"New" Full Classic?

[fordee9r (Ron Springstead)]

I have received information that CCCA has recognized the 1923 Kissel "Gold Bug" Speedster as a Full Classic. My understanding is that, until this recent ruling, only 1925 or later automobiles were accepted by the CCCA.

If my information is correct, Albert Nippert (from upstate NY) owns a beautiful example of this "Classic" and successfully petitioned the CCCA to make this come about. Can any CCCA official shed more light on this topic?

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

Pre-1925 cars are being accepted on a "Please Apply" basis, if they are "Virtually Identical" to cars we already accept. This change was approved by a vote of the membership, and made official at the 2002 Annual Meeting.

[JLee]

Under the "Virtually Identical" by-laws change instituted this past January, a member may apply for approval of his car that he believes to be 'Virtually Identical to a 1925 Full Classic' Al Nippert did apply for inclusion of his 1923 Kissel 6-55 Speedster and it has been approved, as the ipcoming 'Bulletin' will indicate. This program has been very well received and a number of very interesting cars have been added to our Roster. The very first was a 1924 Pierce-Arrow Model 33 roadster. Since then the Board has approved:

1923 Locomobile Model 48 Sportif

1920 Locomobile Model 48 Sportif, Farnham & Nelson

1922 Duesenberg Model A Coupe, Fleetwood

Three 1924 Packard 1st Series Eight cylinder Packards

Two 1924 V-63 Cadillacs

Two 1923 and one 1922 Wills Ste Claire Model A-68

1922 Hispano Suiza H6B

1924 Bentley 3 Litre, Bamber tourer

Another 1924 Pierce-Arrow model 33

1921 and 1922 Rolls-Royce Springfield Silver Ghost and

Albert Nippert's 1923 Kissel Gold Bug speedster.

In addition, two Series have been approved: Packard 1st Series Eight cylinder

and Cadillac V-63. Both of these Series were carried over from 1924 into 1925. Other Series have been proposed and are awaiting comments from the membership. These are: Duesenberg Model A, Wills Ste Claire and Springfield built Rolls-Royce.

The Classification Committee would like to hear comments from members concerning these or other Series of cars built prior to 1925 that may fall into the category of "Virtually Identical to 1925 Full Classic Models".

Remember that the cars that expired prior to 1925, unfortunately, do not have a corresponding 1925 model with which to compare, so they won't qualify.

I'm looking forward to a lively discussion.

Jon Lee, Chairman, Classification Committee.

[fordee9r (Ron Springstead)]

Thanks to Chuck and Jon for you input.

I think this shows that the CCCA is NOT a bunch of closed minded old pharts whose definitions of "Classics" are cast in stone! It's also refreshing to see that the first two replies came from CCCA Officers/Directors. Hope more AACA Officers/Directors take note.

Thanks again!

[Guest]

WRONG !

Thank HEAVEN our current leadership in the CCCA IS giving serious consideration to their responsibility of enforcing our noble tradition of being "old farts with ideas cast in stone".

There is NOTHING remarkable about these recent "new admissions". Again, the requirements are CLEAR. They have to be VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL to cars produced during the classic era.

Yes, my neighbor thinks his two year old Sears Riding Mower is a classic. It has met ALL of the average car buff's understanding...these days....for "classic" status.....

1) There is a small tree growing up between the axles

2) His daddy had one just like it

3) He wants to sell it....

Thanks to our tradition of having an "old fart" attitude...neither a Sears Riding Mower...nor that "1943 Edsell we had...that looks just like that" (referring to the guy who watched me gassing up my '38 Packard V-12 yesterday...) nor that '32 Ford duece or low boy...nor that '53 Plymouth station wagon .....is EVER going to be in the Classic Car Club Of America...thank you very much....!

Pete Hartmann

[Buicksplus]

Pete:

I agree that none of the vehicles you mention will ever be considered classic by the CCCA. You can count on that.

But I do hope and believe that someday the "old pharts" that run the CCCA will expand the list to cars newer than 1948 and also add more fine and unusual cars within the 1925-48 "era". They will eventually see the energy created by the additions of "virtually identical" pre 1925 cars to see how constipated this club actually is.

Congrats for the pre 1925 movement (pun intended), I am delighted and welcome the new additions to the CCCA.

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

[pughs]

Buicksplus,

I regularly see you campaigning for later cars to be added to CCCA list of Approved Classics. I heartily disagree with your position for a number of reasons. My reasoning is based on the fact that I am only interested in cars from the twenties and early thirties. With this in mind, please note:

In clubs that have a wide range of years accepted, the focus gravitates to the later models. For instance, look at the Packard Club. Their website discussion forum subject base is made up mostly of questions about cars from the fifties and forties. The balance is mostly late thirties. There is seldom any real discussion of twenties subjects.

There is not much of a common frame of reference between earlier and later cars, so that it is often difficult to have in-depth discussions with owners of fifties cars as to the challenges of owning a twenties car. The technology of the post-war cars is significantly different than that of twenties cars. Parts sources and availability are significantly different.

