CCCA Future

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Such a club in it's original form, West, would likely interest me. I just happen to think it would be best done outside of CCCA to avoid WWIII as has been pointed out - well, it sounds like it did work out well, but I would stick with simillar criteria, a "best of the best" based at least in part to exclusivity when new. In that light a ' 63 300 SL has a lot more in common with say, a '62 Lincoln Continental than a '65 Mustang. I think limiting to coachbuilt/exotics would be a tad too exclusive, but that is just one opinion...

[Dynaflash8]

AACA did do it, more or less, by creating Class 29, a restricted class for approved "prestige cars", i.e. 1953 Buick Skylark, 1953 Olds Fiesta, etc., etc.

As for the 1949 Cadillac 75 and the 1949 Buick Special, the CHVA Club was founded in 1966 for 1928-1948 vehicles, plus those two vehicles. The CHVA club remains active today, but has kept up with the times, moving their years of acceptance up from time to time over the years; the first such extension was up to 1958.

Even reletively large clubs can't survive living in a cocoon, must less smaller ones. AACA has kept going and growing by bringing theirselves into the future, beginning in 1974 when they moved to their 25 year old rule.

The changes that have taken place in the American automobile industry since 1977, and especially since approximately 1985-86, which took styling to a new low that American automobile manufacturers have continued to try and drive lower, successfully over the following 20 years have turned any reason for car collecting for our younger generation into negligable. That is the real cause of worry for the future of the hobby.

Most members of the socalled X-Generation grew up playing computer games, buying and playing with electronic gadgets, and showing little interest in the ugly cars of the last thirty years, which they can't work on, and which are mostly made of plastic, and sell at used car prices no paper boy will ever save up for. Now, the government has not only caused cars being designed like jelly beans, but has now added ethanol which rots the gas tank and in the gas tank in three months of storage.

Too many of the collectable cars of the past are being chopped up and ruined by street rodders who show no respect for them as historical survivors. So, the surviving clubs had better get together and try to join arms to recognize and salvage the cars built prior to the mid-1980s or the hobby will die a slow death and only the strongest will survive another thirty years. That's a prediction.

As to the Milestone Car Society, the founder, Mr. Langworth, had a great idea. The work for a few believers becomes overbearing in a few years because not enough new volunteers can be found to take over the workload, and eventually things become inevitable.

[A. Ballard 35R]

Are you referring to Richard Langworth, the former publisher of the Packard Cormorant?

[Dynaflash8]

Yes. He is also, like myself, a Washington Nationals baseball fan. I met him again last year on theri website. I think I won't post what his and my "nicks" were on the Nationals website though. I was one of the earliest members of the Milestone Car Society and recommended the 1949 Buick Roadmaster Riviera. However, I didn't stay with it a long time as I had so many irons in the fire. It was a very good idea.

[Guest ChrisSummers]

Mr. Beauchamp, very, very, very well-said.

My only question, after carefully reading and reviewing this entire thread, is when CCCA membership will realize that public discussions like this, nitpicking and throwing slings and arrows back and forth, do nothing but scare off people like me. I've never seen an organization that, at least nationally, seems so terrified of cars outside its (very narrow) field of acceptance.

The Town & Country was accepted. The sky is still up. The world still turns. The ground did not crack open.

Take a deep breath and move on.

Edited February 2, 2012 by ChrisSummers (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

Chris

The CCCA is not "terrified." That would be like the Ford V-8 club being terrified of Ford Model A's. They formed a club for a specific type of car. What is wrong with sticking to your guns without being called terrified?

As for the sky falling, membership of CCCA used to be around 5 or 6 thousand. It has now dipped under 4,000. I don't know if that can be attributed losing their focus with the postwar cars or not. It could also be that $70 is a lot of money for membership. Or, the cost of participating on tours. Could be a little bit of all.

It's a good club, with good people. Every club has its fair share of "snobs," or jerks. The problem is that sometimes those "snobs" reach a newbie first, and the newbie is gone forever relating his experience to all who will listen.

[Guest ChrisSummers]

I've learned from own experiences in my own clubs of choice that change is inevitable and has to be accepted to a certain extent. We elect leaders to make decisions for us, and sometimes they handle and/or make decisions that we don't agree with. That's why terms run out. That's why elections are held. If you don't like what an organization does, vote with your ballot. If you don't like who's making the decisions, run.

Arguing over it in public just puts out a bad first impression, IMHO.

