After Long Thread, a majority opinion?

[Dynaflash8]

Okay, "edinmass" started a thread that is now up to 47 comments; quite a large number considering the other threads. Many thoughts have been expressed, mostly it seems by people concerned about "diluting" the intent and purpose of the CCCA. Now I'm a brand new member (albeit for the second time), so that makes me a "Come Here" in Classic car circles; this despite my founding CHVA and my many years in the hobby and being a 15-year member of the AACA Board and a Past President of that orgnization. I've been around the block, and have no desire to stir controversy, or to dilute anything.

That said, I don't believe anybody is perfect; nor do I believe anything is forever. Just because an opinion was rendered sometime in the distance past that became ascribed to, does not mean it must be cast in stone.

I see two problems with the arguments that have been made. 1) One is that through 1948 automobiles were basically still "Pre-War" with exception of 1946 Kaiser-Frazer, 1947 Studebaker, 1948 Hudson, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Packard (and maybe I missed a couple) and 2) There was already one streamlined and Post-War car included from (or almost I don't know for sure) the very beginning, that being the Lincoln Continental. So then to continue to review the bidding on the basic idea would not seem to me to be totally out of bounds, or in fact necessarily a dilution of the original principles.

Now to consider a 1953 Buick Skylark or Packard Carribean would be outside the original principles the commenters seem to want to maintain. This is despite the fact that these later cars were far and away more custom than their contemporaries. The theory of superior design and custom aspect holds, but it is applied to a different era.

As I said, I don't want to dilute anything, but instead to build acclamation of a marque that has heretofore, at least in my view, not received adequate consideration of it's quality and desirability.

So, you've read the thread 47 comments long, and now I want to specifically ask those people to stop and think fairly about the following question.

I believe that the 1931 through 1939 Buick Series 80 cars and the 1941 Buick Series 70 car meet all of the criteria established by the CCCA and should be reconsidered for acceptability. The 1940 Buick Series 80 car is already accepted when in fact nothing is different about it from the 1937, 1938, 1939 Series 80 car except the nameplate (Limited). The 1941 Series 70 car represents the non-limousine version of the 1941 Series 90 car with all of the mechanical innovations, engine size and styling of the 1941 Series 90 car. In 1940, the 70 Series was two steps down from the Series 90. I don't think the 1940 70 Series car qualifies, except for the one-off Brunn Towncar pictured (officially called the "Townmaster" in auto show publicity), but in 1941 Harlow Curtice stepped Buick up to complete eye to eye and toe to toe with Cadillac and the other most prestige cars of the time. The fact that GM later backed him down after only less than a dozen 1941 Brunns were built has no bearing on the subject at hand.

I do not in any way espouse that these above cars are comparable to a Packard V-12, a Cadillac V-12 or V-16, a Duesenberg, a Hispano-Suiza, a Pierce Arrow or a Stutz DV32 and similar cars. Of course not. I will let you decide personally which other cars or marques now included also do not compare with the aforementioned.

My question is to you by name (please be nice to me) edinmass, trimacar, alsancle, K8096, Dave Fields, esp, BJM, Twunk Rack, bkazmer, Marty Roth, West Peterson, Restorer32 and Mark Huston, do you absolutely consider these Buick cars to be a dilution of the club, if added to the marques already accepted? And can these Buick cars stand up to the other marques that are included today (not including the Chrysler T&C that is so much in question in previous threads) that also do not compare to the cars mentioned in the privious paragraph? Guys, please take a little time and reflect fairly. Don't just jump down my throat in knee jerk reaction.

Please don't kill the messanger. I'm not a dealer, not a trader, not a "liberal" on this subject, not a whiner. I just have a stronger love and opinion for Buicks and their quality than some other people. The '41 71-C pictured belongs to my friend Doug Seybold, who has restored 15 of these cars, and I think he feels this is his best ever, since it has been kept as his personal car.

