I stand corrected about the demise of Locomobile. My apologies.<P>The phrase "Virtually Identical" means just what it says. If there were no difference from the 1925 model, either body or chassis, then the car would be accepted. In all likelihood, cars with very minor differences would also be accepted. In the case of custom coachwork, if a recognized coachbuilder did it during the appropriate era (no 1990 creations of something that never was) and the chassis is identical to the 1925 version, then it probably would be accepted regardless of the body. In any case, these are questions that the CCCA Classification Committee will have to decide, just like they do with cars built within the already accepted dates of 1925-48. The process will be the same, and in the case of custom coachwork, each car submitted will have to stand on its own merit.<P>It is reasonable to assume that if there were a number of pre-1925 "virtually identical" cars with very similar custom bodies, eventually they would all be admitted as a group. For now, each car must apply individually. The good news is, now you can do it.<p>[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Chuck Conrad ]

I was hoping this would begin more discussion and so it has. The official wording change in the "purpose of the Club" section of the by-laws is this: "...fine or unusual foreign or domestic motor cars built between and including the years 1925 and 1948, BUT INCLUDING CARS BUILT BEFORE 1925 THAT ARE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO 1925 FULL CLASSICS (tm)..." I have added the capitalization where the new wording has been inserted. <BR> The base line for comparison will be currently accepted 1925 Full Classic cars. If you have a pre-1925 car that is virtually identical to a 1925 model in chassis and body componentry and design, such as a V-63 Cadillac or a 1st series Packard Eight, then I would suggest that these will be the "easy" ones. Until the Classification Committee learns more of the specifics of each car and model the cars will be examined on an individual application basis. As we learn more, there will likely be some series, maybe like Duesenbergs from 1922 or American Rolls-Royce from around the same time, that will be accepted as complete series. But, to begin, the Committee will proceed slowly and cautiously...as usual. Custom coachwork on an otherwise virtually identical Chassis is an area we are discussing, but there is a good liklihood of acceptance of such cars. You mentioned an interesting example with the Locomobile, and I don't think I have a good answer for you...yet. I hope we get some applications for early Locomobiles as the cars did remain pretty much unchanged from 1917 through the end in 1929. Probably the two most serious changes were four wheel brakes and Balloon tires. Even a Sportif tourer from the late 20's still looks almost like the 1917 example! There will undoubtedly be many criteria that will decide what is and what is not, as we have discussed the importance of not letting any one single feature decide the acceptance of a specific car.<BR>Let me stress that "laddering" isn't going to make it. In other words, stating that this 1919 car is almost like the 1920 model which is pretty much the same as the '21 which is nearly the same as a '22, etc, all the way to 1925, is not what the intent of "Virtually Identical" Each proposed car will be compared directly to its currently accepted 1925 counterpart. That does mean that Packard Twin Six, Pierce 66, Lafayette, or a single cylinder Cadillac still won't qualify.<BR>I would sincerely like to hear more about what some of the criteria might be in your opinion, based on the basic outlines already laid out.<BR>One more thing on the expansion of models during the Classic era or the acceptance of cars AFTER 1948. The Classic Car Club is about the very finest automobiles built during an era when real wealth was more conspicuous, and a workman's time was worth much less than it was after WWII. There have been some very fine cars built since that time. I have some in my garage. But they are not the same as those built for a "cost-be-damned" clientelle in that period we call the Classic Era. <BR>Obviously most of the 650,000 cars I mentioned are long gone, but the point is that those three different makes represented in that number accounted for HALF as many cars as built by THIRTY NINE manufacturers in the US in that 20 production year period 1925 through 1948, and those three did it in EIGHT YEARS. <BR>Is the Classic Car Club of America exclusive? When it comes to people, NO. When it come to the cars, absolutely yes. <BR>When some of my friends rail at me that their favorite car is not a Full Classic, I tease them with this question: Why is it that the owners of inexpensive mas produced cars all want them recognized as Full Classics and none of the V-16 Cadillac owners want their cars accepted by the Model A Ford Club? I'll let you figure the answer. I look forward to more discussion.<BR>Jon Lee

