Jump to content

Most desirable year


Recommended Posts

After attending too many ROA nationals to count and seeing the results of peer judging........and hearing many people who are vaguely familiar with Rivs say after I tell them I have an old Riv "oh is that the one with the headlights that open like this" (insert video of them moving their hands like a clamshell).

This is unbiased never having owned one myself. ;)

Picking #2 might be a bit harder. Lots of contenders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

`65 is not the only year for the hideaways which is a styling feature, whether clamshell or not, draws me to many models including Fords and Chryslers. But the answer to this is a no-brainer...look at the market values. Merry Christmas to all,

Tom Mooney

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Riviera People: So what's numba too? I like the 63 and 64 the same. 63, Dynaflo.....not to good at this point, 64, 425, also not too good at this point....unless somebody fixed them already (like me $$$$$$). It's really just a matter of the energy the car has.

I love all old Rivieras but after 65 not enough to marry one. Mitch

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK Riviera People: So what's numba too? I like the 63 and 64 the same. 63, Dynaflo.....not to good at this point, 64, 425, also not too good at this point....unless somebody fixed them already (like me $$$$$$). It's really just a matter of the energy the car has.

I love all old Rivieras but after 65 not enough to marry one. Mitch

Nothing really wrong with either the Dynaflow nor the 425 if they weren't abused.

Were there really any Rivieras built before '63 or after '65?;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

1st Riviera model was in 1949.

Most desireable?

Source - Meriam Webster . com - "desirable": having pleasing qualities or properties

synonym: attractive i.e. -a desirable woman

Gentlemen, the facts speak for themselves.

1985 - 64,874 units sold

6th generation total units sold - 373,249 (avg. = 53,321 units / year)

1963 - 40,000 units sold - limited edition, sold every last one of them.

1964 - 37,658 units sold - was going to be limited to 40,000 but.....

1965 - 34,586 units sold - ditto, but 3,072 units less than the '64, and 5,414 less than the '63. Doesn't quite fit the definition, does it? :(

1st generation total units sold - 112,244 (avg. = 37,415 units /year)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Al, be picky. I guess I'll have to use the same argument again but limit it to the "60's" Rivieras.

Same definitions as above apply here as well as production numbers for 1963 - 1965.

1966 - 45, 348 units sold

1967 - 42,799 units sold

1968 - 49,284 units sold

1969 - 52, 872 units sold

Total 1960's second generation Riviers sold = 195,303 (avg. units / year = 48,825)

Comparing these figures with the 1963 -1965 years from my previous post, the numbers still say that (according to definition) the 1965 is the least desireable of the 60's Rivieras. Fewest units sold of any Riviera produced in the '60's.

Gentlemen, you'll just have to accept it, the least desirable Riviera from the '60's was in fact the 1965.

Therefore, the most desirable Riviera has to be the 1969.

Sorry to disappoint but "numbers don't lie."

Ed :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay Al, be picky. I guess I'll have to use the same argument again but limit it to the "60's" Rivieras.

Same definitions as above apply here as well as production numbers for 1963 - 1965.

1966 - 45, 348 units sold

1967 - 42,799 units sold

1968 - 49,284 units sold

1969 - 52, 872 units sold

Total 1960's second generation Riviers sold = 195,303 (avg. units / year = 48,825)

Comparing these figures with the 1963 -1965 years from my previous post, the numbers still say that (according to definition) the 1965 is the least desireable of the 60's Rivieras. Fewest units sold of any Riviera produced in the '60's.

Gentlemen, you'll just have to accept it, the least desirable Riviera from the '60's was in fact the 1965.

Therefore, the most desirable Riviera has to be the 1969.

Sorry to disappoint but "numbers don't lie."

Ed :D

Perhaps they weren't that desirable at the time they were made. Now they the most desirable based on how their prices are increasing.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

By definition, I'd say that the VW Beetle was truly desireable. The numbers don't lie.

Perhaps the person who started the thread needs to expand his defintion of desireable. Something like "Which Riviera to be driven / shown (you have to choose one,) built in the 1960's, regardless of how many were produced or purchased new, is now desired the most by men between the ages of ___ & ____, who have median household incomes of at least _________, who live in homes valued at $___________ or more, who have ___.__ children, and an education level of _______, and who frequent online forums."

If you use enough variables, you can get the results you want from any data. :D Just ask the 4 out of 5 dentists who recommend Crest.

I've worked the last couple of Mecum auctions here in Kansas City. If value is the determining factor, then as far as the most desirable "personal luxury car" built by Buick (definition of a Riviera?) you'd have to go with a '53 Buick Skylark. Anyone not trade their Riviera for a 400 point one of those?

Ed

PS - I do hope that all of you are reading this with the same tongue in cheek that I'm writing it.

Edited by RivNut (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, only thing is, your fact are kinda skewed. The original question was what is the most desirable Riv, as in today, not as in when the vehicles were new. Find me a 1985 Riv that's worth any more than a few thousand. As far as today is concerned, we have to go by market value. And, according to market value, a 1965 Riv GS would be at the top of the spectrum, making it the most desirable Riv. There may be a few exceptions as in Jason's rare 67 with the Dual Quad motor, but overall, the 65's bring the most $$$.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Al straightened me out on the original query. But, there was never any mention of value until I mentioned it in my last reply.

