CCCA Future

[Guest studepeople]

I read out going President comments by Al Kroemer on the National CCCA Clubs ongoing future. It seems to me that diluting the CCCA's standards for Classic autos for the sake of only increasing membership (maybe) is foolish . These standards are the very reason that I have been in this club for 25 years. To allow the non "Classic Era cars to belong would chase away more of the "Core" members whoown the "Real" Classics". The "Town and Country" mess was not handled correctly and caused much hard feelings. But these were and are post war cars and although pretty should not have been made full Classics. But it is done now ! I see the Horseless Carage club does not alter it's standard to allow none Brass era cars on it's national tours. I don,t think they have trouble with people going on these tours or wanting to change to any other car to come along. There are plenty of true"Classic " cars available if someone wants one . Many of these cars have been stuck away for years never being driven. I think it is the cost that ditate much of what is now happening with Club . Cost of the Cars , cost of the events, this is out of reach for many of the young people we all think we need in the Club to carry on . Maybe it is our own members who will have to decide whether or not this club will go on or not by passing on cars to family now . I think that interest in the "Classic cars has to be there in a person or it will never be there and I don't feel this next generation as a whole loves these cars as we do. If the Club fades away because of no new members then that is the way it is .But to make this Club into another AACA or VMCCA is not what this club represents.

[trimacar]

I almost didn't rejoin the CCCA due to the fiasco over the T&C's, but have been a member so long hated to let it lapse.

The cost of some of the Caravans is quite high, and that doesn't help the more average collector who has an entry level Classic participate in club activities.

And your statement is correct, there are lots of Classic cars out there, some at very reasonable prices........but keeping the interest up in the club is difficult..

[Su8overdrive]

Amen, gentlemen. Truer words regarding the Classic Car Club of America's current dilution and resulting fade do not exist.

Studepeople's comments, above, say it all.

[motoringicons]

As a member of the CCCA, I can not agree more. If it is a large membership the club wants, then why not just open it up to any car that is 25 years or older. If the club wants to remain true to its roots, it needs to adhere to its mission statement. Allowing "newer" or Non- Classic cars into the club will only dilute its purpose but will chase away existing members like myself. Yes, there were great cars made after WWII, but are they really similar to the great luxury cars of the 1920s and 1930s-I personally don't think so. A Model A Ford is a really great car (I own two of them), but is it the same as a similar year Packard or Cadillac-absolutely not. The Full Classic Cars were an era-just like the cars of the Brass Era and the cars of the 1950s, however, these cars are significantly different and were built with different principals, ideas and technologies than the Full Classics of the 1920s and 1930s.

I do own Non-Classic cars and I also belong to the clubs that cater to these specific cars. When I want to use my 1927 Rolls Royce, I attend CCCA events, when I want to use my brass cars, I attend HCCA events, and when I want to use my period hotrod, I go to those events.

My point is, there are plenty of car clubs out there-especially for the those cars that certain people are trying to make into CCCA Full Classics . I think that the membership will suffer if the CCCA continues to stray from its roots.

Edited January 16, 2012 by motoringicons (see edit history)

[Marty Roth]

I believe that CCCA should hold true to the intent of the club, and not try to be all things to all people.

We enjoy owning, maintaining, showing, and driving all of our cars. Only three of ours are Full-Classics , the 1930 Packard 733 7-Passenger Phaeton, 1941 Cadillac Cabriolet, and 1937 Buick Roadmaster 80C Phaeton (Convertible Sedan). These, as well as the non-classics, are shown in varying categories, but are all driven as well.

Belonging to several clubs gives us a pretty good idea of internal functioning, as well as the general mission of each of the groups:

CCCA, HCCA, AACA, VMCCA, Packard, Buick, Oakland, Cadillac-LaSalle, Chevrolet, as well as having previously been a member of Citroen, Kaiser-Fraizer, Pierce-Arrow Society, Franklin, MG, and MOTAA clubs - each have their own area of appeal.

The Marque clubs each serve their own owner-groups-

HCCA serves the Brass-Era collector

VMCCA thrives as "The Touring Club"

CCCA, in my opinion, should continue to be exactly what we were intended to be - the club for CLASSICS as we understand CLASSICS. Yes, certain makes and models will continue to be considered, and some will be accepted - no problem there - our Buick is a recent addition to the ranks, and we respect that approval, but then we enjoyed the car with or without its status, with no snobbery implied or intended.

[poci1957]

I am not a member of the CCCA but support the idea of the club being just for Classics. I am in the AACA and the Pontiac Oakland Club and should join the CCCA even though I do not own a Classic, but I just cannot add any more club affiliations right now.