Should the CCCA "wake up" regarding its definition of what constitutes a "true classic"....?<P>Or should the people who do not understand why we got together originally as a club...do the "waking up".<P>On second thought..I have a better idea. Let's start a NEW club called the NON CLASSIC CAR CLUB OF AMERICA. The people with the '57 Chevies...the Edsel station wagons, and so on, can continue to call their cars "classic" . ( Let's face it..we in the Classic Car Club Of America have made the term "classic" so desirable...that everyone who has some old piece of crap they want to "un-load"...insists it is a "classic".<P>SURE a "true classic" is by definition "arrogant". We got together in this club to celebrate something very unusual...the "BEST OF THE BEST" from a PARTICULAR ERA. For those of you who have had any serious education in the arts, you know the word "classic" refers to a particular design theory, meaning 'form follows funciton'. The "classic" school of thought in automotive design pretty much ended with the onset of stream-lining in the early 1940's. To call a "stream-lined" or "art deco" car a "classic" is to simply admit one's ignorance (and..no doubt admit ones jealousy and greed....!<P>The 1938 Fortune Magazine Advertisiement of my own particular car ( Packard Twelve Formal Sedan ) says it well.." there is no substitute for size, weight, and power when it comes to automotive satisfiacton, or, for that matter,...for reflecting the dignity of one's social position". <P>An article in a late 1960's CLASSIC CAR MAGAZINE, written by a fellow member with a 1951 Cadillac 60 Special, sums it up. He was arguing AGAINST including this car within the acceptability list of this particular club. As he correctly points out, our Club ERRED when it allowed this very fine car into our Club's list. Of COURSE the '41 Cadillac Fleetwood is a fine, high quality high performance car. But it lacks one essential element...its DESIGN was too modern. <P>The argument that we have to dillute our definition or shrink in size, and thus fail, is nonsence. We have FIVE times the membership we did in the 1960's. So WHAT. Let's face it. In THIS particular Club, we revel in the SUPERIOR, the "best of the best". Broadening our definitions dilutes our purpose, sacrificing it for raw memership numbers.<P>LEAVE OUR DEFINITION ALONE. We are NOT a Club for everyone !<P>Pete Hartmann [img]images/icons/shocked.gif" border="0[/img]

Best thread to-date here in the CCCA forum. COOL!<p>[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: peterg ]

As usual Peter H, I agree with you. I belong to the CCCA because I am interested in an automotive era (i.e. the Classic Car Era). If there are just a few people interested in this era or many, so be it. But I am not interested in expanding into other eras. If anything, I would prefer the CCCA become more exclusive, ergo more representative of the Classic Car Era and exclude all post WWII autos and some of the late pre WWII era cars. Also some of the marginal makes and models should be axed also. If membership drops so be it. There are plenty of clubs that cater to everything which eventually means nothing. I prefer quality over quantity.

