So, What is a Classic Car?

[MarkV]

There have been many definitions of the term of Classic Car from various clubs, etc. So, what is a Classic Car and Why is a classic car a classic car? and what makes a classic car?

[mrpushbutton]

Go look at the Classic Car Club of America's website--they explain their definition of what a "full classic®" (their new trademark term) is and the list of what vehicles they consider to be a full classic. In short, they are cars that were luxurious, powerful (for their day) and expensive when new, usually not produced in huge numbers. Not Chevies, Fords and Plymouths, very few models from the big three are accepted full classics.

The term has almost been rendered useless to them (hence the "full classic" invention) by the mass media and other members of the car collecting community, who use the term to describe anything no longer being produced as a classic, from 55-6-7 Chevies, 65-up Mustangs, to Monte Carlos. A Caprice classic and a Rambler Classic are not full classics®.

It's a free country, you can use the term however you want and apply it to any vehicle you wish. I prefer to be more literal and use the more descriptive terms used by the more knowledgeable in the hobby e.g.

early cars

brass cars

antique cars (all encompassing term)

classic cars (the CCCA list)

post war cars (including decade descriptions, "40s cars", "50s cars" etc.)

muscle cars

sports cars

Ghetto cruisers

party vans

beater cars

British cars

Jap cars

hooptie cars (see: beater cars)

struggle buggies

[MCHinson]

struggle buggies

Never heard that one. What is that?

[Peter Gariepy]

Here is the CCCA definition:

One of the most common questions asked on this Web Site is: "What exactly is a Classic Car?" The Club defines CCCA Classics or Full Classic™ Cars as "...fine or unusual motor cars which were built between and including the years 1925 to 1948. (Some cars built prior to 1925 that are virtually identical to a 1925 model that is recognized by the Club are currently being accepted on a "Please Apply" basis). All of these are very special cars which are distinguished by their respective fine design, high engineering standards and superior workmanship." They were usually quite expensive when new with relatively low production figures. You won't find your Mom's '72 Plymouth Duster or your Grandfather's Model A Ford in the ranks of CCCA. We applaud other clubs who do recognize these cars and recognize that owning one can be a lot of fun, but they are not what CCCA is all about.

For more details goto: http://www.classiccarclub.org/CarList.htm

[mrpushbutton]

I knew what a struggle buggy was (and is) but I googled the term to see what came up and lo and behold the very first entry is: http://local.aaca.org/bntc/slang/slang.htm

go to that link and scroll down to the "S" entries

Hint: a 50s Nash would make an EXCELLENT struggle buggy

part of the huge changes to everyday life brought about by the automobile

[DavidP]

***WOW***

"...fine or unusual motor cars which were built between and including the years 1925 to 1948..."

That description of what a classic car is really surprised me!!

I certainly agree that the word 'classic' is not appropriate for the 50's-60's-70's 'muscle cars', but I had always assummed that a full classic included some of the Great limited production, unique or milestone cars of the pre-1925 era as well ...

[alsancle]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mrpushbutton</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Go look at the Classic Car Club of America's website--they explain their definition of what a "full classic®" (their new trademark term) is and the list of what vehicles they consider to be a full classic. In short, they are cars that were luxurious, powerful (for their day) and expensive when new, usually not produced in huge numbers. Not Chevies, Fords and Plymouths, very few models from the big three are accepted full classics.

The term has almost been rendered useless to them (hence the "full classic" invention) by the mass media and other members of the car collecting community, who use the term to describe anything no longer being produced as a classic, from 55-6-7 Chevies, 65-up Mustangs, to Monte Carlos. A Caprice classic and a Rambler Classic are not full classics®.

It's a free country, you can use the term however you want and apply it to any vehicle you wish. I prefer to be more literal and use the more descriptive terms used by the more knowledgeable in the hobby e.g.

early cars

brass cars

antique cars (all encompassing term)

classic cars (the CCCA list)

post war cars (including decade descriptions, "40s cars", "50s cars" etc.)

muscle cars

sports cars

Ghetto cruisers

party vans

beater cars

British cars

Jap cars

hooptie cars (see: beater cars)

struggle buggies

</div></div>

Well done. This topic always starts a lively discussion that usually ends up with someone pissed at the CCCA because their car is not included in the CCCA list.

[dep5]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MCHinson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">struggle buggies

Never heard that one. What is that? </div></div>

That is a car that gains 'antique status' by the arbitrary 25yr age.

Sorry, but a 25 yr old car in 1967 was a lot more interesting than its faceless counterpart in 2007.

