Buick' s Now Under Consideration

[Dynaflash8]

Some of us have worked hard for the recognition that Buick Senior Series cars have long deserved. The 1931-1942 Buick Series 70, 80 and 90 cars were fine cars often owned by movie stars and government officiala. The were a staple of Humphrey Bogart movies and others of the 1930's and 1940's. I had a thread on here awhile back when I was first petitioning the CCCA to again consider the 1931-1939 Series 80 and 1940-1941 Series 70, or even the 1942 Series 70. Back in the 1970's I successfully petitioned both the AACA and CCCA to assign Classic status to the Series 90 Buick of the period. Now I felt enough time had passed to try for the Series 70 and 80 Buicks. Someone else had already successfully petitioned the CCCA to include the 1940 Buick Series 80 Limited (a one year runoff edition), which was a carry-over car from the 1939 Series 80 Roadmaster. The all new Series 70 Roadmaster was introduced in 1940 and then, like the 1941 Series 90 Limited mechanically upgraded to 165 horsepower with dual carburetion in 1941. The 1941 Buick was the pinnacle year for Buick Motor Division before World War II.

Anyway, the current issue of the CCCA Bulletin arrived yesterday, and it announced that the Classification Committee had approved the 1931-1939 Series 80 Roadmaster to be passed before the membership, and would consider the 1940-42 Series 70 Roadmaster at their next meeting.

I've been a Buick enthusiast and historian of the straight 8 cars since I was 15 years old in 1954, the enthusiast coming well before the historian. Anyway, if you believe, like I do, that these Buick cars have been under-rated for the last 50 years or so, let the leadership of the CCCA know by writing if you're a member, and joining first and then writing if you're not a member.

Step up to the plate Buick enthusiasts. I need all the help I can get.

Earl D. Beauchamp, Jr., Past President AACA, 2004

[Dynaflash8]

Anybody else received the new CCCA Bulletin?

[Marty Roth]

I've still not received my new issue.

Thank you Earl for sticking with this request. I firmly believe that our Senior Series Buicks deserve to be included for CLASSIC STATUS.

You and I have discussed this at length.

My 1937 Roadmaster Phaeton, Model 80C now shows 10,710 miles, and will soon be the subject of a feature article in the "New Orleans Times-Picayune", the major daily newspaper for our part of the Gulf-South.

I'm trying to find the New York Times photos of ticker-tape parades with V-P Truman, FDR, Gen Eisenhower, and Gen. MacArthur in this car which was the Parade car for NYC Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia at the time my parents were dating in New York.

[Dynaflash8]

Marty, I'm surprised you are young enough that your parents watched the Mayor in a '37 Buick! haha. My Dad saw President Taft in an open Pierce Arrow in Arlington, VA. Gosh! I really am old, haha.

[Guest P.M.O.]

Most McLaughlin Buick's were built for Royalty and the USA tried to take credit for McLaughlin's Coach work interiors . Fisher Body in Canada as well as Fisher Body USA built the outer skins after Canadian built Cadillacs and La Salle we out of Canadian Built GM of Canada

[Dynaflash8]

For those who may be interested, here is the latest report on the effort to achieve Full Classic status for the 1931-1939 Buick Series 80 Roadmaster and the 1940-1941 Series 70 Buick Roadmaster.

This is how I understand what has developed. I think that the 1931-33/1936-39 Buick Series 80 has gone through the Classification Committee and the next hurdle is to be passed before the membership for the final decision. If I am incorrect about that, perhaps an official can correct what I am reporting.

There was a Series 80 Buick in 1940, practically identical to the 1939 model except for the front end sheet metal, but because of the introduction of the new and more modern Roadmaster in 1940, it was also re-named a Limited....I guess you could call it a one year "baby Limited" and it is already classified as a Full Classic.

As for the 1940-1941 Buick Series 70 Roadmaster, it has been discussed in detail by the Classification Committee and tabled for more discussion at the next meeting sometime in March. It may also be that the 1942 Buick Series 70 has been included now in that discussion, but I'm unsure of that, as my personal effort was for the 1940 and 1941 models.

