JLee

West, The reason the six-cylinder Peerless has not been considered is not quite the same as the Buick saga. There was an application a few years ago for one of the later sixes on the 116" wheelbase that was declined approval. It was either a 6-60 or a 6-80, both modest cars in the $1200 to $1500 price range. The earlier 6-70 and 6-72 was a much more substantial car, priced just under the six-cylinder Packard, about the same size, with more power. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever applied for either the 6-70 or the 6-72. The Committee sometimes instigates its own considerations but the preferable method is by an application from a member. This may be your chance to pick up on one that has been overlooked. Jon Lee

Bill, I'm sorry to hear that the CCCA is not your cup of tea, but I think there may be hope as you are interested enough in the Club and the cars to make several very thoughtful posts. If you don't mind, I'd like to respond to some of your questions and comments. The value and relevance of the CCCA or any other Club will always be of a very personal nature. The CCCA focus is on a specific list of cars from a specific era that has great relevance to over 6,000 members. A Club interested in pressed glass orange juicers (yes, there is one) does not have a lot of value or relevance to me, but it surely does to the internation group of its members. If by "Value and Relevance" you mean increasing membership, then, the Club has charted the relationship between addition of significant Series and membership. It is quite clear that adding cars does not add members. A hazard of not being a member is missing some of the updates and changes within the Club. There have been quite a few Production Series added since the Series 62 Cadillac in 1987. No, the cars added are not of the nearly 100,000 production of the 62 Series Cadillac. Some are quite significant while others are very low production. At the risk of boring you to death with a list of numbers, here is a quick run-down of some Series, and original production numbers, approved since 2002: 1928 Studebaker FA & FB, 13,186 built, approved 2-25-02 1929-1931 Jordan G, 90 and Great Line 90, approximately 2,000 built, approved 2-25-02 1929-1930 Graham-Paige 827, 2998 built, approved 2-20-05 1930-1931 Graham 127, 107 built, approved 2-20-05 1928-1929 Graham-Paige 835, 2999 built, approved 9-12-04 1940 Nash Ambassador Special Cabriolet by Sahknoffsky, approximately 47 built, approved 6-7-04 1925-1934 Daimler six-cylinder models, 3 1/2 litre and larger, production of several thousand, approved 2-20-05 1919-1931 Lanchester, 21,23, 40, 30, 1,253 built, approved 4-05 This is only from 2002 and up. Other Series were approved earlier. In addition, thirteen series of cars built prior to 1925 have been approved under the "Virtually Identical" program. The largest single series total is Lincoln from 1920 through 1924, with almost 24,000 cars built. A number of years ago, a past Club President, Dick Gold, made the observation that "The CCCA is not for everyone." He probably was pretty accurate, but there are a significant number of automotive enthusiasts who truly enjoy the cars and the Club. In my business I do a lot with Model A Fords and MG "T" series. I happen to think these are wonderful cars and have owned many. Just because I like them and appreciate them, that does not mean that they are Full Classic cars, or will ever be considered. The fact that the car we cherish is not listed as a Full Classic by the CCCA does not mean that car is not worthwhile restoring or will have little value...have you noticed the prices of Ford wood wagons lately? Of the 61,000,000 cars built in the U.S. between 1925 and 1948, fewer than 1.5 million are eligible to be labelled as Full Classic. That makes the cars exclusive...not the Club. Thanks for reading. Jon Lee

Have you checked with the Bentley Driver's Club Spares Scheme? If it's not available there, try Donald Day, in Wiltshire, England. Telephone 011-44-1793 812323. Expect to do a bit of finishing and fitting with Donald Day parts, but the construction quality will be quite good. I hope this helps. Jon Lee