This isn't a "purity test" but just a poll among people who appear to really know their stuff from their comments on that thread. Buickplus I didn't include you because you are no longer a member, but your comments are welcome anyway.

Earl Beauchamp

Edited December 4, 2009 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[alsancle]

Earl,

Both are beautiful cars. If they are not already and it was up to me, Buick factory semi-custom bodies on top of the line chassis prior to 1942 would be admitted. How many of those open front town cars did they build? Not many I would imagine. The conv sedan is trickier but I would be inclined to admit it based on it's comparison to the Cadillac. I would see this as minor in the dilution argument - especially when compared with the outright atrocity that the Town and Country admittance is.

When you mention great cars after WWII, such as the Halo cars, I have an easy answer. It was a mistake admitting anything after the Classic Era ended prior to WWII in the first place. So anything after WWII should not even be part of the conversation.

regards,

A.J.

[alsancle]

Certainly the top Buick's of that era are everything you say. But you are dealing with people that sees the Auburn 8 as a classic, when a 1933 and on ford V-8 looked better and performed better than the Auburn 8. This is not a club based on Fact or rationality, or even the preservation of history, but overly supportative of the status quo, often based on odd perceptions, and misstatements of fact.

When General Lyon, owner of close to a dozen Packard 12's, chooses to park his Ford V-8 and Chrysler Town and Countries in the middle of his display of Packard 12's, Caddy V-16's, and other top end Classics, and they do not look out of place, it is easy to see how these cars compare. And they do very well. I might add, these cars also compete very well as to value in the market place, the only real, over time, authority on value.

If there is a dilution of anything, it is the quality of the hobby by the constant bickering of what is and isn't a classic. It gets old, like fighting over baptisim, communion, predestination. Let's work toward streinghtening the hobby, before these cars are all street rodded.

If you are insinuating that the 32 Ford should be considered a CCCA Classic then what cars would say are NOT CCCA Classics?

You make the same argument that all the "open minded" "inclusive" types make which is point out the border line cars or mistakes then compare them to some other car that is a few degree more removed and say what about this one?

[Dynaflash8]

Special to alsancle. There just the ONE 1940 car built, and shown at the Waldorf Astoria. It was like a test car for the proposed 1941 Brunn-bodied Limited cars that Curtice had on tap. It was then put into Buick zone service in New York state, and thought lost to time. Quite by accident a man in a Chicago, Illinois suburb found the car, owned by an unappreciative collector who advertised it as a "limosine" in Hemmings, having no idea of what it was. I visited that man, who remains current owner, this summer and took pictures of this fabled car from the National Geographic ad of 1940. The body, paint and interior is absolutely original and there is no body number, only the Brunn emblem. Somehow it had gotten out of Buick ownership and into the ownership of a Ms. Libby of Libby Owens Ford Glass. She had an estate in New York.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[trimacar]

OK, here's how this should work. Put together a comparison, item by item, of the Buicks in question, along with the closest vehicles now accepted by CCCA. Engine size, original cost/price, wheelbase, production numbers, engineering features, etc. See how they compare, then ask the question again. I don't know a reasonable answer without seeing the facts.

[Dynaflash8]

Mr. Coco that will be easy for me to do, except maybe the cost. I am unsure if I have that information at hand, but can probably get it. Weather here in Central Florida is lousy, bet it's worse in Winchester. My first car event was the Apple Blossom Festival parade in Winchester in 1958, and I have it on 8mm here somewhere. Took my wife there for a date and broker her in right before we even got married. If you know Art Bragg, Bob Pierce, Bill Sandy and Tom Rissler tell them all I said hello. There is also a nice light green 1932 Pierce Arrow there in Winchester, if it hasn't been sold. I'll try to put up that information before 24hours. Thanks for your response.