Obviously there are a larger number of collectors who have the Series 80 Roadmaster cars for so many years, 1931-1939 collectively who can support their inclusion, than there are for the two year span of the new and more updated 1940 Series 70 Roadmaster and the exceptionally powered and updated 1941 Series 70 Roadmaster. For that reason alone, if these two years of Buick are your interest or simply have your respect, then you'll need to speak up somehow, so you can be heard.

Even though I have a personal attachment to the 1939 Buick, it has long been my opinion as a Buick collector and historian that the 1941 Buick was the zenith of Buick production, having exceptional attractiveness, power, luxury and innovation. I would like to thank all who have taken the time to listen, review and consider my efforts, and especially the members of the Classification Committee.

Earl D. Beauchamp, Jr., Past National President, AACA, 2004

Edited January 15, 2011 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[Guest my3buicks]

Maybe with your efforts, the Senior Buick's of this era will finally get the Classic standing they have deserved. To step back in history these cars would have had every bit the prestige and social standing as many that are already considered Classics of that era.

[Dynaflash8]

Keith, Thanks for your words of encouragement. I don't know how many in the CCCA leadership read these posts, but I think when it comes right down to it, correspondense in support by CCCA members is going to be the most helpful. Why weren't these Buick's considered years ago? I have theories, but no facts. Two very influential people in CCCA's founding years were the late Robert J. Gottlieb, a columnist for MOTOR TREND magazine, and the late Robert Turnquist, whom Mr. Gottlieb often wrote about in his early to mid-fifties columns. I was an avid reader of the column, known as "Classic Comments", but in that time I was an early teenager. Mr. Gottlieb wrote two books on Classic cars, the first I think was called CLASSIC CARS, and it might have been in that one that he said "no Buick's are Classic's", because I had just turned 16 and gotten my blue '39 Buick sidemounted sedan when I read it. I took umbridged and wrote to him saying that I felt the 1939 Buick was a Classic. He did not reply, but in later years we did correspond intermittently. However, he wrote a second book in 1956 called "Classic Cars and Specials" in which he mentioned a car similar to mine as being of "Special Interest". I feel like these early opinions by leaders of the time had consequences for Buick that took hold and have lasted for over fifty years. It was on this basis that I only tried to get the Series 90 cars uplifted to Classic status in the mid-1970's, where I was successful. As for Mr. Turnquist, I met him in or around the time I became AACA National President. Because he had so often been referred to by Mr. Gottlieb in those articles during my teen formative years, I looked up to him in awe. He became very friendly with me, and he had also moved into Buick's, showing two different prize-winning Buick's at AACA National Meets around that time. Known for owning many wonderful Packards, he nevertheless told me often that Buick was another of his favorite cars. Times and opinions have changed since 1952 or 1956, and my gut feeling is if Mr. Turnquist were still living he would support my current efforts for Buick today, where he would not have in those early times, but there is no way really to know. Perhaps I've had too much time on my hands during the last year since retiring from leadership in AACA. No doubt I was also spurred by finally acquiring the '41 Buick Roadmaster phaeton after 21 years of effort , also. However, the bottom line is, I thought the time had come to give this a maximum effort while I was still less than 75, not because of my car, but because it's a cause that I feel has for far too long has been left to lay fallow.

Earl Beauchamp, Jr., Member AACA, CCCA, CHVA #1, BCA #55, ROA

Edited January 15, 2011 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[Guest P.M.O.]