Before I jump into this with both feet, let me say that I am a Buick afficionado and have been for many years. I have owned more Buicks from the Classic Era (not all Classics) than any other make except Cadillac. I have owned Buicks from every model year from 1925 through 1948 except for 1941 and 1946. The earliest Buick I have owned was a 1912 and the newest (as a collector car) was 1967. I like Buicks. For the sake of accuracy, all 90 Series Buicks from 1931 through 1942 and the 1940 80 Limited are listed as Full Classic. The 80 Limited of 1940 sort of slipped in primarily because of the Limited name attached to it, in 1995. It is virtually the same car as the 1939 80 Roadmaster. The 80 Series Buicks, 1931 through 1933 and 1936 through 1939 have been considered several times in the past several decades, the most recent for the 1936-39 cars was in 2002 and the 1931-33 cars were again discussed at the June 2005 Classification Committee meeting. I'm not going to try to explain away the 1940 80 Limited other than to say that I believe if it were to come to the Committee today, it would not be approved. The Buick 80 Series cars are handsome, powerful and a good value then and now. There are a significant group of cars that were marketed at a point just under what the CCCA lists as Classic Cars. Some have been included on the List of Approved Cars, such as the Auburn eight-cylinder cars. These include such cars as the Chrysler Imperial(not the Crown or Custom models), Lincoln Zephyr, LaSalle from 1934 through 1940, Packard 120, Cadillac 60 and 61 and the Buick 80. These are all good cars that sold well. Theerein lies part of the problem. One of the points of consideration for Full Classic status, (along with such things as equipment and specification, price, and marketing) is production. Production for the models listed above total over 900,000 units. The total for all Full Classic cars built from 1925 through 1948 is less than 1.5 million. The Classic Car Club of America is all inclusive when it comes to people; anyone with the interest is invited to join. The Club is not all inclusive when it comes to the cars that are celebrated. The models included on the Approved List are (with few exceptions) the very finest that each manufacturer had to offer. Does that make it any easier to try to explain to my good friend why his 1937 Roadmaster convertible sedan is not a Classic? Hardly. What it comes down to is this: The CCCA has chosen to focus on a specific group of cars built during a small era of automobile history. There will always be cars that are near the line of acceptance. If that line is moved, then another group of cars will be near the line. The Club has traditionally been very careful about moving that line. I hope this helps explain some of the situation. Jon Lee, Chairman, Classification Committee

While I have not had any work done at Bob Jefferson's Shop (North Brookfield, near Sturbridge) I have had some up-close-and-personal experience with his mechanical work on a couple of cars that I play with from time to time. A good friend has a Derby Bentley that had a mechanical rebuild by Jefferson's and he has run the car over 30,000 miles with nothing other than routine service. We have done plenty of other work on the car, but not anything related to the rebuild at Bob's shop. I have also found Bob to be a knowledgeable and willing source of information when I have had questions about Rolls-Royce or R-R built Bentley cars. The main complaint I have heard over the years has been the speed of the work (or lack of it), but I suppose that could be said of many shops including my own. In your case, as the work is already done, that is not an issue. If you were to call Bob, I'm sure he would be very willing to share whatever knowledge he can on the car you are looking at. I hope this helps a bit. Jon Lee

As a CCCA member who regularly participates in CARavans (Just returned from Alaska) and a Vintage Racer, seat belts are routinely installed in the cars I use on tour. In Vintage racing they are not only required, but belts of a significantly higher specification are specified. I have a set of Simpson Racing lap belts in out 3 Litre Bentley. Accidents of the type that have brought about this thread are very rare. Take a look in any salvage yard to see that the overwhelming majority of crashes are at the front end. It makes sense when you consider that is the direction cars usually move. Consequently, one should seek protection from the greatest hazard. Roll-overs, in spite of the Ford Explorer publicity, are a small percentage of wrecks. However, even in the case of a roll-over, the occupants are statistically safer staying in the car than not. Obviously the hazard in an open car without a roll-bar is greater than in a closed car, but one should remember that upon being ejected from a moving vehicle, your body is still moving roughly in the same direction and speed as the car and you have no control of where you or the moving vehicle will land. For instance, I recently saw a roll-over at a Vintage race with the driver well strapped into an Turner roadster with a roll-bar. There were no injuries, but significant car damage. The driver's helmet, probably a poor fit, flew off in the roll. When the car stopped, the helmet was underneath the car, an arm's length from the driver. Do yourself, your family and your friends a favor, and install belts in your cars. At under $30 per set, it's the bargain of a lifetime. As for installation into a car with wood structure, remember that Franklin, among others, used seasoned Ash for the Chassis frame members. Wood is very strong and resilient. Of course, rotten wood is no better than rusted steel. The lap belts in our Bentley are fastened into a 3" x 3" ash crossmember that is bolted directly to the frame rails and sill rails. Vintage Sports Car Club recommendations are to back up the mounting of the belts with a 9 square inch steel plate, regardless of where the mounting is placed, and to set the mounting for as straight as possible pull on the belt fabric. As Chuck and others have noted, I am not aware of any Club that discourages the installation of seat belts. Seat belts, in my opinion, do not detract from the asthetics of any car, and certainly demonstrate the good judgement of the owner I hope this discussion encourages the use of belts. Jon Lee