I have followed this discussion with great interest. As a newcomer to the "Classic Car" arena, having owned a 1929 Hudson for all of six months, I posted to this discussion topic earlier mostly because I was puzzled why the Club recognized certain models of the 1929 Hudson, but not others, and no Hudsons of other years, even though other late '20s Hudsons share all of the attributes of the '29 long-body (Series L) cars that have been formally recognized by the Club as "Full Classics." <P>If I can summarize the points of discussion as I have seen them here, the Club is confronted with three separate issues:<BR>1. Should the Club admit early-vintage cars that are "substantially identical" to cars that have already been approved? <BR>2. Should the Club significantly expand the range of Full Classics to include more recent years?<BR>3. Should the Club embrace additional cars within its established "Classic Era" timeframe? (This is a generalization of the issues I raised previously with respect to Series R (short wheel base) 1929 Hudsons.) <P>On the first point, I understand that the membership has spoken in favor of the expansion to earlier kin of accepted models.<P>On the second point. I am far too new to the old-car fraternity to speak coherently. <P>On the third point, I have a modest suggestion: Establish and publish firm criteria for qualification of a given model as a Full Classic. Then admit any Make/Model/Year vehicle that qualifies. Under the system I envision, the Classification Committee still would have to exercise its judgment, but it would do so with a defined, and hopefully rational, framework. <P>For the sake of discussion (only), here are a possible set of criteria:<BR>1. The car must have been manufactured between 19XX and 19YY. This is a prerequisite for consideration.<BR>2. The car must have been produced in limited quantities, with the particular model representing no more than X% of the total cars sold in that model year. This is also a prerequisite for consideration. (This percentage could be derived empirically by considering the "market share" of cars already approved, and possibly set at a slightly higher threshold than the highest figure among current Full Classics.)<BR>3. If a car meets criteria 1 and 2, it then will be accepted as a Full Classic if it achieves a rating of ___ points out of a possible 100 points on the following judging criteria:<BR> a. Technological advances: assign up to 25 points for the degree to which the specific model of the car embodies significant technological advances that were unique to the make or introduced by the manufacturer and copied by others. Examples: first V-8; first hydraulic brakes; first balanced crankshaft.<BR> b. Manufacturing quality: assign up to 25 points for the degree to which the car was manufactured with significantly greater than normal quality and attention to detail. Examples: unusually detailed interior trim; leather upholstery; superior quality paint finish; wire spoke wheels, doors that close like a bank vault.<BR> c. Design quality: A highly subjective issue, but people involved in this process can discern between a beautiful car and one that is ordinary. Assign up to 25 points for the stunning example, and fewer accordingly for the mundane.<BR> d. Value: How much did the car cost when originally sold? How much are good examples worth today? Assign up to 15 points for a car that cost a lot then, and whose value has held up well over time. 0 points for a car that was cheap then and undesirable now. <BR> e. Uniqueness: Assign up to 10 points for cars that embody aspects that no or few other marques or models adopted. Example (from a later era) the 1954 Mercedes-Benz 300 SL Gull Wing, which I consider one of the most beautiful cars ever made. Very few cars ever used the gull wing door, despite its significant advantages.<P>The points allotted to each category are arbitrary, and the points assigned by the Classification Committee to any particular make/model/year vehicle are also arbitrary. But there is an easy way to test whether a proposed rating system "works" well in the interest of the organization. Simply apply the proposed rating system to the existing roster of Full Classics. If it would qualify most, but not all, of the existing roster, it is probably "just right." If it allows for admission of some new make/model/year cars, you have a rational basis for expansion. If it lets in the 1928 equivalent of the Yugo, it clearly needs work. (Limited market share is not necessarily a virtue!) <P>Other factors might be considered in the scoring. One posting urges that size and power are relevant, a point with which I take no exception. When we bought our 1929 Hudson, we did so after considering Model A Ford and rejecting it as too small and too under-powered. In the late 20s, the Hudson was probably the fastest car made in the U.S., despite having only six cylinders.<P>The point here is not to say that this is the right scoring system, but rather to say that a defined scoring system would make the decisions of the Classification Committee more understandable and more rational. It would probably also produce some surprises. A few cars that are currently classified as Full Classics might come out badly under such a system. And other cars that have never "made the grade" might be included. <P>It would not end all the arguments about which cars should be deemed a Full Classic, but it would narrow the range of disagreement. It would probably also enlarge the roster of Full Classics in a way that even the more "conservative" participants in the debate could find acceptable once they saw the scoring.<P>Although the proposed system would almost certainly require submission of specific, indidual candidates for consideration, the idea would be that once a given make/model/year is approved individually, it is also approved as a class.<p>[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Lew Phelps ]

For Lew Phelps... (regarding his 'confusion')<P>Lew...I fully agree with your remarks. Of COURSE it is confusing. And your confusion is an excellent example of why we should NEVER have broadened our definitions in the first place.<P>The HUDSON of the classic era was an excellent car..a great buy for the money (I disagree with your statement that it was the FASTEST, but raw superior speed and power, while PART of the definition of what is a "classic"...is not the WHOLE story...)<P>The problem is that HUDSON was NOT the "best of the best". It did NOT have the aristocratic "presence" of the SUPER LUXURY cars. I am so impressed with the all around quality and servicability of the Hudson of the classic era, if I were looking for a car of the upper-middle price range, I would probably buy a HUDSON !<P>But again.....THAT is not the price-range we within the context of this particular club, are interested in. This SHOULD be an exclusive club - it was formed for the purpose of preserving the BEST OF THE BEST.<P>Is this snobbery...and/or arrogance ? You bet! The BEST of the best is what it is all about in this Club. There is NO question that a Packard "120" or Hudson was a great buy of its era. There is ALSO no question that the big engined classics that cost FIVE TIMES as much, reeked with snob appeal and an aristocratic atmosphere...<P>To get a clearer idea where we "are coming from" I strongly recommend Robert J. Gottlieb's excellent book "CLASSIC CARS AND ANTIQUES". It was published around 1953, during the Club's formative years. I recall it has a LIBRARY OF CONGRESS number, so you should be able to find it. His "message" was as timely during our Club's formative years as it is today. <P>There are LOTS of very nice car clubs for people with very nice cars of every era. And then there is US ! As I noted above...we served our members well with half..even a QUARTER or LESS of our present membership. What on EARTH do we want to care about raw numbers of membership. We are NOT a club focused on "mass production". <P>Within the context of THIS Club...we are focused on the EXCLUSIVE...let's keep it that way !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, Arizona

Lew, your note is very well thought out, and the idea of a scale of criteria is VERY similar to what is now used as one of many Classification "tools" by the Committee. Over the past several years it was developed by recently retired Board member Hugh McKnight. We have found that it is of good use but not a total judge of Full Classic status. As you mentioned, there is so much subjectiveness in the definition of Full Classic. Because this thread has gooten so long and complex, I will see if a new one can be started by laying down various published definitions and procedures. This is fun!<BR>Jon Lee

