miller]

As the CCCA membership ages and cars are sold off the market for Full Classics will get softer and the prices will drop. This means the Full Classics will become more affordable to a larger number of collectors and to a generally younger crowd. Consider that even humble Model T Fords are not being scrapped. Model T prices have more or less been stagnant for 20 years. The same maybe happening to Full Classics. They will not disappear. I doubt the CCCA is going to disappear in the foreseeable future either. I'm waiting for the price of a Duesenberg Supercharged Dual Cowl Phaeton to fall under $50,000, then I'm going to buy one!

[CBoz]

Hey Eddie -- If you wait for the price to drop below 50K, I'll have already snapped it up. C'mon guys, let's see those falling prices for Duesys! Eddie and I are waiting...(but not holding our breath).

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

If Duesenbergs get near the $50K mark, Then I'm in! I don't think that is going to happen, but I am a firm believer that history does repeat itself. Be prepared.<P>The cars will become more affordable, and new generation will appreciate and take care of them. We are only custodians of history, after all.

[Guest]

Friends:<P>I would be in line for one as well. No problem, I don't think we will see the prices dropping on the Dueseys mentioned soon, these cars are just so striking and sought after that demand is not going to fall off soon, regardless of what happens to the CCCA.<P>In reality, I think car club policies have the minimal effect on the values of collector cars. It is just a matter of who thinks they are attractive and how much folks want to pay. The Model A Dueseys are not nearly as attractive as the J and it doesn't matter what the CCCA does, the A's are going to be worth less. Even though the A might be more historically significant or whatever. Ditto for the Model 80 Pierces, they just don't have to pizazz of the later P-A's.<P>The best bargains in this hobby may well be the brass cars. I think they are so striking and the asking prices are usually very reasonable. Of course, trying to actually drive a car like that and the cost and frustration of keeping one running can be very dear.<P>What a wonderful hobby, it has so much to offer, I am delighted to grow old with it. But I do wish more young folks cared about it also, there are a few but we need more....<P>Bill.

[Guest]

There is one example where a club policy did change the value of a car. Before the CCCA accepted 1940 - 1947 Cadillac 62 series into their club, they were moderatly priced.<BR>After they became "Classics" their prices skyrocketed. I believe they were accepted into the CCCA around 1986. Why did their prices go up disproportionately when compared to other quality cars from the 1940's? There are several reasons. These cars are easy to drive, easy to maintain, and very reliable. I know this is an opinion, but most will agree they are very good looking too. Compared to other Classics, production numbers are high. For example, they made 3100 1941 Cadillac convertibles. Approx. 50,000 1941 Cadillacs were made total. When they became Classics, everyone & their brother jumped on the bandwagon to get one. Most parts are still easy to get, they cruise easily at highway speeds, and older CCCA members in their 70's & 80's who have trouble handling a large 20's or early 30's car find these cars enjoyable to drive. <P>Unfortunatley, there are people in the CCCA who will only buy a car if it is a CCCA Classic. So before the club took these cars in, there was not as large a market for them. I agree 62 series Cadillacs should be Classics, however I think it is sad that they and 1940's Packards have overrun CARavans. In general, more than 1/2 of the cars on a CARavan are from the 1940's. It wasn't that way in the 1970's You used to see exotic European makes on CASRavans thru the 1970's, but hardly anymore. I think part of the problem is that many of tose cars have since been made into 100 pointers & their owners dont want to drive them anymore. Some owners feel their car is simply worth too much to leave outside for a week on a CARavan. This is not a snob thing, just the fact that they have 200k in a car & don't want to risk it being damaged.\<BR>If a 1940's Classic gets damaged or needs repaired, parts are readily available.<BR>I heard that a repro fuel pump/brainbox for a J Duesy runs around 10 grand. Thats a lot of money sitting under the hood. I remember another guy took a newly restored J Duesy on a CARavan a few years ago & promptly blew a rod. This was the engine rebuildrs fault, but it still puts fear into some people. <BR> <BR>I guess all I'm saying here is that it's too <BR>bad we don't see more of the older cars on the CARavans. It seems like we rarely see a 20's car anymore. I liked the idea the club had a few years ago of having a tour geared towards pre 1935 cars (ie: no freeways).<BR>I don't want to discriminate against the 40's cars, and I like them & own one, but I'll have to say that when I think of a true Classic car, I think of something from the late 20's or early 30's, not a 1947 model. <BR>Just a thought