There are many clubs that accept later cars. The AACA only requires that a car be 25 years old. The one marque clubs will take anything with their brand name on it. Why do we need to dilute the CCCA?

I believe you have sited membership growth as a factor. Is this like a health club, where they try to sign up as many members as possible just to get the money, knowing that most are really not that interested and won't make use of the membership? The Stutz and Marmon clubs probably don't have 500 members between them, yet are excellent clubs that produce wonderful events and significantly contribute to the maintenance of the history and technological information of and about their automobiles.

[Guest]

someone wrote:

"There is seldom any real discussion of twenties subjects."

and

".... with owners of fifties cars as to the challenges of owning a twenties car. The technology of the post-war cars is significantly different than that of twenties cars. Parts sources and availability are significantly different."

Who ever wrote this non-sense is talking from both sides of his mouth. HOW could there be much discussion or 20's cars if u STOP it at 1925???? There would ONLY be 5 years worth!!

as for the 2nd paragraph about "50's technology" that again is so much nonsense up thru 1954.

I have little or no respect for CCCA's 'Definitions'. ALTHO i do appreciate the concept. There r cars built after 48 (not many) and even into early 70's that certainly deserve special distinction and rival anything the CCCA call 'Classic'

[Guest]

that last post was by me PackardV8

[Guest]

Packard V8: As anew member of the CCCA, I don't have much respect for your posts ripping this club. It seems to me that you have no true understanding or knowlegde of the Classic Erea. Got a question for you who founded the custom body builder LeBaron and what connection did this firm and founder have with Packard. Lets see how much you really know about the Classic erea.

[Buicksplus]

Pughs:

I respect your position but still disagree. And as I have stated for the record, most of the collector cars I currently own are non-classics built from 1927 to 1940. I do own one postwar car (a 54 Austin Healey) that in no way would or should be a candidate for any sort of postwar Classic.

So my interests are also in prewar cars, just like yours. My reasons for pushing for expansion have less to do with membership numbers but rather with attracting new and younger members. Our local CCCA chapter here is just about dead, almost literally because the members, who are delightful folks for sure, are just too old and infirm to take on many activities with the club. So all we do is have one annual meeting, that's it. No newsletter, no driving tours, no nothing.

I just think expansion will bring some new life into the organization. I am well aware that most members are probably opposed to this, so save the lectures, I know that this is not a popular stand. But I do note that a significant percentage of members, 41% if I recall, do favor consideration of newer cars as possible Classics. So I am not alone.

BTW, just for the record, there is no comparison or much common ground between, say, a 1920 Locomobile and a 1938 Packard 12. Yet we all welcome and enjoy these "fine and unusual" automobiles into our club. That's exactly what we should do, there is strength in this sort of diversity.

All the best,

Bill

Albuquerque.

[Guest]

Buicksplus: Just for the fun of it, what cars do you think after 1948 should be considered classics. Also on the other side of the coin there are some cars on the list that should be removed.

[Buicksplus]

53 Packard:

Good question. I would, of course, start very slowly with a few exceptional cars. I just went on tour with an exquisite '53 Packard Durham limo that was built for some famous NYC industrialist. This was a custom bodied car built with all the care and quality of Packard's finest. It would make a great postwar Classic

How about the '49 (or 50, I can't remember) Coachcraft Cadillac Coupe shown this year at Pebble? How about the many beautiful Bentley and Rolls custom bodied creations of the 50's. Maybe a Mercedes 300 or two, especially the 300SL. What about Cadillac Broughams of 1957-60? Perhaps the Lincoln Continental Mk II's of 56-57. How about the Cunningham? Maybe the Ford Sportsman? 49+ Chrysler T&C, definitely.

Those are a few of my off the cuff thoughts, I don't think it's too hard to come up with candidates. And it's even easier to throw stones at these, so have at at!

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

[Guest]

Regarding Bill"s "post" about so-called "modern classics":

First of all, I do agree with one aspect of Bill's post - I do have concerns about the general "aging" of the CCCA membership.

When I was a kid in the Southern Calif. Region in the mid 1950's (technically, we were a separate club from the CCCA during those "divorced" years, but that is a whole separate, irrelevant, but funny story about conflicting personalities.....!) heck..the cars we considered "classic" were only twenty years old ! Most of the membership wasn't much older. I remember, around '57 or '58, when a certain "JB" started coming around...thinking about the few "old" guys we had...they were in their early 40's ! As a result, our meets reflected our rambunctious nature, and also reflected the fact that the driving inviornment was entirely different than today. I have no answer for the "aging" problem.

I am scared...frankly..I find myself slowing down...why just the other day, I was out in the Packard Twelve... let some punk in a modern sports car pass me, rather than chase him on these dusty cow trails we call roads out that lead to my ranch out here in northern Arizona....

Bill - READ our Club's HANDBOOK AND DIRECTORY. It is pretty clear....DILLUTING our standards is equiv. to trying to DESTROY our Club.

Your putting forth these post-war cars, as examples of what you would like to see in the Club, under-scores your fundamental mis-understanding of WHAT the Classic Car Club Of America is all about...WHY we picked the word "classic".