Whoops, wait a minute....if you want those facts back to 1931, then I'll need longer. I was thinking about just 1941. I can do most of it though. But if I do all the years, I might as well make the submission.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[Mark Huston]

Dynaflash8,

In response to your original question regarding the admittance of the “the 1931 through 1939 Buick Series 80 cars and the 1941 Buick Series 70” I will have to plead ignorance to their qualifications. I am a Studebaker guy, always have been since I bought a 1929 Studebaker when I was 17 as my first car. This does not detract from my appreciation of other car makes and models. I think Buick made some fantastic cars in the 1930s. From what you have stated here in the forum it sounds like you have the knowledge and skills necessary to put together a comprehensive application to the CCCA nominating committee for acceptance of these two series of Buicks. Will it fly? Who knows, but you won me over on there merits and maybe you can win over the nominating committee. Nothing ventured, nothing gained?

[Dynaflash8]

Thank you Mark Huston. If Steve Moskowitz hadn't thrown out all of those old issues of Antique Automobile in the basement, with my 1971 Buick Straight 8 history in the May-June issue, heck, I'd just mail that to the committee. Now I will have to clear all the cobwebs from my brain to come up with all the answers Mr. Coco has asked for. Lots of work. Guess that's why I'm testing the waters. Have a friend in Baltimore with a '29 Studebaker President....what a car. Years ago he ran the socks off of my '39 Special coming down I-95 from Havre de Grace to Baltimore. I know you have a real car there.

[alsancle]

Philosophically, I have much less of a problem adding cars that are well within the Classic Era 1928-1938 then going past WWII. The CCCA is as much about the times the cars were made as the cars themselves (at least to me). This is why the halo cars, or the RR or Bentleys of the 1950s do not belong in my opinion.

[Guest bkazmer]

as far as the comparison, I think it's informative to consider (with no "right answer"):

41 Cadillac 62 (wearing the bullseye)

41 Packard 160

41 Lincoln Continental

41 Buick Limited

41 Buick Roadmaster

40 LaSalle 52

41 Buick Century

41 Packard 120

41 Lincoln

41 Chrysler New Yorker

There's room for a number of opinions , but I think this is a pretty good sample of the border zone. Of course "none of the above" is another opinion.

[K8096]

I don't have time for a long post right now, but all of you consider this. If you're going to let 80 series Buicks in, then what's the arguement against 61 series Cadillacs? They're the exact same chassis as the 62 series, and the interiors are just a little plainer. See, you're sliding down that slippery slope again. Also consider late 30's up to 1940 LaSalles. Almost the same engine as the Cadillac (slightly less HP), and in many cases shared the same body & frame. Again, we're sliding down the slippery slope. Then why not model 120 Packards? Need I say more? You 're letting the "best of the average" in instead of "the best of the best."

Edited December 4, 2009 by K8096 (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

Thank you bkazmer for your opinion. I respect it, although my opinion does differ with your selection. This would be mine. Notch #1 full classic. I would agree with moving the LaSalle down a notch, but not up a notch. Just my opinion, and you know what they say about opintions..

41 Cadillac 67

41 Buick Limited

41 Packard 160

41 Lincoln Continental

41 Cadillac 62 and 63

41 Buick Roadmaster

step down to

40 LaSalle 52

step down to

41 Buick Century

41 Chrysler New Yorker 8

41 Lincoln Zephyr

step down to

41 Packard 120

41 Buick Special

41

[Dynaflash8]

K8096. I will put both you and bkasmer in the "NO" column. However, let me comment that you're upgrading the Packard 120 in my opinion anyway. I contend that the Buick Roadmaster is superior to the late-thirties LaSalle and equal to or better than the Cadillac V8. Nobody has to agree with me. We are into a period of GM slopping over one brand into another and in 1941 Buick under Harlow Curtice set out out to surpass Cadillac and got their knuckes rapped for the effort. However, that was done by GM after the cat was out of the bag, so the car still was produced and existed. Beginning in 1942 Buick was put back into it's place in the lineup.