[CarlLaFong]

"Jap" car???? What an ugly word. The war ended 60 years ago. If cars were built in Africa would you call them "N" cars?? And, please don't say it is an abbreviation. It is not, it is a perjoritive term and has no place in today's society.

[mrpushbutton]

Sorry, I'm from Detroit. That term still is part of the lexicon here.

[tbirdman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 58Mustang</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Jap" car???? What an ugly word. The war ended 60 years ago. If cars were built in Africa would you call them "N" cars?? And, please don't say it is an abbreviation. It is not, it is a perjoritive term and has no place in today's society. </div></div>

On that thought MR PC, please remove "Whizzer" from your posts. That offends me.

Please watch who you throw rocks at because in your previous posts...

you used the word "sissy". That sounds like a perjoritive term. Hmmm, who does that offend?

You said you owned an Indian-would does that offend?

You asked someone if they were a "savant". Who does that offend?

[1937hd45]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 58Mustang</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Jap" car???? What an ugly word. The war ended 60 years ago. If cars were built in Africa would you call them "N" cars?? And, please don't say it is an abbreviation. It is not, it is a perjoritive term and has no place in today's society. </div></div>

J.A.P. motorcycle engines were made in England 1920 - 1959 by J.A Prestwich, and that is just a fine engine and abbreviation.

[CarlLaFong]

On that thought MR PC, please remove "Whizzer" from your posts. That offends me.

Please watch who you throw rocks at because in your previous posts...

you used the word "sissy". That sounds like a perjoritive term. Hmmm, who does that offend?

You said you owned an Indian-would does that offend?

You asked someone if they were a "savant". Who does that offend?

Grow up tbirdman. Everytime someone objects to a racist term, someone, like you, pulls out the "PC card". I am the least PC person that you will ever meet. I just don't think, and I am not alone, that these terms are proper. Is it correct to call a black person a n++++r? Do we regularly call Jewish people K--es? What make Jap proper in your eyes?In closing, I wasn't talking to you, so MYOB, please

To 193745, J.A.P. engines were built far earlier than 1920. The first Isle of Man TT was won by a J.A.P. engined Matchless. Additionally, you seem like a smart guy, you know what I was talking about, and it wasn't motorcycles

[Peter Gariepy]

DavidP,

Your quote is taken out of content... it's selected cars from that era, not all. Read their entire site for details.

The key words are "fine and unusual".

Peter

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DavidP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">***WOW***

"...fine or unusual motor cars which were built between and including the years 1925 to 1948..."

That description of what a classic car is really surprised me!!

I certainly agree that the word 'classic' is not appropriate for the 50's-60's-70's 'muscle cars', but I had always assummed that a full classic included some of the Great limited production, unique or milestone cars of the pre-1925 era as well ...</div></div>

[West Peterson]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 58Mustang</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If cars were built in Africa would you call them "N" cars??</div></div>

No. I think we'd call them African cars. But Africa is not a country. If you meant Nigeria, then we'd call them Nigerian cars.

Jap is short for Japanese. I didn't realize Japanese was a perjoritive term?

Grow up 58Mustang.

Let's see...

Cars built in Mexico: Mexican cars

Cars built in Germany: German cars

Cars built in England: English or British cars

Cars built in Korea: Korean cars

Cars built in Detroit: Detroit Iron

Cars built in America: American

Do I have to go on? Let's get back on topic!

[Restorer32]

Political correctness goes way back. Kissel Kar changed to simply Kissel at the outbreak of WW I to avoid any appearance of German sympathies.

[DavidP]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Peter Gariepy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is the CCCA definition:

One of the most common questions asked on this Web Site is: "What exactly is a Classic Car?" The Club defines CCCA Classics or Full Classic™ Cars as <span style="font-weight: bold">"...fine or unusual motor cars which were built between and including the years 1925 to 1948. </span> (Some cars built prior to 1925 that are virtually identical to a 1925 model that is recognized by the Club are currently being accepted on a "Please Apply" basis). All of these are very special cars which are distinguished by their respective fine design, high engineering standards and superior workmanship." They were usually quite expensive when new with relatively low production figures. You won't find your Mom's '72 Plymouth Duster or your Grandfather's Model A Ford in the ranks of CCCA. We applaud other clubs who do recognize these cars and recognize that owning one can be a lot of fun, but they are not what CCCA is all about.

For more details goto: http://www.classiccarclub.org/CarList.htm </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DavidP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">***WOW***

<span style="font-weight: bold">"...fine or unusual motor cars which were built between and including the years 1925 to 1948..."</span>That description of what a classic car is really surprised me!!