We COULD have picked a name for our club..such as "NICE OLD CAR CLUB OF AMERICA". ...or "NEAT OLD CAR WE'D LIKE TO SELL CAR CLUB OF AMERICA". THINK..Bill..why did we pick this obscure word "classic" ?

THINK...BILL....WHY DID WE PICK THIS OBSCURE WORD "CLASSIC"...for our Club...?

WHAT did we mean by "classic" at the time ? WE knew what we meant. SURE...we were successful far beyond our expectations in making the concept of the "classic" car a desireable one - even by the late 1950's...we were starting to get the message across..and people were starting to want to call just about ANY old car they wanted to sell..a classic.

But selling used cars..is NOT what we are about within the context of this Club! The concept of the "classic", as it was defined in those days, was the "largest, most powerful..most elegant" cars of the day. The TRUE classic REEKS with the "arrogant elegance" of the highest classes. SURE that is offensive and puts off the average guy with the average car. But that IS the kind of car we, again, WITHIN the context of THIS particular Club, want to high-light.

Your selecting stream-lined modern cars, with modern technology, illustrates a fundamental (disregard? Lack of understanding) of what things were like during the classic era. Can there by any doubt, that your example of a '49 Cad, with its modern stream-lining, short stroke V-8 engine and high gearing, can run CIRCLES around a '30 Cadillac Empress Imperial V-16 Town Car..? Can there be any doubt that they represent two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT worlds.. in both culture...and technology.

My understanding is that the "brass" era favored by the Horseless Carriage Club Of America, continues to attract interest, and they continue in SOME of their Regions to have active, interesting meets. Of COURSE some of the Regions are over-weight with older farts who cant get their cars, much less anything else..."up"......

I have no answer for this. NEITHER DO YOU. If you like the post war cars you described so much..ENJOY them. But they have NO place in the CCCA, so long as there is an understanding of the concept of "classic" as defined by people who understand what it is all about.

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Buicksplus:

Thank you for the clarification and I can sympathize with you. The car hobby is certainly more fun with events to participate in and people to talk old cars with. If the CCCA allowed 50's, 60's, and 70's cars though, as I said before, I think that the focus would be on the later cars. You would then find yourself touring with these later cars. We both know that driving a 1927 Whizzix on a tour with a 1969 Super Tourer will result in frustration all the way around. The '27 won't be able to keep up with the '69. The late model owner will not enjoy going 50 MPH and the early car owner will be straining to go 50 MPH. Rather than trying to force a situation to provide the activities you want to be involved in by broadening the club, maybe it would be better to find another club, such as AACA, that already has this very situation, both early and late cars, that has events in your area. I, myself, belong to several clubs in order to have both the events as well as the technical support needed for my cars. Of course, you could always move here to Los Angeles. There is ALWAYS some car thing going on.

Steve Pugh

[Ed Miller]

Solution: Start a new car club. For those who want snob appeal call it the Super Classic Car Club of the Universe. For those who want not merely luxury cars but bread and butter cars you'll be able to rub elbows with those possessing the cars you crave for. As to those with late model cars that have nothing to do with the '20s and '30s will be able to once and for all have your place in the sun.

Post script: Allow hot rods and modifieds. They truly crave to be legitimized.

Now go away and let those who enjoy pre war luxury cars their small niche called CCCA...or join us, even if you don't own one.

[Buicksplus]

Friends:

I can see that some of you are not too supportive of my ideas. Fine, but I ask you the following: Why does CCCA bother to survey its members about what directions the club should go in the future? Seems to me you all know what the direction should be, so why bother with polling the membership or entertaining any possibility of change for the future.

Suggest you look at the survey on CCCA's site. Different folks will naturally interpret this survey differently, but I see a significant number of members that want to see some changes. Not a majority but more than a few radicals. And I think the enthusuasm I hear for the pre 1925 addition is indicative. Please note the survey indicated only 43% of the club favored that modification to our rules. Yet, today, most seem to support it. I know I do.

Please spare me the usual diatribes about admitting lawnmowers, "streamlined" cars, street rods, or Classic '57 Chevies, they are irrelevant and getting rather tiring.

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

[Guest]

Bill...we need to get together over a beer and talk this out. You STILL dont "get it"...this most recent "change"...is NOT a CHANGE AT ALL..! Again...read our Club's publications...it is all laid out for you...the cars that are being admitted now...MUST BE IDENTICAL to those already with "classic" status. This is hardly a justification for admitting cars that our Club was NOT designed for !

Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Well put, Buickplus. I agree very much with the examples you gave of truly exceptional post-1948 cars. Such cars just seem to fit better with the CCCA than the Milestone Club or AACA. After all, the rich and famous did buy cars after '48!

But, hey, if the CCCA wants to limit itself to pre-war Classics, by all means do so. <span style="font-style: italic">Just don't tell us there weren't any Classics built after that time. </span> It doesn't matter how many times Pete types it, I have already pointed out to him in an earlier thread how his conveniently limited definition of "Classic" is not only inconsistent with the actual cars in the CCCA list, but with dictionaries concurrent with the start of the CCCA. Trying to "Dodge" ( )the issue with discussion of lawn tractors -- or patronizing comments about my mom's Plymouth Dusters and Model As for that matter -- is simply disingenuous.