McLaughlin built his cars from 1908 with Buick Motors and for this reason Buick will never be able to reach the status of Cadillac. The shame of this is Cadillac was built in Canada In 1923 because of McLaughlin High Quality standard. The Book I have on my desk called Complete Book of Collectible CARS,60 YEARS of BLUE CHIP INVESTMENTS by Richard M.Langworth and the auto editors of consumer guide copyright 1994 ISBN 0-7853-0971-3 library of congress catalog card number 92-60028 has most of your Buick's as classics Not that it will help but when you see it in black and white might help . My problem nobody reads GM of Canada started GM by Durant having a contract with McLaughlin to build his cars with Buick motors for 14 years and another deal with Durant to Build Chevrolet in 1916 before GM became a Corp by Durant in 1918

Edited January 16, 2011 by P.M.O.
copyright date (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

P.M.O. Unfortunately, since I don't really know a lot about McLaughlin, or McLaughlin Buick per se, I can't speak to your concerns. I can only speak with real knowlege to the Buick's that were built under the direction of Harlow Curtice who took over Buick in 1934. Even though I have authored a major treatise on the Straight 8 Buick in the past, my knowledge of the 1931-33 modes was more learned through reading references, rather than experienced as well as learned.

[Guest P.M.O.]

I have found most people like yourself are not willing to understand GM Canada was McLaghlin Carrage in Oshawa Ontario and has built Buicks for Kings and Queens started GM in 1908. I think you will find Buick history in the document interesting number 6, I had when I had a home in Florida Port Charlotte. I found a great number of McLaughlin Buicks at car meets.

[Dynaflash8]

I am familiar with the 1939 Buick parade cars that were built for the Queen's visit to Canada, and it is my understanding that one still exists in Western Canada. I corresponded with the owner some thirty years ago, even met him once at Hershey, but his name now is clouded in my brain by time.

[TG57Roadmaster]

Marty,

I've looked thru a number of pictures from the LaGuadia and Wagner Archives using Eisenhowwer, FDR, and Truman in searches. They mostly come up with NYC's 1940 Crown Imperial Phaeton as the main car.

The archive pics show many other cars of the era carrying dignitaries in parades, but this image from a newsreel, later incorporated in a film, shows a '37 Buick, albeit a light-colored one. I wish you well in your search, and hope you find what you're looking for!

TG

Ps, search for Nimitz and Halsey in the Photographs section and several clear pics of the '37 show up.

(Photos # 01.001.1898, and 01.001.2381 in particular).

Edited January 18, 2011 by TG57Roadmaster (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

Thank you Mr. Fields, I appreciate you being with us. You don't know it, but I met and chatted with you at Hershey about three years ago. As I recall you were wearing a white shop coat with Nash on it. Am I correct?

Earl Beauchamp

[tbirdman]

Keith, Thanks for your words of encouragement. I don't know how many in the CCCA leadership read these posts, but I think when it comes right down to it, correspondense in support by CCCA members is going to be the most helpful. Why weren't these Buick's considered years ago? I have theories, but no facts. Two very influential people in CCCA's founding years were the late Robert J. Gottlieb, a columnist for MOTOR TREND magazine, and the late Robert Turnquist, whom Mr. Gottlieb often wrote about in his early to mid-fifties columns. I was an avid reader of the column, known as "Classic Comments", but in that time I was an early teenager. Mr. Gottlieb wrote two books on Classic cars, the first I think was called CLASSIC CARS, and it might have been in that one that he said "no Buick's are Classic's", because I had just turned 16 and gotten my blue '39 Buick sidemounted sedan when I read it. I took umbridged and wrote to him saying that I felt the 1939 Buick was a Classic. He did not reply, but in later years we did correspond intermittently. However, he wrote a second book in 1956 called "Classic Cars and Specials" in which he mentioned a car similar to mine as being of "Special Interest". I feel like these early opinions by leaders of the time had consequences for Buick that took hold and have lasted for over fifty years. It was on this basis that I only tried to get the Series 90 cars uplifted to Classic status in the mid-1970's, where I was successful. As for Mr. Turnquist, I met him in or around the time I became AACA National President. Because he had so often been referred to by Mr. Gottlieb in those articles during my teen formative years, I looked up to him in awe. He became very friendly with me, and he had also moved into Buick's, showing two different prize-winning Buick's at AACA National Meets around that time. Known for owning many wonderful Packards, he nevertheless told me often that Buick was another of his favorite cars. Times and opinions have changed since 1952 or 1956, and my gut feeling is if Mr. Turnquist were still living he would support my current efforts for Buick today, where he would not have in those early times, but there is no way really to know. Perhaps I've had too much time on my hands during the last year since retiring from leadership in AACA. No doubt I was also spurred by finally acquiring the '41 Buick Roadmaster phaeton after 21 years of effort , also. However, the bottom line is, I thought the time had come to give this a maximum effort while I was still less than 75, not because of my car, but because it's a cause that I feel has for far too long has been left to lay fallow.