Production figures for the three makes you mention are fairly easy to get. Model breakdown on the Peerless is tougher. On the CCCA web site is a page called Classic Numbers that will give you some figures on those makes built during the 1925-1948 Classic Era. I have been working on an update to this article that may be in the Classic Car in the not-too-distant future. If you can let me know what specific years you are looking for, I may be able to provide specific numbers. Jon Lee

Hi Dave, Are there any numbers on the bulb? I have a fair selection of bulbs and might have something to fit. I don't happen to have anything with Trippe lights or any spare lights at the moment that I can look at, but I'd be willing to try to match something up with what I have. Jon Lee

An interesting car indeed. It would be nice to know about the background. Mercedes-Benz models from 230 and up are accepted as Full Classic, so your car does qualify. Jon Lee

First, Dave Mitchell is correct in that a car designated as Full Classic remains so. Secondly, Ed points out a vague area in our rules relevant to "Race cars". By the letter of the statement of policy, if it was not listed in the 93/94 Directory, it would not qualify for "Grandfathering" However, I'm not aware of any such determination on any specific car. As far as I can recollect, the Riley in question, with a one-off body by Bertelli, is in full road trim, with lights and wings (fenders) and all the other stuff. Consequently, as far as this particular car is concerned the "race car" statement does not have any impact. In researching just what went on during the Race Car Discussions in 1993/94, it appears that there was a fundamental misunderstanding between two groups. I believe that the intent was to avoid the "Back-Yard Special/ Saturday night dirt-track race car" (I Race one of these cars today, so don't think I'm putting down the traditional American Race Car). If you read the Statement of Policy on Race Cars, it refers to cars that may not be equipped with such things as starters, doors, upholstery, exhaust, etc. The reference is to a car that is not street-legal. However, this does also eliminate many significant historical factory built race cars. In my opinion, this statement is not a proper or necessary ruling. There are a few members who have suggested doing away with this statement. In order to do so, it would be necessary to have proposals from more than a few Club members. Now, I certainly would not wish to be seen as soliciting such support, but the Classification Committee would certainly review any such submission presented in writing to National Headquarters. I might also mention that Dave Mitchell's frustration concerning the Original Cars is well-earned; he worked diligently for some time to formulate an Original Car program. As Chuck mentions from time to time, our Club does tend to move at glacial speed. However, the program, now designated the "Preservation Class", is coming together. There are a few procedural things to work out, and thanks to Harry Clark of California, we will have a workable program. Jon Lee

Hello, The Classifictaion records show that a 1935 Riley MPH with a Bertelli roadster body was approvedas a Full Classic January 30,1966. The listed owner was a Mr Beatty of California. This is the only Riley approved by the Club. I have no idea what the application number is that you have indicated,as a numbering system was not started until the mid-seventies. It began with 001. Could you provide a serial number for your car? It is missing from the application file. I will be at Club Headquarters in early June and I can check the original application for any other information at that time. So I do not forget, wouldyou e-mail me at the Club headquarters? classiccarclub@aol.com Thanks, Jon Lee, Chairman, Classifcation Committee

You might contact Ed Minnie in Massachusetts. He has had experience with the Pierce power brake system and has a 1936 12. He has mentioned to me that this is an excellent system. Ed is both a CCCA member and a Pierce-Arrow Society member. Jon Lee