[CBoz]

Sorry, missed my login again (cleared out cookies due to virus). The above message in agreement with BuickPlus was mine.

[JLee]

This has become a very interesting discussion. Many good points have been made, many of which have been discussed before. I, personally, understand the concern for our aging membership, and I'm not convinced that there is much to be done about it. The slow growth in younger membership is likely partly due to the cost of ownership, perceived or otherwise, of some of the spectacular cars associated with our Club. Even though we can all come up with excellent examples of inexpensive Classic cars, none of them are Duesenberg Derham Toursters or Cadillac V-16 roadsters, or even 1938 Packard 12's. The list of possible post '48 candidates is similarly cost prohibitive for younger hobbyists. They are all fine cars and each and every one is listed with the Milestone Car Society. Adding these cars to the CCCA Approved list will not, in my opinion, add any appreciable member base to the Club. The cars added would likely be from those members already involved, again with the average age in excess of usual retirement age.

Remember that the CCCA is concerned with an Era in history while focusing on the cars from that era. An editorial in the very first "Classic Car" of January 1953 states the case in interesting terms, "The era marked the high point in the evolution of the automobile, for the Classic was produced at the peak period of real natural wealth, in a day when neither price nor priority was an effective barrier to the use of the best materials in the quantities optimum for the use intended. Against this background there emerged a class of motor car that combined the elements of pure luxury and a sports spirit with a high degree of utility."

In an historical sense, this era began to dissapear with the advent of the depression, but as with much else in our history, the absolute change was gradual. The deliniation between a 1928 Chevrolet and a 1928 Packard was much sharper than that between a 1941 Chevrolet and a 1941 Packard. Less than the dimunition of the Packard was the vast improvement of the lower priced cars. Combine that with a major change in lifestyles brought about by the events of December 7, 1941 and the "Classic Era", as we appreciate it, drew to a close. Again, there were holdover cars and styles. A Club Policy statement of September 9,1986 puts it this way, "Classic status for post-World war II cars up to and including 1948 models will be considered only for cars that are representative of the Pre-War Classic era." If the post-war car is not of the same school of design, merchandising position, or comparable quality as the Pre-War counterpart, it does not fit into our currently published guidelines.

As an early member of the Milestone Car Society, I saw what happened in that club when the listing of accepted cars was diluted. The original concept was similar to that of the CCCA but choosing the era of 1945 through 1964. The significance of the era from the end of WWII through the beginning of the Lyndon Johnson era has a lot of meaning for those of us living during that time. Expansion of the guidelines began with a move to 1967 and then through 1972. The listing of cars increased along with the expansion in years and I, along with many others, apparently lost interest. I must apologize for picking on the MCS, as I understand the club is currently on good footing.

It's a measure of the standing and influence of our Club that owners of cars not considered as Classic wish to be included while few owners of Packard V-12's ask to be judged at Model A Restorer's Club events.

While about 1.3 million Classic cars were built in the U.S. from 1925 through 1948, about 58.7 million non-classic cars were produced in the U.S. in that same period. Add to that the other millions built since 1948, many of which are very interesting, collectible and valuable and one can see why the AACA has such an important role and maybe why the CCCA along with clubs such as the HCCA will always remain smaller, niche organizations.

Jon Lee

[Ed Miller]

Well said, JDLEE.

[Shawn Miller]

Buicksplus,

Sorry to hear you are in a dead region. As a young member of an extremely active region, luckily I don't have the same problem as you. In fact, i have a tuff time keeping up with everything the older folks want to do in my region since I am still actively involved in my career and family life, and most of them are retired. HA!

As the editor, I frequently have to expand our monthly newsletter from 8 to 12 pages due to all the stuff being covered and the numerous contributions. I do live in Indiana, sort of the "fertile cresent" of the auto world prior to WW2, though, so there is always something auto related happening here.

Rather than expand the list of cars we accept, why not take the bull by the horns and volunteer to get on the board, specifically the activities committee, and get the ball rolling again. While the older members in your region may have lost the spark to organize events, I bet they will attend them if someone else does the groundwork. A region without events and newsletters definitely needs fixing. you wont be able to retain new members without these 2 key ingredients.

I like to drive my cars alot and have been known to take them to cruise ins and other grass roots car shows, which has also resulted in new younger members joining our region. Try driving a Cord to a hot rod show, it becomes the center of attention real fast.

The torch is being passed to our generation here. If we don't step up the club will falter. The only reason the club is as strong as it is, is because lots of dedicated and energetic guys worked hard in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's. etc.

Now it is our turn to put some time in.

just a few thoughts.

Shawn miller

Asst Director/Editor

Indiana Region

[Buicksplus]

Shawn:

You are a treasure, and the CCCA is very fortunate to have such enthusuastic folks in the club and directing the Indiana region.