Earl Beauchamp, Jr., Member AACA, CCCA, CHVA #1, BCA #55, ROA

Interesting post. Tonight I was thinking about the topic of adding more cars under the Full Classic umbrella, and was thinking why weren't they added when the Classic Club was formed in 1952 which is along the topic of your post?

In 1952 the club founders drew up a list of cars they thought should have special recognition as classics. These gentlemen were only considering cars from 1925 to 1942, the oldest car being only 27 years old. That is like forming a club today and defining cars that meet a certain standard from 1983 to 2000. These cars would still be very fresh in our minds as I assume the 1925-42 cars were in the club founder's mind as in 1952 they were determining what cars met their standards.

So the standards haven't changed, cars like the older Buicks haven't changed, but why today would club members consider Buicks (or any other well known production cars back in that era) if the original club members with these cars fresh in their mind didn't feel they met the Classic Car standard back then. The only thing that has passed is how fresh these cars where in our minds. Where they Buick bigots or some other good reason why these Buicks were not included?

Just wondering and food for thought. And for the record, I have not develop an opinion one way or the other on these latest Buicks up for inclusion.

[Dynaflash8]

Good morning Ken. First of all, nobody is infallable, and everybody has strong opinions that are not necessarily shared. Had I not been 14 years old in 1952, I might have been in a position then to stand up for Buick. I might also have had the time in life to research each year and model that Buick built. No doubt the average young man of the time who had owned a Buick and driven one, had owned or driven a Buick Special, the entry level Buick. Add to that the fact that there are currently many other cars included as Full Classic that were not considered at the time; for example 1941-1947 Cadillac. Obviously, if Buick was positioned second in GM behind Cadillac in 1952 and these Cadillacs were not deemed Classic in 1952, how then would they have considered Buick? Additionally, in 1952 many of the engineering advancements included on a 1941 Buick were still not incorporated in American cars, or were just coming in; thus disguising how far Buick engineering was ahead of its time. Mr. Gottlieb was the real spokesman for Classic cars at the time too, being published monthly in MOTOR TREND, and writing two books on the subject. He was a young man at the time. He had his opinions, and a place to put them out before the public; so he had significant impact. Nothing should ever be set in concrete at the inception of an idea. I have compared Buick's of the Classic period with Cadillac V8, Packard 160 and 180, non-boattail, non-supercharged Auburn's, LaSalle, and I believe I have made the case for big straight 8 Buicks that they were overlooked. They had engineering, comfort, design, quality that compared favorably with all of the entry level Full Classics. No, they do not compare with a Cadillac V-12 or V-16 or a Packard V-12 or a Duesenberg, etc. I grant that. However, like other entry level Full Classic's they were purchased by bankers, doctors, movie stars, socialites and were so close to other similar makes that it was oftimes just a personal choice which car those people bought. Finally, the founders of CCCA no doubt had a certain level of aura they wished to set out with. They were reasonably young people and the cars were basically inexpensive in 1952, plus many could still be found even in scrapyards to restore. Today, those same cars, in some cases, sell for prices into the millions, or certainly three figure thousands, while the young founders have passed on and a supply of younger members needs to take their place. That, it seems to me, calls for the Club to grow it's roots by rethinking some of the cars that, upon review and new thinking, perhaps qualify after all.

[West Peterson]

Ken

The simple answer is that mass production cars were not what the original CCCA founders wanted in the club. In fact, most of them even scoffed at the newer cars being let in, including 1940 Packard Super Eights. The plan was for the top-most elite cars you could think of, custom-bodied or very, very low production.