Congratulations on your find. As Roamer only built some 212 cars in all of 1925, it is indeed a very unusual car. First of all, I don't know the significance of the "E in the model designation, it seems to have just appeared in about 1922, but for what reason I don't know. There were two six cylinder models in 1925. The smaller, 6-50, was the car formerly known as the Barley Six. It's on a 115" wheelbase and used a Continental 7U engine. The serial number began with 35626. This model is not an accepted Full Classic. The larger six, 6-45-E, is on a 128" wheelbase with a Continental 12XD engine, serial numbers atarting at 24756. This one is the Full Classic model. I may be able to scrounge up more information if you need it. Either way, I hope you keep us posted on this interesting car. Jon Lee

Hi John, I think that Thym Smith's phone number is right on the Grand Classic application. I'm sure he would be pleased to hear from you and will work very hard to get you to attend the show and participate at any level that you wish or are able. There are some other activities being planned that are not on the initial registration form that Thym will be able to tell you about. While the show is the highlight of the weekend, the social parts of the event are very interesting and can be a wonderful time to learn more about Classic Cars. And sometimes the food is pretty good. Unfortunately there was a time, in the not too distant past, when Grand Classic events were "Closed Shows" in many parts of the country. In order to attend one had to register in advance, and early on, (Pre-1960) only members with registered Classics were permitted to attend the show. A good friend tells of going to a Grand Classic in Morristown NJ in the late 50's and standing outside the fence looking in at the cars. This was after driving from Massachusetts. When I first became involved in the Club, I was working on Grand Classic plans with the New England Region Committee and suggested that we open the show up to non-members. I was quickly informed that if we did that, none of our members would bring the "good" cars, and it would have to remain a closed show. Fortunately times have changed. At the last DVR Grand Classic a few years ago, Bill Borden sent out a handfull of invitational tickets to each National member in the area, inviting their attendance and suggesting they bring along interested friends. While a Grand Classic is not a "Shopping Center Parking Lot" type of show, Regions are encouraged to extend invitations to all members and non-member groups that are most likely to have an interest in CCCA Classic cars. In addition, there is to be no entry fee for CCCA members at a Grand Classic other than that which may be charged by the facility where the Grand Classic may be held (such as Greenfield Village). I do hope to see you at the April Grand Classic in Pennsylvania. It will be an interesting show, I'm sure. Please look me up when you get there. With a little luck I'll remember this exchange. Jon Lee

There are a couple of abstracts that are pertinent to this discussion. First, is a quote from Henry David Thoreau: "Things don't change; we change." Secondly, and a bit more plebian, is the fact that no matter where one draws a line, there will be something next to it. Now back to our program. The 1940 and newer Roadmaster 70 Series cars are an entirely different design from the earlier 80 series cars. Although there are great similarites between the 70 series Buick and the 62 series Cadillacs, do we not run the risk of "climbing down the ladder" with each succesive model that is "Nearly the same as..." or "Just as good as..."? If one were to follow a comparative method of classifying cars to its ultimate but ridiculous conclusion, the end result is the inclusion of the 2 cylinder Crosley; after all the hood ornament does say "a fine car". Certainly I'm being facetious, but you get the point, I'm sure. The 80 Series Buicks are not quite so easy to dismiss. In the case of the 1940 80 Limited, I have a very tough time justifying a model that I was not in favor of accepting, for the exact reasons I have noted in the previous paragraph. With the exception of the nose and the name, it's nearly a carbon copy of the 1938 80 Roadmaster. A good friend with a 40-80 Limited states that the interior trim on the 1940 models is the same as the 90 Series cars, however as noted by the originator of this thread, his 1938 81F uses 90 Series interior material. If we accept the '36-'39 Roadmaster on the basis of the acceptance of the '40 80 Limited, then are we not compounding an error of sorts? The Committee looks at each series or model on its own merits and while there are always comparisons to other models, the cars under consideration must be able to stand on their own. Now I'll jump right into the dreaded "comparisons". Original cost and production figures play an important role in the acceptance of any series as Full Classic. Both aspects directly relate to how and to whom the car was marketed when it was new. In the case of the 1936-1939 80 Roadmaster, there were no currently accepted Full Classic priced lower than the Roadmaster with the single exception of the 1936 Auburn. The Auburn 8 cylinder cars were, until the acceptance of the 62 Series Cadillac, the tradional low-end "Whipping Boy" of the CCCA. The next higher priced Classics, depending on the year, were the 90 Series Buicks or 60S Cadillac. The prices were 25 to 40% higher than the Roadmaster. Production for the four year period was 46,929 Roadmasters. No classic model during this period even came close. The next in line is the "Volume Classic Producer", Packard 8 and Super 8 with 16,206 for the same time period. To help put the Roadmaster figure in perspective, consider this: The total production from 1925 through the respective end of production for Duesenberg, American built Rolls-Royce, Cord and Stutz was 24,498 units. In the four year period, 1936 - 1939, Buick built nearly double the number of one Series as did four well-known Classic makes in their entirity. This does not intimate that the Roadmaster was a poor car; in fact the opposite is the case. They were excellent cars that were well built and superior value to others within and without the GM group. This is an interesting discussion and I hope to hear more of this sort of exchange. Jon Lee