Part of the reason I do harp on the CCCA is because I am a very active car club person. I am president of our VMCCA chapter here in NM and also volunteered recently to be VMCCA Director of its Southwest Region. I am a great supporter of car clubs and old car touring, I've been on a bunch of Glidden tours and my wife and I usually take at least two old car tours each year. We love to get our cars out and show them, drive them and fix them. I am also a member of the Buick Club, the CLC Club, the Austin Healey Club, and, of course, the CCCA. I have been a member of CCCA for almost 25 years, I joined because I had a wonderful Buick Limited. I took it often on tours and local events with the CCCA.

Since I sold that car, I have remained in the CCCA because I like the publications. But I have taken a hard stand on NOT participating in any CCCA events or volunteering for office because I don't currently own a recognized classic. I simply don't have enough "old car time" to half participate with a car club. I know I could take some of my "borderline" classics to local events (I do have two "common man" post 1933 LaSalles) but out of principle, I will not do it.

So yeah (this is for Peter), I do have a vested interest in seeing CCCA expand it's list, I am the type of person that might participate more and add some energy to our local region anyway. I don't think recognizing more LaSalles, for example, will in any way increase their value, but doing so may increase the value of the CCCA -- it could bring in more members in my situation.

But I can see from this forum that those with the "traditional" classics are just too insecure to deal with that sort of thing. They see the CCCA as a fortress with massive hords out there clamoring to bask in the glory of being near a great "Classic" car. And all must be done to make sure too much automotive rif raf doesn't get in and "dilute" the club. I think this is a very distructive attitude, but that is the attitude that dominates this forum.

It's not about cars, really, it is about people. But I am encouraged by folks like you, Shawn, I know that the CCCA will survive in some form or another regardless of what I think or do.

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

[Guest]

horse-feathers !

Pete Hartmann

[CBoz]

JDLEE -

Thank you for your comments. They are very well-reasoned, and I must say that they make sense. Keeping the CCCA focused on outstanding cars between 1925 & WWII may be a "niche", but it's a nice one to be in . For all the reasons you stated, it may be hard to put in place the equivalent of the CCCA for after 1948; the gap between low-end and high-end cars closed up too much, leaving too few examples of truly unique automobiles.

With regard to the aging factor of the CCCA, I wouldn't worry. It may be true that the younger generations are not as mechanically inclined, but from my perspective that's because new car technology has outstripped the abilities and tools of most individuals. However (and I'm a great example), give them a car that can be *worked* on, and I'm sure they'll get hooked. Besides, the cars will be around longer than us -- I'm positive someone will eventually take car of them.

[Shawn Miller]

Buicksplus,

thanks for your kind words i will take them as non sarcastic!

At times I agree with you as far as era cars go that are close to being full classics but aren't for whatever reason. Not being an expert on 41 cadillacs (I just got mine 2 months ago -give me time), I was not real certain what the big difference was between the 61 and 62 series when seeing them next to each other at a motor muster we went to 2 weeks ago. If we didnt have these things to discuss intelligently where would we be?

It sounds like you are a real active contributory guy, so here's hoping you get another car that you will feel comfortable participating in CCCA events with. I for one would love to see your laSalles at a regional event, or even in the parking lot at a grand classic. I usually spend lots of time in the parking lot of every event i go to. Many members drive other special interest cars at times to such events. Heck many even come in modern cars! I used to feel as you do, and didnt participate much until I got a Full Classic, and boy do I regret that. I missed getting to know some real great people, that i only hear stories about now, for obvious reasons.

One great thing about our national club you hit on the head...we have excellent publications.

Thanks really for your thoughtful and challenging posts. we need these discussions in this forum. Thats the great thing about the internet. Who knows maybe we will meet someday at hershey or something and have some common ground already established via this forum.

Shawn Miller

Asst Director

Indiana Region

[Ed Miller]

"Insecure?" Buickplus, you believe I feel insecure and that's the reason I don't want none luxury cars in the CCCA? I have and had quite a few cars that are Classics and non-Classics, but I prefer the Classics, as defined by the CCCA. I don't care to see a row of small T-Birds at a CCCA meet. And I used to own one and enjoyed it. Nor do I want to see a Continental MkII, which I also owned. Ad infinitum. I am interested in Pre War luxury cars. Call Mustangs and Plymouths and one off 1950's Packards Classics if that makes you happy. But I am not interested in those eras and quality of car (for example a 1930 Ford Model A). Therefore I belong to a Club that is about pre war luxury cars. You have your clubs for the other cars. Why do you and others whine and complain that CCCA doesn't accept these cars is beyond me. You have plenty of clubs to cater to your interests. But there is only one Club that caters to pre luxury cars...The CCCA. Insecurity, I guess you're right. If you and others do to the CCCA what you want, there will be no club that deals exclusively with the cars I care most about. That does concern me. And no, I am not interested in being in a field or on a tour with 300 non Classics and 3 or 4 Classics.

[Guest]

Buick Plus and Shawn, and some others who frequent this 'chat', have a good argument for bringing in more Buicks, La Salles, various post-war cars and the like.