[K8096]

Where are you putting the Cadillac 61 in your ladder?

[West Peterson]

I contend that the Buick Roadmaster is superior to the late-thirties LaSalle and equal to or better than the Cadillac V8. Nobody has to agree with me. We are into a period of GM slopping over one brand into another and in 1941 Buick under Harlow Curtice set out out to surpass Cadillac and got their knuckes rapped for the effort. However, that was done by GM after the cat was out of the bag, so the car still was produced and existed. Beginning in 1942 Buick was put back into it's place in the lineup.

That's my opinion in a nutshell, Earl. As Al said, we are basically talking about the Classic Era here (albeit at the very, very end if not over the line) with the car in which you want to get accepted. And in the opinion of those knowledgeable about the two cars (Cad V8 and Buick RM), the Buick would probably be picked in a blind taste test.

So... No, I don't think the car should be Classic (Neither should the Cadillac). But since the definition of Classic has been changed, Yes it should now be accepted by the CCCA.

[Mark Huston]

Have a friend in Baltimore with a '29 Studebaker President....what a car. Years ago he ran the socks off of my '39 Special coming down I-95 from Havre de Grace to Baltimore. I know you have a real car there.

You now know why I love driving my President.

What I find interesting about this discussion is that there is no line in the sand with non-Classic on one side and Full Classics are on the other side. What there is a lot of grey area and somewhere in the center of that grey area is an imaginary line. What we must decide is how far from the center of the grey area do we want to wander in our acceptance for what is, or is not, a Full Classic? There are many obvious choices for exclusion, but there are many cars that fall within the grey area that make exclusion a difficult choice that results in a lot a passion and sometimes bruised feelings.

[West Peterson]

It shouldn't be taken personally.

[trimacar]

Hi- yes, Art, Bob, Bill, and Tom are still here and I know them all. My point about the specifications can be applied to the Packard 120. To say that they are "Classics" is a generalization that could not be supported by facts. Yes, they are 8 cylinder, but they were smaller, cheaper, higher production numbers, etc. One has to go back and look at the criteria upon which the CCCA based decisions at some point in time, and that had to do with the, as mentioned, "best of the best." This is not necessarily a super exclusive club, however, as there is a study that was done of production numbers, and over 1,366,000 cars were produced that met the previous guidelines. This study can be found on the CCCA website.

Again, not saying that the Packard 120, for instance, wasn't a nice car, but it does not meet the definition of Classic. If you intend to fight the fight, and at least attempt to get another model of Buick classified as such, then you need to have the statistics to back it up, if indeed the numbers show the right thing.

[Dynaflash8]

K8096 I didn't think of the Cadillac 61. With the Buick Century, or on an equal scale with the LaSalle 52, okay? The 1941 Buick Century was basically an early "Muscle Car" or racer, not a high quality prestige car alone. It was a souped up Special in other words.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

West, was that "you voted yes before you voted no" or "you voted no before you voted yes".

LOL - it just struck me funny

[Dynaflash8]

Yes, Mr. Coco, you and Mr. Huston make important points. I've said where I place the Packard 120....I was with my Mom & Dad on Rt 236 in 1947 between Annandale, VA and Arlington when he decided to race a 1939 Packard 120 with his 1939 Buick Special, over my Mother's loud objections....I was 9 years old. I personally watched the needle exceed 100 and the Packard was left in the dust. A hotrod 37-38 Chevy joined the race and couldn't keep up but hung in for awhile. My Dad was never into excitement and I don't know what hit him that one time, but it thrilled me, even if I did live to tell about it. I think that tells you why I put the Packard 120 where I did in my lineup.

[Dynaflash8]

After dinner I'll get out the Buick Book by Gaston & Dunham and put up some of the numbers you asked for Mr. Coco.

[Guest bkazmer]

I didn't mean the list to be in order, only to be 2 groups - currently accepted and others. Glad to see it's generated some friendly discussion. I forgot the Cadillac 61 but it basically replaced the LaSalle 52 for 1941. (very obvious if you've seen a picture of the 1941 LaSalle prototype).