The ACD Club has a separate section on their forum for members only, Topics. It allows these sort of things to be discussed by members without airing them out to the public.

[alsancle]

Chris, you make a good case for not arguing in public. But, if you look at most of these threads, it's 90% non-members taking shots and members firing back. Most members that I talk to like the club just the way it is. Allegedly there are many that want to open it up a bit but I have never met one in person.

Btw, would you be OK with opening up the ACD club to Hollywoods & Skylarks? I actually wouldn't mind.

[Guest ChrisSummers]

BJM, we're both in that minority.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Two different issues here -

Because of the nature of this and other forums people will constantly need to be educated about what CCCA is about, despite how clearly that is explained in sticky above and on the CCCA website. The "why isn't my '39 Dodge accepted" questions will pop up - that is inevitable and should not scare off potential members. Forum moderators and club members tend to be polite in response, although it does get ugly at times when people just don't get it. This is where most of the disagreement or "noise" around CCCA seems to come from. And while it may not be representative of membership overall or potential membership, for some reason those threads get a lot of traction here.

The issue of expansion, does this or that car qualify, assuming the car is one worthy of even having the discussion, should not scare anyone off, rather, if debated calmly, I think that is a pretty interesting topic. Readers hopefully would understand that regulars here are not necesarilly influencing the BOD, heck as A.J. points out, many are non members. That said, I think expressing opinion here is not necesarilly bad. For example, I think Dave's comments are interesting and I would not dismiss his argument out of hand. Wouldn't it be a boring word if we agreed on everything?

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

This has to be one of the more "Entertaining" threads in these forums. It's like watching a room full of siblings fighting over which TV show will be watched next.

As a non CCCA member I have to admit I have no real understanding of the nature of the club or it's perceived purpose. Perhaps much of the impressions people may have of what the club is or isn't could be well addressed on the club's web site which seems to be absent of any specific information of the club's purpose and objectives unless one clicks on the button to join and then the amount of information appears to be exceedingly understated.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history)

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Up until recently CCCA had an excellent, prominent page on the website that explained the nature of the club and the reason only certain cars are eligible in very simple terms. Too bad it is down as it does leave one to wonder. Having said that, anyone who is involved with prewar cars or has read any of the 10,000 threads in this forum on the topic should have a clue.

[West Peterson]

Simply put. CCCA organizers wanted a "country club" type of car club (quoted from one of the more infamous of them). They did not want to stay in a Motel 6 when on tour or at a meet. It only made sense that the car's accepted for club participation would be ones in which country club members would have.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Up until recently CCCA had an excellent, prominent page on the website that explained the nature of the club and the reason only certain cars are eligible in very simple terms. Too bad it is down as it does leave one to wonder. Having said that, anyone who is involved with prewar cars or has read any of the 10,000 threads in this forum on the topic should have a clue.

Steve I have very serious doubts about the latter statement. In respect to addressing the title of this thread and any car club needing to attract new members (most of them) those 10,000 threads are not being read by "newbies" to the hobby. We know that not even all "seasoned hobbyist" read previous threads on a subject because we see many of the same questions being repeated week after week and month after month.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

I suppose that is true, like I said earlier in this thread, CCCA has some opportunities regarding leveraging the Internet and it's site in general.

Since the club focuses on fine cars from a certain era, it is by nature different from most other car clubs. Even with a 60 year history, there is still discussion about cars that meet the criteria. That leads to spirited discussion. With a marque specific club or other general interest club it is a little easier to draw the lines.

[Sweepspear]

I've been enjoying this thread. No, I am not a CCCA member, but practically grew up in the club as my Father was an active member of the Upper Midwest Region of the club in the Twin Cities, and attended most every meeting, show, and CARavan.

I have wonderful memories, and feel blessed to have been exposed to examples automotive history in it's highest form. Along with great memories of members that were in the club at that time.

For years I have been a defender of the proper usage of the term Classic Car. Boy, that's a tiring battle!

With all that being said, I wanted to share my thoughts.

When I was younger and attending these events, I was of the mindset that the CCCA should continually bring in newer cars to the club. Not '57 Chevys and the like, but cars such as the Mark II Continental, Biarritz Eldorado Cadillacs, Certain Chrysler Imperials. Cars of a nature that just seemed in my mind to be a continuation of the finer cars built before WWII.

I know there was a big dust up over the 1941-1948 Chrysler Town & Country being granted full Classic status, but I can see it.