I certainly agree that the word 'classic' is not appropriate for the 50's-60's-70's 'muscle cars', but I had always assummed that a full classic included some of the Great limited production, unique or milestone cars of the pre-1925 era as well ... </div></div>

While I agree that any of the newer cars do not deserve to be called a 'classic', I had thought it was reserved for important cars prior to 1948, not just 1925-1948 ...

I'm sorry Peter, I thought I was quoting you accurately, and I didn't want to become involved in any argument ... :-(

[Peter Gariepy]

No argument David. Just clarifying.

Thanks,

Peter

[Twitch]

For most of my car life I've held the notions of what classics were and those definitions I find are very close to the logic CCCA uses.

My 1950 is not a classic but a special interest or hobby car to me. 1934 Packard V-12 is a classic.

[alsancle]

I think the correct term is "rice rocket".

[mrpushbutton]

AKA-"rice burner", but that too may be politically incorrect.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

This is easy, if I am selling it, it is a "classic"

If I am buying, then used car or project or just old car works just fine!

On a serious note I tend to stick with the "classic" set of definitions myself..

[tbirdman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mrpushbutton</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AKA-"rice burner", but that too may be politically incorrect. </div></div>

My girlfirend trying to be cool at a show, pointed out a car and said, look at that, there's a "rice cooker".

She's Asian so she probably never burnt her rice

[West Peterson]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 58Mustang</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am the least PC person that you will ever meet. I just don't think, and I am not alone, that these terms are proper. </div></div>

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[alsancle]

All that you say is true with regard to the CCCA defining the term within the context of their club. I differ in that I think sticking with their definition in all contexts is the right thing to do as it keeps things clear. With me it's a "precision of language" thing (to quote someone from the CCCA forum). I'm just not a big believer in the idea that if someone wants to call their "insert any car here" a classic, because they feel like it, we should all pat them on the back and say "wonderful". Doesn't mean it's not a great car - in fact if it's a certain Ferrari model, it could possibly be worth more then every Classic in existence, it's just not a "Classic" using the definition mostly accepted within the car hobby.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

One point to keep in mind, IMO the genre is really what drives this definition. Put another way, the use of any of the terms Full Classic, CCCA recognized, etc. carry meaning within the hobby because they define a certain class of car from a specific era, not a club or group of people. CCCA should really be appreciated for doing an excellent job defining and promoting this important genre within the hobby. It is a more rigid group (no gray area, like may occur with say, "tradiitonal hot rods") than some due in part to the fact that the Classics have been, well Classics for 50+ years. So most of the "what about my XXX" is done.

BTW - 1948 Lincoln, that is a great car. An early Connie is Just one of many CCCA eligible cars that are relatively affordable, as has been pointed out already. I continue to think about one of these, although I may end up with a non-Classic 40 Packard 120 next. I would enjoy either equally, but no sour grapes if the next addition is not CCCA eligible.

[Peter Gariepy]

Definitions can be very subjective. And the general public will use terms like "antique" and "classic" as they see fit. All the power to them.

For those of us in the hobby I think these definitions should be more objective.

Antique Cars = 25 years and older

Classic Cars = As defined by the CCCA

Will everyone agree? Of course not. But I think it's fair we try to support these definitions.

Peter

[R W Burgess]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Antique: Up to 1982 as of this writing (a super set of categories below)

Vintage: Up to end of 1904

Edwardian: 1905 to end of 1918

????? 1919 to 1925

Classic 1925 to 1948

????? 1949 to 1982 </div></div>

Drive, your list is well and good, but the majority of antique car owners, which covers pretty much all of us, don't get real deep in thought about what our cars are. Mostly though, our cars, and the hobby itself, are about having fun.

Wayne

[Twitch]

Drive I relate to your logic very much. Just so happens I was discussing cars with a fellow who does not own any vintage car but mentioned that the Mustang was a classic.

I explained the AACA and the CCCA definitions and that I felt I leaned toward the general CCCA one, though perhaps not agreeing with the yeras cut offs.

I still believe a fine or unusual motor car of "limited production quantity" is important. 300,000 fine or unusual motor cars could be an arguement for all sorts of stuff. And that's fine since it's just my opinion even though it's one I generally adhered to long before I ever heard of AACA or CCCA.

So actually this fellow had a quite realistic arguement of "classic" when he mentioned that a 64 Mustang is a classic in the vast unwashed public's perception. In common use of the word classic the Mustang defines it. It is recognized and reknown by multitudes of people.

If it is a majority rules thing certainly a Mustang is a classic. So is a Dodger Dog hotdog when you catch a game in L.A.

[Barry Wolk]

A club can celebrate whatever they want. It's their club.