I was just quoting facts on 1960's Rivieras. Of all of the guys who have responded in the affirmative that a '65 is the most desireable, all but one or two are the owners of a '65. Based on the number of responses when compared to the number of folks who can and do read this forum, there have not been enough replies to even make the survey/opinion poll valid.

Apparently you didn't read my Post-Script. I'm taking this pretty lilght hearted, knowing for a fact that the 1965 Riviera was the least popular 1960's Riviera based on sales figures. What other numbers does anyone have access to? I'm just having fun with numbers and semantics

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned values in post #9. Thought this was a pretty straight forward question and answer????

I always preferred the `65 model and was convinced it represented the styling pinnacle for the Riviera...until, after 2 decades of devotion to the `65 model I had the opportunity to study the `65 and `66 models, side by side, while having dinner at one of the annual meets. It struck me that the `66 design appears so much cleaner, almost as if mechanical engineering forced no changes to the intended design by the styling dept. No bulky stainless trim on the A pillars, no vent windows and frames, just pure style...so I made up my mind I would find the most collectible `66, a factory dual quad car. I spotted the right car in California but by the time I responded to the ad it had been sold. Three years later the car surfaced in a parking garage 15 miles from my home...nice car. So I currently own both a `65 and `66. Each have their advantages but the market values are pretty well defined. It is obvious the `65 GS models are the choice of collectors..but a super dandy `63 in the right colors and with the right equipment is no slouch! Happy New Year to all,

Tom Mooney

Link to post
Share on other sites

Myself, #1 would be a 1965.

#2 1966.

Every time I tell people I have a Riv, they say... "The one with the funny back window?"
Funny, when I tell people that I own a `64 Riviera they ask me if it`s got a big back window or they ask if it`s front wheel drive......

I get those comments all the time too when I tell people I own a '70 Riviera!

"Pointy rear window? Front wheel drive? V6?"

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

'63 obviously... :P then '68 second.

So going along with "this is an emotional vote", "there is no right answer", or even "just having keyboard fun", I'll add a couple thoughts to the pot... :D

I always hear just how cool the clam shell lights are on the '65. That seems to be the #1 reason most folks get a '65, or the reason to retrofit them on the prior years. Good enough. (not sure why the '66 doesn't get the same fanfare for its retractable lights, which are cool too.) Yes, its cool.

However, this is a Personal Luxury car, so I don't get the cool factor. Cool and Luxury might as well be oil and water. Its either a personal luxury car or a cool car, but not both. Buick specifically limited production to 40,000 units to ensure exclusivity, not coolness. To me, the exposed head lamps conveyed style and offered artistic value.

I'm glad Buick did it both ways... that way more people are pleased. It also seems to provide us a reason to talk about these cars during the winter. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could make an argument for my favorite year which is 1968-69.

I don't understand why folks feel the 1965 is the most desirable. The 65 Riviera body was fair in it's execution and of course we all know Mitchell originally wanted the 63 with hidden headlamps but the rear bumper/taillights are much better executed on the 63-64 then on the 65's.

Dave Holls penned an overall better car in 1966. Interiors were more stylish when done with buckets and console.

I think the ultimate 60's Riviera would have to be a 66 GS with 2x4, 3.42 posi, bucket seat console car.

Obviously, the 67 was the same but the 430 wasn't a 425 dual quad for looks, cache or overall perfromance.

The styling on the 66-69 was superior to the 63-65's. The 66-69 seemlessly integrated the bumpers which made the entire car "of one piece" whereas the 63-65 had traditional bumpers.

I know 65's are popular, but why #1?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why folks feel the 1965 is the most desirable.

I know 65's are popular, but why #1?

Lets pretend and say your place of employment offered a 401K savings program but instead of offering various choices of mutual funds for you to invest in, they offered a choice to pick only one of a 1963 through 1969 Riviera that are in identical condition, same mileage, color and options.

This apples to apples choice takes the one year specific options like GS, dual quad, stunning color combos, etc out of the equation. Since its a savings plan you select based on what you think has the most value as well as retaining that value over a long period of time, not what you like personally.

I wouldn't have to think about this choice for more than a second.........even though the 65 is #2 on my 60s list next to the 66 and #3 overall next to the 71. While the 65 isn't my personal favorite, I know its always been at the top for desirability by the majority all things being equal. Desirability and value are directly proportional in this case. Since they are more in demand and/or sought after, it means more people are looking which in turn enables a seller to ask and get more money.

I think the one year only front grille/headlight styling is what makes them more asthetically pleasing and connect emotionally to the average person. Its the same phenomenon as lining up 10 beautiful women (or handsome men) :( and asking a random group of people to pick the "most" beautiful one. There are certain features that are more asthetically pleasing to the average human being. :confused:

Having said that, the favor the 65 enjoys is firm but by no means overwhelming vs its younger and older adversaries. This is evidenced by the nice variety of years represented at the nationals each year on average. I do recall a couple nationals where there were huge numbers of 65s and without looking up the data, they were no doubt the "single year" biggest turnout those years and perhaps even in the history of the ROA nationals.