Now that I am older, I appreciate that the CCCA is still being very discrinimating in the cars it admits into the club.

These cars were special in their own right, and should have a club that is also special in it's own right.

Simply put. CCCA organizers wanted a "country club" type of car club (quoted from one of the more infamous of them). They did not want to stay in a Motel 6 when on tour or at a meet. It only made sense that the car's accepted for club participation would be ones in which country club members would have.

I can say with certainty my late Father would agree 100% with this statement West.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Sweepspear (see edit history)

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

I suppose that is true, like I said earlier in this thread, CCCA has some opportunities regarding leveraging the Internet and it's site in general.

Since the club focuses on fine cars from a certain era, it is by nature different from most other car clubs. Even with a 60 year history, there is still discussion about cars that meet the criteria. That leads to spirited discussion. With a marque specific club or other general interest club it is a little easier to draw the lines.

Spirited Discussion? I'm surprised it doesn't break out in fist fights. I'm not entitled to an opinion on the "contentious" issues, but I think they may begin with what I have seen in some using the term "the Classic Era." Whatever that means. As a bystander, I would question that any automobile of any era that is just a variation of a production vehicle should be considered "classic" given the word unto itself is comparative in nature.

You guys have fun with your wars. I think I'll just continue to abstain though it might be interesting to see a good fist fight.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Fistfights? Can't speak for anyone else but any CCCA member or interested non-member happening upon my house would be offerred the same libation of their choice (as long as it is on hand) and hospitality whether or not we are in 100% agreement on which cars should be included on the CCCA roster!

[West Peterson]

You guys have fun with your wars. I think I'll just continue to abstain though it might be interesting to see a good fist fight.

Continue???? I'm waiting for you to begin!

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Continue???? I'm waiting for you to begin!

Begin what?

[West Peterson]

Dave

I have no idea. I was just using the name in a generic sort of way.

[West Peterson]

Dave

Maybe I'm coming off wrong with my statements. I'm not knocking the CCCA. I'm just saying they wanted a "country club" club, and there's nothing wrong with that. And I'm not trying to imply that AACA is a cheapy club, either. Although it is much, much more economical to tour with the AACA than CCCA. The CCCA tends to stay at resorts quite a bit more expensive than where AACA normally "sets up".

And, yes, I'm fully aware that one is not required to stay at the host hotel. When we CARavaned back in the 1960s, we were usually several blocks away at most of the stops, but every once in a while we "splurged." We were playing in a country club community, but we weren't country club people.

[Dynaflash8]

I've spent 50 years in the "club oriented" hobby, and belonged to most, if not all multi-car clubs; even founded one. My thrust has always been the acclaimation of the cars and trucks, all of them, within my sphere of interest, the Great Depression/WWII era. I've let others do the proclaiming for 1950's, 1960's and 1970's vehicles, as well as pre-1932 vehicles. If I could afford to have a 200 vehicle collection, it would consist of all 1934-1949 vehicles, both Full Classics and production cars. Since I can't I've stuck with my favorite brand among all of them, Buicks. I've been a member of CCCA twice, once when I had a Full Classic that I helped get declared a Full Classic (1941 Buick 90) and once when I did not, (1941 Buick 71-C conv sed). Unfortunately, researched data that was designed to calmly prove a case for Full Classic status and proclaim quality worked for the one car and did not work for the other. The results from all of these arguments boils down to personalities, prejudice, and historic perceptions; not necessarily a calm presentation of proof. Buick was overlooked by CCCA from it's earliest day, and that's pretty hard to change. At some point, probably due to age and experience, one realizes to just move on to some other venue. Nevertheless, as we've seen here, discussion can be interesting. Can it turn a light on in some leader's mind? I doubt it. AACA has over the years moved, aspired, and sometimes stumbled into an enviable leadership position in the hobby by more or less recognizing change. There were times, and there may be in the future, where that club has stubbed a toe by being reactionary or misguided, but ultimately they have always gotten around to giving their members what their members want. My years of service to the AACA membership continues to be the highlight of my life, but my desire to proclaim the quality and appreciation of the Buick straight 8's will last until the day I die. It's not the cost of dues, or the tour headquarters; those I can afford. As a writer, as a person who is very analytical, I feel like I can write a common sense case. There was a time when if a common sense case didn't go anywhere, I'd continue on in battle. Now, at 73, I feel more like moving on down an easier road.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

Earl

That "light bulb" works both ways. CCCA is trying to get people to understand which vehicles are accepted and why. They have had a pretty darn good track record for 60 years of sticking to their guns and surviving. In my opinion, the only times the club has stumbled is when they DO try to change. Unfortunately, your exemplary work on trying to get the 71-C accepted came immediately after one of those "stumbling" moments. I'm almost positive that is why the car was denied. Bad timing.