Personally, I think the top Buicks were superior cars in some ways to the lower series Cadillacs. I threw the Century in because if one thinks that the excellent Buick engine is a reason to include Buicks, why not the fastest variant? I don't think the Special belongs on the list - that drags in a whole 'nother pile of competitive vehicles.

[Dynaflash8]

bkazmer I was just trying to answer your post and arrange my view of the similar cars in a way that complemented your list. Under no circumstances should a Buick Special be considered, nor a Packard 110 or 120. I don't know enough about how a Clipper fits into the picture, but I think it was on a par with the 120 with a new name. If you go after the War, I've seen one Clipper (it might have been called a Super Clipper) that was pretty fantastic. It was a gray and blue fastback 1947 Clipper that I saw at a car show when I lived in Virginia. But we're not talking about after the War on this thread anyway.

Based on your earlier post I put you into the NO column. Now I don't know where you stand on the Buick Series 80 and the 1941 Series 70. Maybe you want to straighten me out.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

Mr. Coco, et. al. You've given me a big order, but I'll start with production numbers and come back with the rest later. Heck, I might as well go ahead and write the letter to the Committee.

Buick Series 80 & 1941 Series 70 production figures

Left to right=year, series #, number built, body style

1931 Series 86 3579 Coupe

Series 87 14731 sedan

Series 87X 38 export

1932 Series 86 1800

Series 87 4089

Series 87X 3

1933 Series 86 758

Series 86C 90 conv coupe

Series 86S 401 sport coupe

Series 87 1545

Series 88C 124 phaeton

1934-1935 No Series 80

1936 through 1939 Series 80 cars carried name Roadmaster

1936 Series 80C 1064 4-door conv

Series 80 CX 165

Series 81 14985 sedan

Series 81CX 343

1937 Series 80C 1040 humpback conv sedan

Series 80CX 115

Series 81 14637

Series 81X 344

Series 81F 452 formal divider window sedan

Series 81FX 37

1938 & 1939 Series 80, 320.3 cid, 141 horsepower

1938 Series 80C 350 flatback conv sedan, 320 cid, 141 hp

Series 80CX 61

Series 81 4505

Series 81X 199

Series 81F 247

Series 81FX 49

Series 87 466 flatback sedan

1939 Series 80C 3 flatback conv sedan

Series 81 5460

Series 81X 159

Series 81C 311 humpback conv sedan

Series 81CX 53

Series 81F 303

Series 81FX 37

Series 87 20

1940 Series 80 cars carried the name Limited, 141 hp, 320.3 cid

1940 Series 70 cars carried the name Roadmaster, 141 hp, 320.3 cid

1940 Series 80C 7

Series 81 3810

Series 81X 88

Series 81C 230

Series 81CX 20

Series 81F 248

Series 81FX 22

Series 87 14

Series 87F 7 flatback formal sedan

1941 Series 70 Roadmaster cars engine dual carbs, 165 hp, 320.3 cid

Series 71 10431 sedan

Series 71X 122 export sedan

Series 71C 312 conv sedan

Series 71CX 14

Series 76C 1845 conv coupe

Series 76CX 24

Series 76S 2784 sport coupe

Series 76SX 50

I will add cid and horsepower for the pre 1938 cars next time.

[Guest Twunk Rack]

wow - that Buick is splendid. No question - once we let the '41 Cad. 60 Special in, who can argue that your car isn't also a 'classic"....!

[Buicksplus]

Great table Dynaflash. But I think this has all been done just a few years ago, at least for the 31-39 80 series.

Classification committees come and go, but in the past the committee would have a real problem with the high production numbers (well over 10K per year) for the model 81 and 71 sedans. The committee does not respond well to arguments that the car being proposed is "as good or better than the Cad 62" -- since many felt the 62 was an anomaly.