That argument is based, in part, on the inconsistancies in our "Classification" policy down thru the years. Interestingly, the first "dillution" of our "Classicication standards" that supports their argument, came early in our Club's history. This, of course, was the admission of the Lincoln Continental to "classic" status.

What is interesting about the admission of the Lincoln Continental, and the dispute surrounding it, was the fierce passion on both sides, coming so early in our Club's history. Almost FIFTY years later...the arguments havnt changed !

Those who sought the admission of these cars, clearly were driven by the desirability of calling their cars "classics". Those who were opposed, felt this "deviation" was going to cause dillution and trouble down thru the years....were they ever RIGHT!

At the time of the formation of the CCCA, there was already an active car hobby movement, BUT...the largest, most elegant luxury cars we started to call "classics", were subjects of ridicule, valueless, and were often destroyed just for the sheer mean spirited fun of it ( I personally saw this happen time and time again).

Just think - the CLASSIC CAR CLUB OF AMERICA takes this little used word "classic"...selects it as the name for our Club, brings it to the attention of the automotive buff community to try and under-score that big old super-luxury cars are worth saving, and literally within MONTHS of our formation, we have made the idea of the word "classic" so valuable, that people are FIGHTING to get their cars in ! We we ever RIGHT in supporting this Club...just LOOK how we took a little used word, and made it so desirable that today, people just can't control themselves..they feel a COMPULSION to use it on just about EVERYTHING they like ( or are trying to sell....!).

Of course if you have a "classical" education, and know something about art and architecture, you know it is absurd to call a car design of the "moderne" or stream-lined school of thought... like the Linconl Continental, a "classic" .

Is it a good car ? Of course ! Is it a pretty car ? Of course ! Was it a land-mark in automobile design? Of course...! But its design theory was a a dramatic step AWAY from the angular "form follows function"....a REPUDIATION of the concept of "classic" design.

We know what happened...those who felt raw membership numbers were important...those who knew this would bump up the price of the cars they wanted to sell...won.

Within a few short years, we had people with Cadillac V-8's such as the georgeous Fleetwoods, Buicks, etc. clamoring to get in, and they correctly pointed out the absurdity of keeping them out, if the Connies were "in".

Detroit wasn't far behind... soon they were "tacking on" this suddenly desirable word to all manner of mass produced vehicles.... "classic" Ramblers, "classic" Chevrolet trucks....c'mon....!

I personally owned a '41 Cadillac 60 Special, and although I am a dedicated Packard fanatic, I would have to admit if it were 1941...and I was looking for a new car, I would go for the Caddy !

Of COURSE those types of Caddys were superior in just about EVERY way (excpt in elegance....c'mon..guys..compare late '30's or early '40's Caddy 60 Special to a "real" classic Caddy, such as a '30 Cad. V-16 Empress Imperial Town Car....). Technology keeps evolving. My little Toyota will run circles around my Packard V-12 (well...at lower speeds....!)

In a past "post", I pointed out that when the 60 Special Caddys were first proposed, an owner of one wrote an impassioned letter to "National", explaining why, as much as he loved the "60 Special" series, to call it a "classic" was an absurdity beyond belief, and a statement that we were losing the understanding of what the concept of "classic" is.

It would be hard to find an auto buff today, who is not overwhelmed by the awesome power, elegance...and let's face it...SHEER ARROGANCE that the "real" classics represented. And, bottom line...that IS the problem, which is not resolveable. I am sure those of you who want the word "classic" attached to some car YOU can afford, feel the same way - you just want to use the word! There IS no argument against you. You WON !

Just be patient ! We BOTH know you are "full of it"...but...us older folks will eventually be gone. And with us, will disappear the smirks of those of us who remember WHY this club was formed in the first place, and know how "full of it" you are....Be patient !

Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

When the CCCA founded here on the east coast back in the 50's what cars where considered to be classics. Was there an offical list of what was consider a classic? Chuck if you know please list them.

[Guest]

For PACK 53

The answer to your question..is ..yes...from our earliest days...you will find we had a HANDBOOK OF RULES ( which later evolved into our HANDBOOK AND DIRECTORY ) which "spelled out" which cars were "classics" as we understood the meaning of the term in those days. Perhaps the next time Chuck is at Club Headquarters...he can photocopy the "list of approved classics" from one of the early rule books...and mail or fax it to you.

Pete Hartmann

[fordee9r (Ron Springstead)]

When I started this thread, it was as a nonmember of the CCCA looking for information. Until recently, my impression of the CCCA was a bunch of old pharts who formed a club for limited production, high powered, luxury cars built between 1925 and 1948. Since I didn't own a car that met these qualifications and I had no desire to belong to a club ruled by the arbitrary decisions of a few, I never pursued membership.

When I was informed that a member could petition the CCCA to include other cars to be considered "Classics", it changed my idea that this club was ruled by closed minded individuals. I do find it interesting that members can petition to include certain models produced before 1925 but apparently there are no provisions for models after 1948.