[West Peterson]

Unique? No. There are many clubs that accept specific types of vehicles. It is an exclusive club. If you perceive that as being a problem, I think you are wrong.

A club loses focus when it changes its purpose to "get more members." It's a slippery slope. How many members do they lose vs how many do they gain.

[Dynaflash8]

West and BJM. I did not offer the 1941 70 Series because I was trying to help the Club grow. In fact, I have always somewhat honored the idea of the "Full Classic" and the CCCA. I was reading Robert Gottlieb when I was 15-16 years old. I have spent a lifetime trying to correct an original decision, which I have always felt was wrong; wherein Gottlieb said "no Buick is a Classic." This last go-round I succeeded in getting the 1931-39 Series 80 Roadmaster (so named beginning in 1936, and the Series 80 was not built in 1934-1935) declared a "Full Classic". I think I was able to do so because somebody during my absence from the Club since owning the '41 Limited, had achieved Full Classic status for the 1940 Series 80, which was no more than the previous Roadmaster, wearing a Limited nameplate. Where I failed was being unable, with all of the proof in the World, being able to get the 1941 Series 70 Roadmaster accepted as a Full Classic, when in fact the 1941 big series car was the fastest, finest and most powerful and advanced straight 8 Buick EVER built. One of the reviewers threw in the 1942-48 Roadmaster, a step back from 1941 after the War, which muddied the water. Yes, the 1942 had the mechanical tickets, but it looked like a post-War Buick, so I didn't recommend it. It all goes back to an embryonic prejudice against Buick, and I'll believe that until the day I die. The effort was right, not because it was designed to expand the club or its ideas, but as an effort to right a true wrong....and yes, that is my opinion. And I don't mind giving my name to that opinion, either. Thanks, Earl D. Beauchamp, Jr.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

Earl

I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was just saying that hot on the heals of the CCCA going through some major turmoil, it probably didn't matter how good or accurate your argument was (and I'm sure you had all your I's dotted and T's crossed, and then some), a new addition probably wasn't going to be in the cards, unless you were arguing for a Bugatti Royale-type of vehicle.

Without judging the 71-C with any other car, I believe it should be Classic, as do many others. As I said, the application arrived at a time when I'm sure the powers that be were more than a little gun shy.

[Guest studepeople]

To Dynaflash8; I have in the past with my "Full Classic" Cadillac on a Caravan sucked the dust of a series90 Buick. They are great cars. Now the series 80 is so reconized and I think that is "Great".....We and They are starting to get it.....but not all Buicks of the Pre war years are so impressive .. I have been fighting for the big Stude 8s' and we now are in because we should belong there ...not all but there are some other studes that should belong. It is a process and as long as they are Pre War cars more will be allowed...........

[Dynaflash8]

Morning Studepeople. Yes, not all pre-War Buicks should apply. I actually prefer the least of those, a Special. I like the design better, and the smaller size fits me, personally better. I loved the big '41 Series 90 cars I owned, and they drove as easy as a Special. I grew up with 1939 Buick Specials, and love them the most. The '41 Roadmaster is a bit more "manly" in that it's heavier to drive, maybe because of the 15 inch wheels and tires. However, all 1941 Buicks were unbelievably advanced. Those cars (Series 60, 70 and 90) are faster, more powerful, and more advanced than any other car built in 1941. That should say something positive to the leadership. Oh, somebody will come on here and pick that statement apart, or try to, but on a point by point basis, I believe I can out-debate them. Packard came the closest wherein for extra money a person could get an aluminum head, and with that, a matching 165 horsepower could be achieved.

[West Peterson]

I had the opportunity to drive two well-sorted cars a couple of years ago, back-to-back. One, a 1947 Cadillac, the other a 1947 Buick. The Buick was a much more refined car to drive than the Cadillac.

[Matt Harwood]

Don't forget that the big Buicks also used coil springs instead of leaf springs out back, which paid big dividends in ride quality. The Buicks also have front and rear sway bars, whereas the Cadillac only has a front bar. The bodies were the same from the cowl back, making the Buick arguably a superior car, which is probably why the 90 Series disappeared after the war.