The "country club" aspects of the CCCA are not what attracted me to the club, I was more interested in the preservation and use of fine old, yes Classic, cars. And for the opportunity to meet others interested in similar cars. Yet, it appears that exclusivity does matter to some.<P>Peter H's attitude is very common but his views on the best of the best are his opinion. I cringe at the thought of narrowing the Full Classics list even more. Any action like this would certainly drive many contributing members away from this club.<P>Peter H. has a Packard 12 formal sedan that I am sure he is very proud of. We all know these are rare and valuable cars, with probably the finest engine to ever appear in a Packard. Now where would the CCCA be if the only Packards admitted were 12's? Are these not the "best of the best". Why waste our time with mere 8 cylinder Packards that were generally cheaper and less exclusive than the 12's.<P>I am not proposing the fill this club with cheap, plentiful cars. I just hope that the club can see that the exclusivity of the current list also has a negative side, it deters many from having any interest in the club or in the cars it seeks to preserve.

For further insights into Mr. Hartmans rather limited view of automobiles check out the thread on 32 Packard further down. I think he has made it abundantly clear that if he doesn't own it then it is neither a Full Classic nor worth owning.

Just re-read that post Terry, hope you found a good car to have some fun with. <BR>In the overall picture, I suppose our ramblings here are rather insignificant, but it is of detail that our days are made. <BR>It has been difficult to restrain response to some of what is said here. I sometimes fail. <BR>I guess the biggest hazard to the hobby is that what is said is seen and believed by many, not only now but as an archival record. <BR>Elsewhere on this board is an extensive and circuitous posting about the reasons for the demise of PMCC. Much of what is posted there is supposition, opinion and even invention, attempting to make simple a very complex subject. I'm trying to be polite. One feels the need to place a large red banner over parts of the posting proclaiming as much. <P>Hope all's well in your neck o' the woods.

Bill<BR>As always, you are the voice of reason. I am afraid I get a little carried away with my responses to the holier than thou attitude of some people. I am currently looking at 2 cars. One is a 32 Packard Victoria and I am waiting on pictures of it. The other is a 32 Packard convertible coupe which is the car I originally posted about. The owner travels extensively so we have not been able to get together for me to look the car over in person. I have to say though, that some of the posts on the CCCA/Packard boards do tend to make one think twice about buying one of those type cars. I really have no desire to be around a group of arrogant jacka$$es. I know that not everyone in those clubs is like that, but the few that are certainly are vocal in their condemnations of everything lesser than what they own.

Terry-<BR>I certainly was not trying to scold or correct you, just not very well trying to convey my frustration, too. Again, my concern is that the words presented as fact are archived. Similar in concept, I guess to the way a built-up-from-a-pile-of-parts car eventually becomes Enzo's personal ride. <P>As far as my limited experience goes, jackasses show up in all places. Someone previously said it was a 1% problem. That's about right, I think. <P>I think probably every group has the same problem and that the fancy-car crowd is not extraordinary. I admit it's not a strata I typically prowl, although Pebble Beach every few years is a lot of fun. <P>Personally, I just like old machinery, and Packard did it well. There are others around with like tastes.

I'm with you; I love old cars. As you know I had been looking at a pre 15 car and the 32 Packard. We went to look at the pre 15 and my wife didn't like the looks of it as much as the Packard. Frankly I agreed with her, so we ruled it out. I don't care about whether the Packard is a small 8, big 8, or V-12. My two concerns are: is it reliable (I drive my cars) and is it good looking. I hope a 32 Packard meets the first criteria, and as far as I am concerned it is fabulous looking, so I am anxious to get hold of it and let the fun begin.

It's funny, I'd be hard pressed to think of a 1932 model car that isn't desirable, Classic or not. It was a great year for style and design.<P>Remember to have fun with your car!

My husband belongs to the CCCA, and I get to come along for the ride. We don't own a Full Classic(TM) at this time, but we sure do aspire to own one. For now, we settle for our classic era 1937 Buick Century.<P>If the CCCA was all about owning a Full Classic, then we wouldn't even be welcome at their events. Luckily for us, the CCCA is really all about appreciating these fine examples of automotive history. Even if we never have the opportunity to own one, we'll still be satisfied members of CCCA. And I'm sure there are many others like us who would be happy to fill out the CCCA membership roles, if they understood what the club has to offer.<P>Jan K.