As years went by, the line eroded slowly. "This car is basically the same as that car..." etc. Probably the crack in the dike, though, was the postwar Lincoln Continental. I strongly believe that if they had never allowed those in, we'd see a completely different list of CCCA-accepted Classics today. Period.

Edited January 24, 2011 by West Peterson
added mass production (see edit history)

[Restorer32]

We owned a '48 Lincoln Continental. I sure saw nothing Classic in that car.

[Dynaflash8]

West, I don't quite follow you. I do agree with what you said on the one hand; however, I kind of believe if the line had not "slowly eroded" as you say, then the "vastly different CCCA" you speak of might be a very, very small group today, if still existing. The cars you speak of are without a shadow of a doubt outside the monetary perimeters of all but the wealthiest people, with very few exceptions. EDB

[trimacar]

West, I would agree with you, with one slight qualifier.....I feel your post is clearer is you stated "mass production" cars, not just production cars.

For example, one of the finest Classics, Pierce-Arrow, is a "production" car, in that they were not one-off examples. When some years of procution were in the thousands (or much less toward the end), the the definition of mass production is not met.

If the later years and debatable models of cars had not been classifed Classics by the CCCA, of course, the club would be smaller, but it would still be around. I feel that this fear of becoming a smaller club is part of what is making the addition of some models to the list look so desirable.

Further, there are many Classics that can be bought for well under what a new automobile sells for these days. Yes, it wil be a sedan perhaps, but Classic sedans can be brought to the same shows and tours as the more expensive open and custom bodied cars, and you can make the same friends.........

There were over a million automobiles produced over the years, that meet the CCCA Classic definition.................

[West Peterson]

West, I would agree with you, with one slight qualifier.....I feel your post is clearer is you stated "mass production" cars, not just production cars.

Fixed.

[West Peterson]

West, I don't quite follow you. I do agree with what you said on the one hand; however, I kind of believe if the line had not "slowly eroded" as you say, then the "vastly different CCCA" you speak of might be a very, very small group today, if still existing. The cars you speak of are without a shadow of a doubt outside the monetary perimeters of all but the wealthiest people, with very few exceptions. EDB

That's a totally different argument, to which you are probably 100% correct. I'm not judging the merits of Lincoln Continental, or your 1941 Buick. As you know, we own a Classic-era Lincoln Continental, and I've already asked you to give me your Buick (to no avail). I'm just answering Ken's question/statement about what the original CCCA members had intended, and gave my opinion as to how it has evolved (eroded??).

Edited January 24, 2011 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

Further, there are many Classics that can be bought for well under what a new automobile sells for these days. Yes, it will be a sedan perhaps, but Classic sedans can be brought to the same shows and tours as the more expensive open and custom bodied cars, and you can make the same friends..

That may be true, but I've recently bought cars for the same amount it would cost to go on some of their tours. So even though I have a Classic, I cannot afford to participate. Which is fine with me. I am quite content enjoying AACA activities with my Classic. The CCCA has always maintained that they were a country-club club, and I feel they they should run it as such. I don't think they should have compromised their standards (too late, now). In other words, if the members are enjoying themselves, why does it have to change just for the sake of becoming bigger???

Edited January 24, 2011 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

West, as you know, only too well, it takes money to run any club, and especially to produce a nice magazine. Although it may be true that some people could pay, let's say $500 a year, to belong to an organization, it's left to wonder how many would. I haven't yet approached AACA regarding changing the Buick's involved from Class 20 to Class 19, but I will, eventually. It was the old question of the "chicken or the egg". Back in '75 when I worked on the Buick Series 90 acceptance I may have gone to AACA first; I'm too old to remember. However, CCCA is the established "home" for strictly Classic cars, and I thought it would be a good thing to see these cars accepted there. Besides that, I'm a member of the So. Florida Region AACA and wanted to be able to go on their tours, so I applied to CCCA first.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Begs the question if either entity takes into account the classification of the other in these decisions. (not that they have to, it might be a good idea is all I am saying - it just seems to make sense to me.)