While I'd love for all the big Buicks to be Full Classics, I honestly don't think it's right. It's hard to draw a line--my Century is essentially the same underneath as a Roadmaster, with the avant-garde fastback styling. Should it be a Classic? I'd say no. The 90 Series? Sure. They were still big, opulent cars that fit the criteria the founding CCCA members envisioned. The 1940 80 Series got in on a technicality by being called a "Limited" and I suppose that opened the door to the other 80 series cars. But the rest, while truly wonderful cars, were still mass-produced transportation, even the wonderful Roadmaster phaetons. They don't have that hard-to-define "specialness" that Classics should have.

Now, with that said, I also have an argument against a lot of the Cadillacs that are in. A 1946-48 Series 62 4-door sedan? Really? To me, the Cadillacs are a much blurrier line than the Buicks. 60 Series, yes, 61 Series no, 62 and 63 Series yes. It's enough to make you go crazy.

I think chasing a broader range of cars will dilute the specialness of the club and will ultimately do the opposite of what it is intended to do, and that's attract new members. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves why we feel the NEED to grow the club? If it is self-sufficient, who cares what the member count is? This isn't a for-profit organization is it?

The cars will always exist, they will always have ardent admirers, and there will always be people who want to enjoy them. Let's let the club be what it needs to be to service the members who share the same ideals, but not chase numbers like a corporation chasing market share.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Matt Harwood (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

Matt, Yes, the argument could be made for the Century, since it was the first production "Muscle Car", but it was basically the Special with a big engine, like the Century's from 1936-1940. And yes, the Roadmaster shared the body with the Super, but the Super was underpowered. Cadillac did not share the body between the 62 and 61 Series; the 61 Series being equal to a Century, but with less power and speed. Your point is otherwise lost on me. Taking the body, appointments, speed, power, and advanced engineering all into account, the '41 Series 70 and 90 were top of the line, top of the marque, and definitely a proveable Full Classic -- when no "gun-shy" or "prejudice is considered.

[Matt Harwood]

I guess my point was that once you start blurring the lines and cherry picking certain body styles, but not others within a series, it's hard to stay true to the original criteria. The Century is definitely not a Special with a big engine, it's a Roadmaster with a Special fastback body--in the same way that the Roadmaster and Super shared bodies, the Special and Century also shared their bodies, but they are no more alike than the Roadmaster and Super are. And it is perhaps for this reason that I think they don't quite qualify. They built more than 100,000 sedanettes, for example, but only 5500 of them were Centurys, yet I don't think that makes the Century worthy of Classic status. In fact, I think it's a strike against it--it's still a [mass] production car.

In the same way, while the Roadmaster phaeton is a rare, limited-production car, how do you define it against Classic criteria? The Super used the same body, and is almost as rare, so does the Super qualify? Or since the Roadmaster had the big engine, should the garden-variety Roadmaster 4-door sedan also qualify? The 248 inline-8 was just as sophisticated as the 320, just smaller. What about a 1940 71C, which has its big brother the 81C already in the club, but no dual carbs like the '41? See how it gets blurry?

As a fellow Buick fan, particularly the '41s, I definitely appreciate your point of view, but this cherry-picking of certain models that aren't custom bodied creates a slippery slope, which is what I think a lot of folks object to with many of the post-war inclusions.

My main point is that by opening the door to the '41 Roadmaster phaetons, it creates the same slippery slope argument that puts the post-war Cadillac 4-doors the Classic category, and makes legitimate arguments for cars that clearly don't belong like the Super convertible sedans. You and I understand the brilliance of the 1941 71C, but it will undoubtedly generate a lot of pressure to let others "slip in" on its coattails, much the way the 1940 80 Series "Limited" did.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Matt Harwood (see edit history)

[trimacar]

I've been a member of the CCCA since the mid-70's, surely not the longest membership of the group, but enough to have experienced a lot of the club and the expectations of the members.

The criteria is special for Classic automobiles, and it should stay that way, but over the years the fears of the membership have allowed the criteria to be diluted.

That statement may make some people mad, but that's the case.

The reason for the club was to recognize the best of the best, in automobile design and execution. Originally, the founding fathers of the club had strict rules about what was recognized.

Those requirements are getting stretched. Not that there aren't some excellent cars out there, and not that they aren't special. Not to single out Buicks, I love them, one of the nicest driving cars I've ever owned was a 1937, but it starts to be a stretch to accept anything but the 90 series (sorry, Marty).