In some of the posts to this thread I see that there are some very vocal, closed minded individuals who think that only the individual models originally selected as "Classics" by the CCCA are genuine. Could it be that your founding fathers could have missed some significant examples when they composed their original list?

No, I don't think there is such a thing as a "Classic" '57 Chevy, but there are some other autos out there that could easily considered as "Classics"! I am not a proponent of easing the standards so that more younger people will be attracted to our various clubs, but I do think that there are several models being overlooked as "Classics".

[Guest]

Fordee...your dispute is really not with the original members of the CCCA from its early days. We did NOT invent the word "classic" ! Again, when the Club was formed, the word "classic" was not in regular use. It was a "refined" word, a "word of art" to describe...the most elegant..the best..."something unique..of FIRST rank...representing the HIGHEST standard of excellence.

The concept of "classicism" was certainly not a concept anyone in the car hobby thought of until the founders of the CCCA came along. Why did they pick this word ? Again...because it seemed "natural" for the particular kind of car we felt was worth preserving.

I am sure to you younger people, you simply can not comprehend a time and place when our culture LAUGHED at people who thought the biggest, most elegant luxury cars of the late 20's thru early 40's were good for anything but target practice.

Since the word "classic", in its traditional sense, was a "word of art", it was a "natural" for us...to describe our cars that had "classic" lines, meaning..angular, where the shape of a hood, headlight...etc...was defined by its function..("classic"...= form follows function"). Compare a '31 Cadillac Empress Imperial V-16 Town Car with a 1941 Cadillac. It was clear to us, in the early years of the Club, that the '41 car was of a later, different, and irrelevant design theory, and thus was NOT a classic.

As I noted in other posts, literally within a few short months of our founding..we were sucessful beyond our comprehension at the time, in making the idea of a "classic car" something worth-while. Thus, I explained...to the people who complain about our inconsistancies.....we got "pressured" to let all these totally inappropriate cars in.

Again, the design theory by which the FUNCTION of a part no longer dictates its shape,...that is a LATER school of design called "moderne"...or STREAM LINED.

Again..I DO understand where you are coming from. You LIKE the word "classic"...you LIKE the prestiege it connotates, and you dont CARE what the technical definitions were. Since you LIKE the word "classic" (and we who are those "old timers...feel a special pride that so many people finally "caught on" to the idea that the concept of classicism is worth-while") why not use it ? Why do YOU care what the CCCA does ? LOOK around you. NO ONE CARES ! I DARE you to find a modern car hobbyist magazine that DOSNT use the word "classic" in at least 2/3rd of its pages ! It has become such a figure of speech...that many people are simply not capable of forming a sentence describing their used car, without prefacing it with the word "classic".

So...STOP complaining about our silly old club...and ENJOY yourself. USE the word "classic" to your heart's content ! Everybody else does ! But..please...dont try and insult our intelligence by offering us some modern stream-lined car...for consideration as a "classic". Because no matter how much you enjoy using the word...no matter how loudly you scream the word "classic" at a modern car...it will ALWAYS be a modern car !

At some point in time, perhaps we should differentiate our Club from the rest of the old car hobby...by changing our name to the NON CLASSIC CAR CLUB OF AMERICA....frankly..the sooner the better...because if all these people think so many post-war cars are "classic"...I do NOT want my car confused with them!

Pete Hartmann ("Old Phart CCCA member )

Big Springs, AZ

[fordee9r (Ron Springstead)]

Hey Pete old boy... it seems that once again you miss the point behind my, and others', posts! First of all, I don't have any dispute with the CCCA or its members. When I became involved in this hobby some twenty years ago, the term "classic" was not tossed around as loosely as it is today. I quickly learned that Classics were only those cars recognized as such by the CCCA and I have never disputed that position. As a matter of fact, I like the idea of specifying certain years for consideration rather than the idea of any car, 25 years and older, being considered an antique, collectable or any other adjective (other than classic) you want to use. Just think, a 1977 Toyota Corolla is accepted on AACA show fields!

Since I never became a CCCA member, I never memorized just which makes and models were considered Full Classics and never felt a need to. I coexisted in this hobby with you CCCA guys with the understanding that you have a list somewhere that lists the acceptable makes and models and that list was "cast in stone". It was only recently that I learned that this list was not "cast in stone" and, indeed, it is possible to have other makes and models added to this list. Is this good or bad for the CCCA? I don't know and that's for your members to decide.

My only comment about that was it is interesting that certain models before 1925 may be considered but there doesn't seem to be any provision for post 1948 cars. Since I am not an expert on all things automotive like you are, I could very well be very off base. My thought was that if that original list missed naming certain pre 1925 models as Full Classics, isn't it possible that your founding fathers missed some post 1948 models that should have been on that list as well? Again, this is up to your members to decide.

Whatever the outcome, I will respect the decision of the CCCA and will only refer to those accepted autos as classics. Just my small part that I can contribute to this era of "Classic '57 Chevies"!

[pughs]

Actually, when you think about, the cars up to 1948 ARE the post-1942 cars to those originally selected by the CCCA, much as the pre-1925 cars are to the 1925 cars. The 1946-48 designs were suppose to be continuations of the 1942 model year that was cut short by the war. If you accept that proposition then post-1948 cars would actually be post-post-1942 cars.