[Dynaflash8]

Yes Steve, I think you're right. But, that said, at this point in time it doesn't happen. After serving 15 years on the AACA National Board, one of which was National President, I did see some feeling among some that such cooperation would be a good thing. But, like in any organization I've heard others say, "we don't have to do what they do," albeit I heard that comment many years ago even before I was on the Board. I think it's best to just take baby steps, one at a time. Not only do I appreciate your comment Steve, but if you're so inclined I'll appreciate your support.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Earl, I think you have made a great argument and if I did not post earlier for what it is worth (not much as I am not a CCCA member, but probably need to part iwth the $60 or whatever it is...) I support your argument and any efforts to sync things up after all, these are complementary clubs IMHO, not competing clubs.

Also, since giving 2 cents I understand West's point philosophically, and hope AACA sticks to it's guns so to speak rather than change (i.e. accepting modifieds, just not the mission..) for the sake of growth. But that is another discussion that hopefully doesn't need to happen.

CCCA has already grown to accept simillar cars, and your Buick is certainly an example of a superior car that an affluent person would have considered, perhaps replacing and aging, "more traditonal Full Classic".

Good luck with it and no doubt you will keep us posted!

[Dynaflash8]

Thanks Steve for your comments.

[Dynaflash8]

Go to http://www.flickr.com/photos/carphotosbyrichard/4406560835/page2/ and you will see the 1941 Buick Series 90 Limited that I sold in 1981. If you leaf through those pictures you will see a 1941 Buick Roadmaster 71-C like my current car, close to a picture of a 1941 Cadillac 62 convertible sedan. The resemblance is striking. The Cadillac boasts 150 hp and the Buick boasts 165 hp. Interesting to compare the cars.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Earl, 2 more cents, not sure this point was already covered but in skimming the thread again I do not think so. They should think about where your car was slotted in the marketplace in terms of competition. For example, my 120 Packard typically competed against the LaSalle, Lincoln Zephyr, smaller Buicks and Chryslers in the 120 - 130 hp range and simillar pricing vs. the Sr. Buicks, Packards, the Cadillac, Lincoln Continental etc. Love my car but recognize it as a "better" car of it's era, not the "best" available. I think your phaeton is in that best class...

[Dynaflash8]

Thanks Steve. I've always missed that Silver French Gray over Lancaster Gray 1941 Buick Limited (sold it after it was used in my daughter's very unhappy marriage), but I've got to say having a '41 Roadmaster phaeton (supposedly previously owned by bandleader Ted Weems) was a much higher mountain to climb to obtain.

[Dynaflash8]

For those who are interested, the 1940-1941 Buick Series 70 has been turned down for Full Classic ® status. The 1941 Series 60-70-90 cars offered the most advanced engineering in the industry to that time, as well as the most horsepower of any car in the industry in 1941. I guess the appropriate sentence on this subject now is "end of story." Thank you to everyone pro and con for their correspondence to the thread over the past year.

[Guest my3buicks]

Did the board give an intelligent reason for not giving these fine cars full classic status? It is hard to understand how they could not give these cars the status when the cars stats beg to differ with their opinions. Or is this a "political" decision that this board has been so known for in the past?

[Dynaflash8]

There are two facts here. As I understand it, the Buick Series 80 (Roadmaster from 1936-1939) has been accepted by CCCA after years and years of being turned down. That is progress, just not good enough progress in my opinion. The problem is that the 1941 Series 70 Roadmaster which was a more powerful, more advanced car than any before it or any of its contemporaries was not.

What we have is a lack of understanding and a lot of preconceived opinions which have ruled since the early days; no matter that a six cylinder wooden-bodied Chrysler Town & Country has made the grade. In addiition, you have the 1941 Series 60 Century with the same advanced engineering and power in a Series 40 Special body. I'm not a Cadillac person, so I don't know if the 1941 Cadillac Series 61 or 62 shared the Century body. Apparently the Series 61 Cadillac is not a recognized CCCA Classic.