Edited by JZRIV (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put Jason. Yes, thankfully virtually every Riviera is a styling tour de force. It was always a flagship clean sheet car except for perhaps 77-78 and I even like those Rivieras.

I have owned 2 64's, a 68, a 71 and 2 73's. I just think the 66-69's were "of one piece" with flush mounted bumpers, very nice.

I personally like the 68 grille/bumper treatment better then 66-67 but most people feel 68-69 was not an improvement over 66-67.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to ask Jason to elaborate on this one, it goes back to a previous thread which comments on "the peformance of the dual four barrel nailhead" when compared to a '67. I owned a '67 once but it was one of those cars that I bought as a project (no engine) therefore I can't say what the performance of the 430 that was OE in the '67 Riv was like when compared to a 2x4 nailhead. I've owned a couple of '66's and was impressed with the performance of the nailhead with the Rochester Qudadrajet. I have driven a couple of 2x4 64's and 65's, but I want to take them out of the equation because of the weight and aerodynamics. All I have to go on is the HP ratings as published by Buick. Both the 2x4 nailhead and the single 4bbl 430 were rated at 360 hp. From the discussions I've read on other forums, it is a stretch to get 360 hp from the nailhead, whereas the new big block was typically under rated for insurance purposes. That being said, does anyone have any real performance figures for these two egines in a heads up competition. This would basically be asking if anyone has run a dealer installed 2x4 on a '66 (MX) or a 2x4 from the factory (MZ) engine in a '66 heads up against the 430 in a '67? Both have identical bodies, except for the horizontal grill bar of the '67, and a few other asthetic items. Every thing else being equal. Both had variable pitch TH400 transmissions, and both could have a 3.42 (or similarly geared) posi rear end. Which is in front at the end of a 1/4 mile.

To me the styling of the '66 -'67 Riviera second generation Riviera is a quantum leap ahead of the '63 - 65. Personally I don't like the 68 -69 models because in my opinion, a bumper shouldn't be used as part of the grill, but we're just stating opinions here. I also read somewhere that the reason for the poor sales of the '65 Riviera was due to the fact that the '65 Wildcat was styled so eloquently with its fast back roof, ventless side windows, etc. Kind of makes you wonder if Buick didn't hang on to the 1st generation styling for an extra year just to get Bill Mitchells final styling ideas in place. This has no bearing on desireability, but I'd like to know if anyone has any facts about the performance of a '66 2x4 nailhead v. a '67 430 big block. However, if I were to have to choose a Riviera based on Jason's analogy to a 401K, I'd have to go with the '65.

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jason's analogy is a good one and right on target. Although I do own a '65, my personal preference is for the '64. I obviously like other years too as I have Rivs from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Since this discussion is all in fun, I will point out that when the ROA was founded it initially was a group formed for first generation owners and enthusiasts. That should tell you something about desirability (or at least 1980's desirability :)) of our cars from a collectors's standpoint.

Well that was fun. Who wants to start the thread for least desirable year? Maybe I'll go first and say 1994...:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, I have a 65. Two years ago my car was parked next to an immaculate 66 and I had the opportunity to study them both carefully and I agree with Tom Mooney's analysis.

There are a few angles where the 1st gen looks odd. Particularly around the windscreen base where it doesn't flow like the rest of the car. In terms of exterior design cohesion I think the 66/67 is better, but......

As an owner, the part of the car you spend most time looking at is the dash and over the hood. In this respect, in my view the 66/67 is a big disappointment.

You can see where the bean counters stripped cost out of the car. The interior of the 1st gen cars is stunning, one of the best in a 60s American car (would have been nice though to have some gauges like my 53 rather than all those stupid idiot lights, if I had a temp gauge I wouldnt need a light to tell me the engine's cold would I? - but I digress) and you can see that the designers won most of the battle in there.

The interior in the 66/67 is a big disapointment, particularly with the bench seat, its not simply isnt special anymore and the view over the hood isnt as good either. For me, that rules one out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that was fun. Who wants to start the thread for least desirable year? Maybe I'll go first and say 1994...:D

Al,

I agree with you on the 94 being the least desireable.......even though they are rare as hens teeth.:o

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Riviera People: There are two important things to consider here.

First. My attraction to the first-gen Riv is because it rang my bell when they were new and that has everything to do with my attraction.

Second. Because of the age of these cars the majority of people appreciating any old car do so for what it is today and not for what the car represented to them when new or in daily service. I never liked a B-59 but as I became a member of the B-59 Forum they kind of grew on me. They will never take the place of a 60 for me but I did take a shine to them. My appreciation for almost any old Riv is great although I really concentrate on the First-Gen. A 66 and newer model is a much easier model to obtain also, but again, that First-Gen really rings my bell.....and loud! Mitch

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...