Jim, Yes all the Cadillac 65 Series are listed as Full Classic, in line with the established Club policy. The principle of accepting by Chassis (Series) is fundamental in many cases where the manufacturer built only the Chassis. This would include such makes as Duesenberg, Stutz (some years) and Locomobile (Some years) in the U.S. and a great many foreign makes. Other companies offered their chassis to outside coachbuilders. The custom coachwork was sometimes not the most lovely, however the chassis was the actual product of the manufacturer. Conversely, there are some beautiful factory built styles on very plebian chassis that, in the catalogue, accompany the more plain-jane styles. Attempting to insert subjective preference into the determination of Full Classic status could make the entire process even more complicated than it already is. Consequently the Chassis (Series) has been the base-line for Full Classic acceptance. I would not disagree with your assesment of the traditional buyer of the larger limousine vs. the smaller, owner-driver style such as yours. While institutional purchasers were a significant part of the Buick 90 and Cadillac 75 (and up) models, they were certainly not the market to which GM was marketting the cars. When you look at the ads for the Buick 80 and 90, the venue of the ads and the people in them are usually of markedly different age and perceived social standing, i.e. the 80 series customer is younger and the ad is likely to stress a more sporting attitude than the ad for the 90 Series cars. GM advertising and marketting was remarkable in its clarity and forethought. Alfred P Sloan had a very clear idea of covering the entire market from bottom to top. Having said all that, I'd be delighted to see any new information that you might be able to put together on the Buick Roadmaster. Jon Lee

Hello Jim, Chuck's reply on the Mechanics of Application is spot-on. I might add a couple more points to consider. The Classification Committee has stated its intention to review all properly submitted applications. The 80 Series Buicks from 1936 through 1939 were considered within the past couple of years, and there was enough interest in the Series that a comment on the declining of the application was published. Usually the declined applications are not noted in print. The 81F (I owned one some years ago for a short time, and can attest to its luxurious interior trim) is a catalogued production model. Club policy is "To accept only those production Series in which the entire line of body styles may qualify." No individual body styles from within a production series will be accepted. What this means is that your 81F would have to be considered as part of the entire Roadmaster model line. The main reason that the 80 was not accepted was the manner in which GM merchandised its cars. The GM price structure was carefully planned as to be able to market the products to a specific market. Buick was priced intentionally below the comparable Cadillac model. Your 81F had a base price of $1759 while the 38-65 Cadillac Imperial Sedan was priced at $2360. This is a 30% price differential for a car that was very close to being the same design. I guess the important point is that no matter where one draws a line, there will always be something right next to it. Thanks for asking a well-thought out question about a most interesting car. I hope the answer is adequate. Jon Lee, Chairman, Classification Committee