For JanK<P>You are ALWAYS welcome at Classic Car Club Of America events...no matter HOW you get there !<P>We welcome anyone who has a legitimate and sincere interest in the technology and history of the classic era, and is interested in learning WHY we started this particular Club for the unique purpose it was created.<P>Of COURSE it is true that we originally got together to try and save only the "best of the best". In the early 1950's, there was no such thing as "nostalgia" and "old car buffs" as we know it today. True, there was a small circle of people interested in antique cars (an "antique" is a car built before 1918...before electric headlights, self starters, and other "modern" conveniences) and some stirring activity in the Antique Owner's Club (why people call cars built AFTER 1920 "antique" beats me)...but you have to understand..people made FUN of old car buffs...and LAUGHED when the cars were junked or otherwise destroyed.<P>We saw a special value in the "best of the best", and thus the CARS we focus on, are the largest, heaviest, most powerful luxury cars of the 1930's. But again..the PEOPLE we focus on are those who have an INTEREST in what we are as a Club, and WHY we like these fine old engineering masterpieces. Of course a non-classic CARS cannot participate in our events, but that dosnt mean we look down on old cars. Most of us are involved in various OTHER old car clubs, so we appreciate your interest !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs Arizona<P>WELCOME...and stay around..and have fun with us.....!

Peter, <P>Although I agree with your postings on this and other sights (Packard Chat Board). I must disagree with you statement regarding automobiles prior to 1918 not having electric lights and starters. Although many cars did not offer these "modern" conveniences, the 1912 Cadillac offered both.

Gentlemen,the thing that bothers me in this thread is not what is said in this thread,but what is not said in this thread.Why isn't some one jumping for joy that now a Dorris or Stevens-Duryea Model E might actually be able to join and be dispayed at CCCA Meets.As the surviving examples were built prior to 1925.Funny someone mentioned the 1917 Locomobile as in in that year J.Frankin DeCausse designed the first Dual Cowled Phaeton body which was mounted on a Locomobile 48 hp Chassis. I have riden in a 1918 Locomobile Dual Cowl Phaeton that was Custom Built for General Jack J. Pershing and found its ride and comfort equal to the 1929 Pierce-Arrow 7 Passenger Sedan,the 1930 Marmon Big 8 Dual Cowl Phaeton,and the1929 Franklin 4 Passenger Sedan I also road that day.The Full Classic car didn't come out nowhere.People like J. Franlin DeCausse, Karl Martin,Leon Rubay and others laid down the Designs and pioneered the Elements that led to the Full Classic Car and they have been denied some of the recogonition due them.A thorough study of the 1915-1925 era would be enlightning to the CCCA membership.. Gentlemen if you don't where you came from,you can never know where you are and where things went.Gentlemen, why has no one mentioned the 1000 pound Gorilla in the room,The Great Depression,and how it warped the Automobile market and led the Changes that make the Classification Commmitees job a bear.Well thats a start,But one more thing.The Squeaky little Mouse in my pocket,named A. Nony,is getting a little tired of so many people using his name.Be Courteos and register your name and use it. It makes it easier to keep people straight and it is not hard.P.S. I am tired of being one the few commenting on the Full Classics in the Your Garage part of Jay Lenos Garage website..Thank You.

How the demographics have changed. The CCCA was founded by and originally comprised largely of college educated professionals with a sense of humor who shared an interest in automobiles from a clearly defined classic era, 1925 through 1942, with postwar examples allowed so long as they were carryovers from the prewar era.

Now we have people shouting "Wake up" and branding those with an interest in CCCA Classics "geezers," even as they wish to join. This is tantamount to urging the Shakespeare festival to include the work of modern playwrights, or a classical music station to play rock, country or hip hop.

Similarly, there already exist wonderful organizations for the enjoyment of Lincoln Zephyrs, junior Packards, 1934-40 LaSalles, as well as Dual Ghias, Cadillac Eldorados, Bentley Continentals, et al: the AACA, the Contemporary Historical Vehical Association, and the Milestone Car Society, among others.
Why the interest in glomming onto the word "classic?" It won't make your already interesting old car worth anymore. In fact, there are any number of Fords worth vastly more than many CCCA Classics.
There are clubs for every car already, without diluting the concept of a CCCA Classic.
If you want to enjoy Edward Albee or Susan Sontag theater, you don't come to a Shakespeare festival. If you want to listen to jazz, folk or rock, you don't tune in a classical station. If you're a WWII buff, you don't curse Civil War reenacters for not allowing your Jeep on their field.

Why is the above so difficult for so many people to grasp?

You, sir, are exactly right.

I'll second what West just stated! Funny that I rarely scroll down to the CCCA Forum but did just now. I've always thought it was nice that one club held the line on what is and is not accepted car wise. I've never been a member but did have a Packard roadster and a Lagonda project years ago.