I am struck by the incredibly low production figures for the phaetons, 81C and 71C. I think you might have a better chance trying to get these individual models classified. They clearly are very unique amongst all the prewar Buicks, they are even more unique than the 90 series cars. CCCA has not done that, except you might say that the Chrysler T&C or Lincoln Continental are just special models within a production series.

Good luck, I suggest you contact the classification committee and ask them for any material they may have regarding the previous proposal to classifie the 80 series Buicks.

Bill.

[Guest BJM]

I vote yes on the big Buicks. 1931 to 1941.

No long winded explanation as this has been well covered thus far, but that's my vote.

[Dynaflash8]

Buicksplus I'm told that the 1940 80 Series went through without a bit of problem. It is significant that the only difference between the 1940 80 Series and the 1937-1939 80 Series was the nameplate that said "Limited" instead of "Roadmaster". Frankly, in a 1939 car, I like the lines of the 40 and 60 series cars the best, but they are definitely not Classic, even with low production numbers, i.e. there were only 80-some 1940 Century club coupes. Production numbers don't get it done. There has to be a lot more. I would suggest not including the sedans for those years, but as I understand it, it's all or nothing. Besides, there were 103,000+ 1939 Special sedans and 5460 Roadmaster sedans, plus a few more Roadmaster Formal sedans (303) which had a divider window. That's a whole lot less. We'll see. I'm still just listening to people who know a lot more about the process than I do.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

Thanks Jake (BJM). I'm still counting. I truly appreciate all of the thoughts and advice from all you guys, for or against. But, I still need time to do some more research as Mr. Coco asked. Somewhere I have 1939 prices, but I'm not at all sure where. The other years should have been similar I suppose.

[trimacar]

And, to clarify, would that it was so simple as, OK, if it's a wheelbase of more than 125 inches, and cost more than $2000, and they only produced 200 each year, and it had an engine more than 300 cubic inches....again, not that simple, but a place to start for Classic justification.

Interestingly, Auburns may or may not qualify based on some specifications, but it was a sister car to Duesenberg and Cord, that's a tough one, and remember, the 6 cylinder Auburns are excluded from CCCA list. Look at the approved list, and there are exclusions for some well respected names, Locomobile, Peerless, Cadillac, and of course Packard.

Just pointing out that getting specific models of a marque classified as Classics is an interesting process.

[Dynaflash8]

That sounds like advice Mr. Coco. If you would like to give me more, off of the thread, it would be welcome at Forever39z@aol.com. Earl Beauchamp

PS: The Roadmaster was over 125 inches, sold for over $2,000, had an overhead valve straigt 8 engine with over 300 cid. I think you knew that. Auburn built a V-12 you know and the '35-36 car was extroadinarily beautiful with a Supercharged Straight 8, flathead like Pontiac and Oldsmobile of course, but if a guy was a young, dashing, playboy who really wanted to sport at the Country Club, an Auburn Speedster straight 8 worked just about as good as any car. A late buddy of mine loved the 1935 and 1936 Auburn Speedster, and his widow still hoards the car in her garage today, not far from where you live. But he liked Buicks too and owned a string of Buick convertibles, but he often told me that a Buick was a lot better car, but it just didn't make his blood run as fast as his Auburn. Nobody will get that unfinished Auburn Speedster as long as his wife lives. Even I could never get it, but I sure would like to have it. But I'm off of the subject.

[Guest Twunk Rack]

you guys have a great argument. no-one questions those '41 Buicks as being magnificent cars. Anyone who hsn't personally driven a '41 Limited or Roadmaster shouldn't question the statement that they were at least as good as a Cadillac in most areas (just dont try and "corner" one with the same year Cadillac, or keep up with it for very long, on a long extreme-speed trip....!)

No-one questions that our culture has changed, and 2,000 years+ of western culture is now falling apart, so you can assign any meaning you want to any ole word.