Interesting questions, some of which I can answer easily, others, less so. Either way, I'll at least try to give you the Club policy and some of my opinion. Some of the inconsistency in the application of the rules has been caused by the inconsistencies within the the Club and the Classification Committee in the past half-century. Looking at some cars that have been approved in past years, there are some that probably would not be approved today. About 40 years ago, an Adler Trumph was approved, and this is a car with a 1 liter 4 cylinder engine in a very small chassis,a production model, the least expensive in the ramge. Secondly, there is the inconsistency of the manufacturers themselves, during the period. For example, in 1932 the Nash Advanced Eight was in the 90 Series of cars, an accepted model. The next year, 1933, the Advanced Eight was an 80 Series (non-classic) car priced about 30% lower. Concerning your 6-cylinder Auburn, you wouldn't be the first to switch the body to an 8 cylinder chassis... The only rational explanation on the Auburn is marketing. The 6-cylinder cars were priced 25 - 30% lower than the comparable 8-cylinder models. The cars were not necessarily less, but the market to which it was aimed was not the luxury end of the scale. Many years ago, this same discussion was held concerning the acceptance of the 8-cylinder Auburn vs. the 12 cylinder cars. It's entirely possible that if this were to come to the Committee today, then 8-cylinder cars might not gain approval. However, it is traditional within the Club not to disenfranchise any previously approved model. Imagine what a can of worms that would be. The important part is that the manufacturers themselves often determined what was a "Classic Car" by the way they they merchandised and to whom they sold their product. Another example might be the Buick Roadmaster and Cadillac 70 Series of 1937. The body on the Buick was badged Fisher and the Cadillac as Fleetwood. However, both bodies were built in the Fleetwood plant, the Buick bodies shipped to Flint and the Cadillac units mounted in Detroit. Both were on a 131" wheelbase. The major interior difference was the Cadillac has a rear compartment interior light. The Cadillac sold for almost double the price of the Buick. Cost of building the Cadillac may have been incrementally more than the Buick, but certainly not double. The Cadillac is a Full Classic and the Buick is not, primarily because of the way that General Motors pricing structure was set by Alfred Sloan. During the consideration of the Kissel, we heard from the Curator of the Hartford Wisconsin Museum where Kissel records are housed (His name escapes me at the moment). The records there indicated the use of left-over 6-45 engine in early 6-55 production. Apparently there are fairly extensive Kissel company records on file. I really like the way you have stated the idea of a "Mind set" defining a Classic car and the Classic era. That is so good that I'll probably steal it and use in the future. By the way, the Classification envelope has not been expanded past 1948. In consideration of U.S. built Classic Cars the 1948 date is quite rational. 1948 was the final year of the V-12 Lincoln, Cadillac Flathead V-8, and all the Chrysler Crown Imperials (1949 registration or not) were built in the 1948 calendat year. That's all there are, unless you look at post-war designs, which puts us into an altogether different discussion. While looking at Foreign built Classics, the picture is not so clear. You mention the Bentley; well, in my shop is a 1948 Mark VI standard steel saloon we are restoring. My co-owner on this car also has a very nice 1950 Mark VI standard steel that we have used as our "instruction sheet" for the restoration. We have used a 1951 parts car. The point is, I understand the dilema, while I don't have a satisfactory explanation. The only rationale is that the 1925-1948 era is the time period on which the CCCA has chosen to focus. Similar discussions come up in other Clubs such as the Horseless carriage Club that has a 1916 cut-off date, the Vintage Sports car Club with a 1959 end date and, the date most often discussed in early car circles, the 1904 cut-off for Veteran cars eligible for the London-Brighton run in England. A "Virtually Identical" 1905 car, in England, is worth significantly less money than its 1904 counterpart. For a better understanding of the reasons for the concentration on this era, I strongly recommend (If you do not already have it) Beverly Kimes book, "The Classic Era". Bev does a much better and more thorough job of explaining the significance of this short period of time in automotive history. It's a terrific book that deserves to be in every enthusiast's library. And for the shameless commercial plug, it's available through this web-site. I probably have not answered all of your questions, but maybe there is some food for further discussion. Jon Lee