But a club is made up of people, and people worry about the club, and people start to think that, well, we can include more cars, and thus more people, and the club survives. Human nature.

The CCCA has, at least, a review committee for Classic acceptance. I enjoy the AACA for what it is, and the things it does, and this forum, but with the 25 year rule I can bring a 1987 Astro van to an AACA meet? As my son says: Really? Really, Pop?

I feel a Club should be true to its charter. The CCCA recognizes very special, top of the line cars, and as an aside and mentioned before, there were well over ONE MILLION vehicles produced that met the CCCA definition of Classic. Don't keep adding cars to make the club larger..........

[Dynaflash8]

I agree with the percept of what both Matthew and Trimacar say, EXCEPT they are wrong about the 1941 Buick Series 70. I got the 1931-39 Series 80 in as Full Classics ONLY because I didn't think I could get the Series 70 in otherwise. I won the battle and lost the War. Those cars were not up to the same standards as the 1941, and I'm a 1939 fan. What are we doing here? The 1941 Buick Roadmaster and Limited were more car, a faster car, a more advanced car in perception than ANY other car built in 1941. Matthew, the 1941 Cadillac was a mass produced car. The 1941 Packard 160 was a mass produced car. I don't remember the number of 1941 Buick Series 71 Roadmaster sedans I supplied to CCCA, but it may have been as high as 7,000. How many 1941 Cadillac 62 sedan cars were produced? As for Packard they could not produce any car in the quantities of GM, or I don't think so. It's all predjudice. Gottlieb said when the club was formed, that no Buick was a Classic....and that included the Series 90. Obviously the late Mr. Gottlieb, who I sometimes corresponded with, never drove a big Buick. End of story. I know, without reservations, that the 1941 Buick big body, big engine car should be a Full Classic. It has nothing to do with membership numbers, or dilution. It has only to do with doing what is right by this car. Oh, there were only 312 Series 71-C phaetons, and many more Series 51-C phaetons, but the Series 51 was a poor sister next to the top of the line Buick, which shared everything mechanically with the illustrius Series 90. It is so obvious to me. Yeah, that's right. I don't see why it's not as obvious to others.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[Guest BJM]

... but over the years the fears of the membership have allowed the criteria to be diluted.

What were the fears? Dissolution due to dropping membership? Whats the minimum number of members before talks of dissolution occur? I'll bet the CCCA isn't even close.

On another note, why can't cars be removed from the roster? Such as all the Cadillac production cars like the 62 series and the postwar 60 S?

Matt and others, as an owner of a 1936 Buick 81 Roadmaster sedan, I became familiar with the 36 Century. It should be a full classic as much as some Cadillacs, Packards and the post war cars. There was a lot of thought that went into it's 1936 incarnation. Different front clip, 320 8 cyl, different "highway" rear axle ratio, smaller wheels.

[Guest BJM]

Regarding inclusion of the late 30's/early 40's Phaetons, for me, defined as 4 door convertibles - it is my understanding that there was nothing "production" about them. In that, they had to be hand assembled and prepared outside a normal Buick production line. Just like a "Woodie".

Let's see, it's unique in that low numbers of them were made and they were a burden to the normal objective of Buick (or Cadillac or Packard) to mass produce autos, therefore, someone made a decision that went against the grain to have a run of them produced. Full Classic.

[Restorer32]

I tend to think of Classics this way...What car would the richest family in town who lived in the mansion on top of the hill likely have had in their garage? Not as their "every day" car but the car they kept for special occasions or to drive to the club or to the theatre or when they just wanted to show that they were "somebody". If you look at it that way the list of Full Classics shrinks a bit, at least in my mind.

[West Peterson]

Good point, Jeff. And certainly the 1941 Buick convertible sedan that Earl speaks of falls well within that category.

[Guest BJM]

I tend to think of Classics this way...What car would the richest family in town who lived in the mansion on top of the hill likely have had in their garage? Not as their "every day" car but the car they kept for special occasions or to drive to the club or to the theatre or when they just wanted to show that they were "somebody". If you look at it that way the list of Full Classics shrinks a bit, at least in my mind.

I 100% agree as well. The Full Classic period is well defined by so many milestones. You can say the same for the muscle car period. It was 1964 to 1972. At the start you had the GTO and at the end you had government regulations and insurance costs ending that era.

For the Full Classic era, few people dispute the starting date and reasons. At the end you clearly had WWII because so many custom coachbuilders were out of business by then anyway.