I used to disagree with the CCCA's period cut-off. I went to a big show in Novi, Michigan about 4 years ago. I went prepared to talk to the bigwigs about extending the time period with arguments for the Mark II, Brougham and a couple of other spectacular car's admission. Obviously, I had an ulterior motive. In my opinion the Mark II embodies all of the other criteria critical to acceptance. I was shot down in flames and put in my place.

I do see some hope on the horizon, though. Pebble Beach has always used the CCCA as a basis for their shows. I understand that they have recently recognized some post-war coach built cars and I hope that my car is one day invited.

[CarlLaFong]

I agree with Mr. Wolk. The MKIIs, Cad Broughams, Ghia bodied Chryslers are as much Classics (upper case) as the Brewsters with lowly Ford underpinnings. How about Jensen Interceptors? Lovely coach built cars. Dual Ghia? There is a long list that should/could be included but are not because of year or by dint of having a, somewhat, pedestrian chassis

[Peter Gariepy]

I want to modify my definitions:

Antique Cars = 25 years and older

Classic Cars = As defined by the CCCA

Horseless Carriage = 1915 and older (as defined by the HCCA)

[Peter Gariepy]

Disclaimer: I dont own a CCCA qualified car but I sure would love too someday.

DriveAG2,

QUOTE: "If the CCCA used such an objective criteria, I would be glad to shift their definition into the general language and they could drop the trademarked qualifiers. But the very fact that you can apply to the CCCA to have your non listed car considered for inclusion on their list proves the subjective and slippery nature of their definition. So I firmly come down against removing the trademarked qualifiers and letting the CCCA define what is a Classic Car for the rest of us."

I think you miss the point. The general population will use the term "classic" as they see fit. There is no "shift" there.

Yes, any CCCA member can apply to have their car included in the CCCA list of classic cars - but an application is not automatic. Their list has been constant now for many many years.

It's a moot point to hope their list of qualified cars to change to a simple range of years to make it objective. It isn't going to happen.

Even if they did lets be realistic: If "classic" was defined as 1925-1948 then a Ford Model T or Model A would instantly qualify as a "Classic". Webster defines "Classic" as: 1. of the first or highest quality, class, or rank: a classic piece of work. I think we can all agree that a A or T are certainly antiques, but by that simple definition they are not classics.

As to vintage or edwardian definitions - i've never used either to describe a car - are they UK specific definitions?

[MCHinson]

I always heard that perception is reality.

So, for the sake of argument, I offer that a classic car is whatever people perceive as a classic car.

To find out what "the people" today view as a classic car, I went to old reliable Google. Google does not care if you use "classic car" or "Classic car".

One of the interesting search results was Wikipedia. It has an interesting discussion on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_car

[mrpushbutton]

The media, both print and electronic and all car collectors who are not sympathetic to the CCCA's list and mission have rendered the word to be absolutely generic. See my post above--I stand by that statement. We have all seen '84 Camaros labeled as "a classic", and many more Detroit buckets.

[alsancle]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 58Mustang</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree with Mr. Wolk. The MKIIs, Cad Broughams, Ghia bodied Chryslers are as much Classics (upper case) as the Brewsters with lowly Ford underpinnings. How about Jensen Interceptors? Lovely coach built cars. Dual Ghia? There is a long list that should/could be included but are not because of year or by dint of having a, somewhat, pedestrian chassis </div></div>

In my younger days I thought the same thing. I've come to understand that the CCCA is about an era as much as the cars themselves. The biggest mistake they made was going from 42 to 48. It is much cleaner to stay on the early side of the war, and the era was done by WWII.

Btw, although there are applications for inclusion that happen to this day, there is next to no change to the actual list. What gets applied for is generally some obscure chassis variant of an existing accepted car and it's almost always on the pre-1928 side.

[mrpushbutton]

The Milestone car club was begun to have a club for cars deemed exceptional, or at least rarer than the same vintage Ford,Chevy, Plymouth. They laid claim to that time period and have a similar list of cars.

[MarkV]

Wow, many different idea's! We will be discussing this at our next Classic Car Club meeting on campus. I hope everyone is as well versed as all of you!

[no more]

WE CALL THEM RICE BURNERS. THEY ARE STILL J"" CARS AND ARE EVEN MADE IN SOUTHERN OHIO.

WE DONT CALL FORDS, MOPARS OR GM CARS J"" CARS...

I DONT THINK J"" IS A SLUR AS MUCH AS AN ABREVIATION.

JB

oHIo

[CarlLaFong]

I DONT THINK J"" IS A SLUR AS MUCH AS AN ABREVIATION.

Can we just let this die?

In closing,let me ask you, if it is an acceptable abbreviation, tell me the last time you saw it in print or on the nightly news. 1942?? If you don't believe me, ask a J"" what he thinks.