Buicksplus is pretty accurate. I have a good friend and fellow CCCA member who puts it this way, "If half of the people think you are too liberal and the other half think you are too conservative, then you probably have it about right." You are also quite on the mark with the assesment of the pre-1925 "Virtually Identical" program. Personally I do not disagree with the idea of considering other cars that are of similar quality to the currently accepted models. There is probably more logic there than not. The Club has traditionally been very cautious about making any substantive changes in the era of focus, 1925-1948. Back when the Committee was first considering the original idea of accepting pre-1925 cars, one member cautioned us to consider some of the unintended consequences of our actions. I had no idea of the varied items that would come to the Committee for discussion since then. Wouldn't it have been so easy, if the founders of the Club, some 50 years ago, had used a clear parameter of "Between the Wars"? Hard to un-ring a bell isn't it. Great discussion. Jon Lee

You are probably right on the mark. The quote from Henry Adams is "Words are slippery." There has been some significant discussion of considering those cars built prior to 1925 that are of "Similar Quality" to accepted cars. That might go some way toward covering such cars as the 6-45. But, you didn't here this from me. Jon Lee

Not at all. The Nippert car is a genuine 6-55 in its chassis and body configuration. The use of the earlier engine, I suppose, does put this car on the edge as far as the "Virtually Identical" definition. The Committee considered that part long and hard, making the determination that the intent of the Kissel compnay was to identify the 6-55 as a new model, separate from the earlier 6-45. The use of the earlier style engine was undoubtedly a prudent economy measure to use up existing supplies. The earlier 6-45 model was significantly different in the design and specification(and somewhat more expensive) of the chassis, aside from the engine. You have pointed out one of the major difficulties we face (The Classification Committee) while trying to be consistant in our deliberations; that is the fact that the manufacturers were not to consistant in their methods during the period. The end result is that the 6-45 would probably (and I use that word cautiously) not be approved as Virtually Identical. I hope this is a clearer explanation. Jon Lee

The Kissel you refer to as having been approved is Al Nippert's 1923 6-55 speedster. It was unusual in the fact it was a very early 6-55 that actually used a left-over 6-45 engine. Kissel were thrifty in their production methods. The 6-55, the 1925 model that could be considered for pre-1925 "Virtually Identical" status, was a new model in 1923. It actually was a less expensive model than the previous 6-45. Some sources show the engine in 1923 being the same as the 6-45, as in the case of Al Nippert's car, but the usual power plant was a 265(264.8) cubic inch engine as opposed to the 284 inch version in the 6-45. Wheelbase was shortened by 3" on the 6-55 and the car as a whole was several hundred pounds lighter. During the discussions on the Kissel 6-55, the Classification Committee opinion was that the 6-45 was a significantly different car from the 6-55 and would not qualify as "Virtually Identical". So, unless there is other evidence that the 6-55 was available prior to 1923 or that the 6-45 was available into 1925, the car you have noted as a 1921 6-55 would not fit the definition. I hope this explanation helps. Jon Lee, Chairman, Classification Committee

This is an interesting subject that I have been following for some time. I think all of you have covered most points except for two. First, If you show a car at a CCCA National Meet, radial tires will result in an authenticity deduction. A minor point, I know, for those of us who enjoy just driving our cars. Secondly, I would strongly suggest, if you intend to use radials on your 60 year old wheels, check them carefully. A few years ago I yanked of the old and hard tires from my K1 Allard and mounted some Dunlop racing rubber that would improve the grip greatly, just as one would expect from a radial tire in street use. However this is a car I use on the track, and the first time out, I broke a wheel, ripping out the center and doing quite a bit of damage to the rear fender and corner of the body. Upon inspection, I found another wheel that was cracking. I had some new wheels made up when I restored the car. A radial tire will put more stress on the wheel than a bias ply tire, and wheels are cheaper than restorations. Jon Lee

It appears to be an Invicta. The radiator shape is right and the rivetted bonnet is a characteristic of the make. It looks like a "high Chassis" model that has been made into a British style "Special". Very nicely done, and it looks like it would be lots of fun. Jon Lee

I already remebered a couple of ommissions: Bentley,All from 1919. How could I have forgotten this one? 1928-1929 Graham-Paige Series 835. This was the immediate predecessor to the already accepted 837. 1940 Nash Ambassador Sahknofsky Special Cabriolet. This was intended to be a direct competitor to the Lincoln Continental and Packard Darrin. Because it was a special body on an otherwise non-classic chassis, they will be judged in the Custom Class. Jon Lee