Steve Pugh

[Guest]

Hey Steve....how the heck are you...what's doing in my old region..? Now...about those post post post post '48 cars...what's so wrong about my Toyoa Corolla...it's GOT to be a classic...after all 1) I want to sell it......2) it has VERY nice weeds started to come up thru the floor boards....and 3) it has FOUR WHEELS....! Say "hello" to BobbieDine for me....( heh heh.....! )

( private joke....! )

Pete Hartmann

[fordee9r (Ron Springstead)]

Hey Pete,

Thanks for once again ignoring the topic of this thread! Also, I'm sure that all of us really enjoy your inane comments about: 1) I want to sell it, 2) Something is growing through the floorboards, etc., etc.

There are times that your remarks show signs of extensive knowledge of this old car hobby and other times your remarks are just plain obnoxious and confrontational.

Why not forget the venom and just inject your knowledge without going out of your way to tick someone off?

Just curious...

[Guest]

Fordee....why are you being so wishy-washy..c'mon...stand by your position...this is a free country....admit it...you LIKE the word "classic"....who is to say you cant call whatever used car you like a "classic"...ENJOY !

But no matter how badly you want the CCCA to call whatever it is you want to be a "classic"...a "classic"...it has to go thru our process. Now...THERE..you raise an interesting point in your question...because your question DOES expose our process as occasionaly inconsistant. In that...we agree.

As I have noted elsewhere, the INconsistancies began early on in our Club's history. These INconsistancies, involving either "lessor" cars, and/or cars that are too "modern" in their "school of design" to be "classic cars" within the original meaning of the word....were opposed then and now by people like me, for reasons previously stated.

My own personal "hunch" is...the current Board is a bit embarssed about this, and is NOT about to repeat those occasional mistakes of prior Classification Committe recomendations. Again, note how FIRM and SPECIFIC we were about admitting pre-1925 cars. THIS time, the Board appropriately specified that ONLY if the car is IDENTICAL to cars made during the "classic" era, could "come in" under this process. I seriously doubt if anyone is going to get very far with our current management with an argument something like this..."well...a '48 Packard Custom ...under the skin..is the same car as the '47 Custom Clipper....and you let in the '47 Custom Clipper...etc...etc....

By the time World War Two came around...our culture changed...our technology evolved...so many changes, the clearly we were in a new and different era than the era that bred the big engined super luxury cars our Club was originally formed to preserve.

Let me give you an example...say..in your "mind's eye"...picture a '33 Cadillac V-16 Town car...parked alongside a '53 Cadillac 60 Special Fleetwood sedan...both cars being "fully equipped". That '53 Caddy, with its 3.08 rear axle, with its modern short-stroke V-8 and "insert" type connecting rod bearings, could cruise all day long at 80 mph in the Mojave Desert with the air conditioning on...who would deny it would be more "driveable" than the pre-war REAL classic.

But that's the problem...you have GOT to get it out of your head that the later cars are relevant to the classic era. They aren't. Their design...the culture they were marketed for...EVERYTHING about them...is a world away from the "classic" era. Liking them (which I most certainly do...ENJOYING their superior "driveability" (which I certianly have.) all of these things...are IRRELEVANT to what THIS particular Club was formed for., and that process, down thru the years....

FORGET about this Club if you dont like its practices...or...be patient..till those of us who bother you with our precise use of language....are gone from the scene. Either way...WHY IN HECK WORRY ABOUT IT..?

Pete Hartmann

[fordee9r (Ron Springstead)]

Hey Pete...

Give me a break! If you think that I'm in love with the term "Classic" so that I can have my personal cars viewed in a different light, you're nuts! For your information, my reason for starting this thread is that I'm writing an article for my AACA Region's newsletter about one of our members having his car accepted by the CCCA as a "new" Full Classic.

For some reason, I wanted accurate information about the CCCA before I composed the article. Chuck and Jon posted the factual background that I needed but you, and others, have offered something that I didn't expect... the passion that some of you have for upholding the original intentions of the CCCA founding fathers!

As I stated before, I am not a CCCA member and my limited knowledge of your club consisted of the fact that you don't refer to an old car as a Classic unless it is recognized as such by the CCCA. I didn't know all the makes and models that were accepted but I had enough common sense to realize that there are no "Classic '57 Chevies" out there.

Looking back at your posts, I realize that I may have judged you wrongly. If this is the case, I apologize. If my current assumption is correct, the change to "Virtually Identical" was not too popular with you and what I took for venom from you was actually passion for preserving the founding principles of the CCCA. If I am wrong again, please correct me.

[1937hd45]

Just read this post for the first time and thought I'd throw in my two cents worth of opinion. To the directors of the CCCA and members, DO NOT allow any "new" post 1948 cars into your club. The backdating of 1920's cars is fine. I've never understood the desire to cheapen your club by letting in mass produced vehicles, and that somehow this will allow "younger" members to enjoy CCCA membership.