Moving on, we must add the fact that the Series 50 Super Buick had the same body with a shorter front end and the small Special engine. The Super is in my opinion obviously not a Classic because of the smaller, less powerful engine and lesser interior, although some might think it is because of its advanced engineering. I think that is carrying the ball too far. All of that is confusing, nothing to do do with where the cars were built.

The Classification Committee did seek literature (some I found and supplied) and had a breifing by a Buick man (whom I do not know, but well thought of within CCCA realms) in an effort to try and understand Harlow Curtice's saturation of the market in 1941, but when it came time for a vote, somebody didn't come to the final committee meeting and the Committee punted to the Full Board and when it came to the Full Board make a final determination, they did so without benefit of the literature and briefing (I presume) and they couldn't see the trees for the forest.

That's it, it's over, Boys. I'm happy for all those folks with the Series 80 Roadmasters...glad I could help. Having to go back and pick up those cars before trying to make the case for the far superior 1941 Series 70 car (lower series number, remember?) made it just too much to sell, too many things to teach, too much to overcome. I've always been a linear thinker, if 1 plus 1 equals 2, then it's got to be a fact that 2 +2 equals 4. But now, I'm too old carry the ball any further. I thought it was so obvious.....well, it was to me, but as I had feared in the beginning, too big a pill for policymakers to swallow all at one time.

As one man said above, there are other Clubs, and there are. I've been National President of AACA and am dedicated to that Club. But I also think when CCCA recognizes a car, that kind of car attains a special place of honor and I just wanted to see those Buicks on that platform. I wasn't working for my own personal car, but for the brand, which I feel has been overlooked when it should not have been. Seeya down the road.

Edited April 12, 2011 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

Sorry for the long drawn-out hijacking of your thread, Earl. Several of us were out of town last week. I've cleaned it up and the main perp has now been banned forever.

I, for one, would like to thank you for your efforts in this. It's not an easy process. I believe you had an excellent argument. While my opinion is that the Buick is NOT what the CCCA initially wanted in the club, the horses have been let out of the barn and it doesn't make sense that they are not included now.

[Seldenguy]

Thank you West, he will not be missed! --Bob

[Marty Roth]

Thank You West --- we try to keep a reasonable and level-headed discussion -- some folks just have to push anagenda, incorrect and inappropriate though it may be --

and thanks again to Earl, whose efforts are admirable, and whose "class approach" was made even more evident through his carefully chosen statements.

[jeff_a]

Earl,

Congratulations on fighting the good fight to get the 70-Series Buicks accepted.

I enjoyed looking at the photos on your link to see the 1941 71-C Convertible Sedan and the 1941 Limited Limousine. The Brunn Town Car was really top-shelf!

When votes come up for inclusion of new models in the CCCA as Classics it must make a difference how many supporters of a marque are in the general membership. I was curious how many members in the club are Buick Full Classic owners already. Twenty? 200?. I can see how getting another Cadillac model accepted a few years ago with a large number already in the club (owners of Cad V-12s, V-16s, 1925 V-8s, etc.) was easier than, say, getting a make accepted with few CCCA member/owners.

Have you heard about the 1938 Buick for sale in southeast Idaho? I posted a mention of it on the Buick Buy/Sell Forum two months ago after finding it listed in a local want ad. It's a 90 Series Limited Limousine. The asking price was about $16,650 the last time I looked. Unfortunately, I've never seen the motorcar or photos of it.

[Centurion]

For clarification, are all 1931 through 1940 Buick series 80 cars now accepted (along with 1931 through 1942 series 90)?

Or, is it only the 1936 through 1940 series 80 cars that are accepted?

This is not completely clear from the posts above.

[Dynaflash8]

Yes Centurian, that is my understanding. I should have said that. There were no Series 80 cars in 1934 and 1935 and those built in 1931-1933 were not called by a name. The names Special, Century, Roadmaster and Limited were born in 1936 and the Super in 1940. It all goes back to my personal Buick interest beginning in 1936 so I apologize for not mentioning the 1931-33, but I did include them. Earl