Who CARES about accuracy and precision of speech in a country that transferred its industry and much of its machine tool business to Asia ? Let's be happy !

I am especially pleased to see the word "classic" no longer means "form follows function".

I remember the disappointment when we had the post-war Lincoln Continentals shoved down our thoats on the grounds it would "help increase membership". That was in our earliest years ! And those Auburns ! Ah...good argument - ACD made Auburns as well as Duesenburgs. So why not. Why not Model T's and Model "A" on that logic - after all, the Ford Motor Co. made those superb "L" and KB series Lincolns - so why shouldn't we call a Model "A" a "classic" car, if you use THAT reasoning.

In a few more months, my '81 Toyota Corolla will be an "antique". There is a movement now to stop being so "restrictive" and start calling newer model cars "classics" - after all, one major publication has an article that confirms "any car you like should be a classic, even if it is a new one".

Please - guys... GIVE IT UP ! We are old car buffs ! We can't reverse the flow of history. The fight over which cars should be called "antiques" or "classics" was lost YEARS ago. Let's just relax, enjoy our hobby, and help our fellow hobbyists out with the best info. we can get them.

Sic Transit Gloria...

Edited December 5, 2009 by Twunk Rack (see edit history)

[trimacar]

My comment about Auburns may have been misinterpreted, TW. I don't agree that they should have been included just because they were sister cars to the Duesenberg and Cord. Every marque (and model) should stand on it's on merits. My comments was that, at least, the 6 cylinders were excluded. Aren't there some of the Town and Country models that are 6 cylinder cars? I can understand the reasoning of including large 20's cars, when 6's were the norm, but a 1940's car with a six?? Doesn't make sense to me.

I actually think that the single make car clubs have it easier, things don't get this twisted. Model A Club, don't see any '31 Chevrolets in that. The Pierce Arrow Society, of course a favorite of mine, no question there what's accepted.

I'll look forward to you (TW) bringing your Toyota to Hershey. I may not walk down that row, by choice, but the AACA will be willing to have you bring it. And, as a collector, participant, lover of old cars, it's all about choice, correct?

[Dynaflash8]

Twunk Rack, I'll put you in the 'NO' column. I think I understand where you're at, anyway.

[Dynaflash8]

Trimacar I haven't had time to do anymore research then I did last night.

[alsancle]

The Auburns are an interesting one. I'm especially fond of the 35/36 blown variety and my dad has had at least 8 including a few speedsters.

Flashy cars with many unique features. However, they seem to me to be more of middle to upper middle class car then cream of the crop. BUT, in the long line of questionable entries - at least they are right in the Classic era. The ones that bug me are the later cars, the caddy, the T&C and the continentals.

[Guest Twunk Rack]

Twunk Rack, I'll put you in the 'NO' column. I think I understand where you're at, anyway.

you are wrong !

True, I do NOT agree with what the CCCA National Board did when they "admitted" the '41 Cadillac 60 Special. But they did. Then came the cheaper series Cadillacs, and the '46-'47 Packard "Custom" series Clippers.

Like it or not, this "dillution" / "inclusiveness" IS CCCA policy and has been for well over 30 years.

As an AMERICAN PATRIOT I am a great believer in representative democracy. The overwhelming majority of young people today think the Buicks discussed in here are "classics". That IS the way it is, so I would be PLEASED to see a car as nice as one of the top-of-the-line Buick Roadmaster/Limited cars participate in CCCA meets.

[Dynaflash8]

Okay Twunk Rack, I'll put you in the YES catagory then. I guess there aren't enough people who come on the web site for me to really know what to expect. Well anyway, after Feburary when I go off the AACA Board I'll have free time on my hands, so I'll sit down and gather the facts and write up a "case report" and submit it. As I said before, nothing beats trial but failure.

[Restorer32]

'47 Cadillac and '48 Buick are same identical body also, only difference is the pontoons.