I totally agree that the CCCA should not expand it's focus just to gain new members, just as I do not think the AACA should expand to accept street rods. Unfortunately I think most car clubs are destined to shrink--no one is going to grow very much or very long IMO. Motoringicons points out that relaxing the standards would probably chase away existing members like himself and I agree with that--that is what has happened as the Pontiac-Oakland Club has shifted to focus on street rods and drag racing. The CCCA's whole reason for being is to focus on elite cars and that makes it exclusive by it's very nature. That may strike some as elitist but allowing later or lesser cars is not the answer. Good luck, Todd C

Edited January 18, 2012 by poci1957 (see edit history)

[Restorer32]

Following that line of thinking shouldn't a '48 Buick convertible be accepted as a Full Classic since the body is identical to a '47 Cadillac?

[Guest studepeople]

I would say after reading the comments posted here that for the most part Al was not really speaking for the "club" in his comments in the "BULLETIN". I feel that is good.....I hope that his type of thinking never becomes the "Norm" in the CCCA......period! Dan Dinsmore

[Restorer32]

What about the '46-'48 Buick Woodie Wagons? Continuation of a pre-war model and certainly as "Classic" as the T&C. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't think the club should change their emphasis. I'm just playing Devil's advocate for the sake of discussion.

[poci1957]

Currently, there are no Chevrolets of any year in the CCCA, and no one is considering including 1957 Chevrolets in the CCCA. Maybe the Pontiac club should includ them as the used the same body.

I am fully aware of that Dave, but since you pointed it out I changed that reference to make my point more clearly, thanks.

Edited January 18, 2012 by poci1957 (see edit history)

[Mark Huston]

I would say after reading the comments posted here that for the most part Al was not really speaking for the "club" in his comments in the "BULLETIN". I feel that is good.....I hope that his type of thinking never becomes the "Norm" in the CCCA......period! Dan Dinsmore

I received my issue of the “BULLETIN” yesterday and was greatly disappointed by the comments of Al (club president’s message) regarding his belief that the majority of CCCA members favor excepting cars of the 50s. I strongly feel that the club should stick to the core beliefs that CCCA was founded on – Classic Era cars. The 50s were a lot of things but to say that some cars of the 50s are “Classic Era” is diluting the foundation of the club to nothing.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

I'm not a CCCA member, but guys I would submit there are very, very few automobiles that might be actually considered "Classic." The notion that something should be considered "Classic" or not be considered "Classic" based upon a period of time is a bit silly if one dwells on what might truly make a car "Classic." I would submit a car to be considered a "Classic" would be one which influenced the entire automobile industry whether that influence was/is from concept of body design, mechanical advances, or having to do with passenger comfort and safety. "Uniqueness" is not the same as "Classic" people.

There is a greater percentage of automobiles which have been produced by someone since the 1890s that are not "Classic" than those which are with respect to the definition expressed above. Just because a car is eye pleasing to some does not mean it is "Classic." A good example of that might be the 1947/48 Chrysler Town & Country, a really unique and beautiful car, also the last production car to have a substantial amount of real wood as part of its body structure, but certainly not classic.

I think anyone would be very hard pressed to even consider most automobiles of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s as being "Classic." And what about those '57 Chevy's? Nope, there is nothing classic about them at all. Sorry about that Chevy lovers, but the fact is the '57 Chevy was the last year of a basic design on it's way out. It was also the third year for a V8 OHV engine in Chevy's. But most of all it was the year it lost the styling race with Ford and was outsold. If there was a "Classic" car produced in 1957 it would have to be the '57 Ford retractable hard top or maybe the '57 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser with it's breezeway rear window.

The future of the CCCA does not lie in opening the doors to all sorts of common production cars being considered "Classic" but may lie in coming up with a clear understanding that there have been cars produced subsequent to 1940 whatever, that should be considered "Classics" in the sense of altering the future of automobile production for years to come in one way or another.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history)

[alsancle]

Jim, not to offend, but I don't think you understand what the CCCA is all about. The cars and the era are one in the same. There cannot be "Classic" cars after WWII because the era ended prior to WWII.

I take the words of a past President seriously as he is someone doing the actual work of the club. However, for me personally I like the club the way it is and hope it is not diluted with post war cars (any more than it already has been).

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Jim, not to offend, but I don't think you understand what the CCCA is all about. The cars and the era are one in the same. There cannot be "Classic" cars after WWII because the era ended prior to WWII.

I take the words of a past President seriously as he is someone doing the actual work of the club. However, for me personally I like the club the way it is and hope it is not diluted with post war cars (any more than it already has been).

With all due respect that view ranks right up there with the notion in the 1800s that the Patent Office should be closed because everything that could possibly be invented had already been invented. It's your club and you guys can do to it what you want. However, I would suggest someone go out and buy a bottle of Bourbon or Campaign to be opened by the last two members as you are misjudging enthusiast of the future. Even worse is assuming that the cars now in member possession will be passed along to someone by some means rather than suffer a fate of becoming estate barn queens and being later declared so much junk is presumptuous. The museums of the country can only absorb so many examples before they say "No Mass."

The future of all vintage car clubs and preservation of automotive history lies solely in creating interest on the part of those who will be around after we are long gone. Without doing what is necessary to entice the younger crowd to gain interest and exposure to what we may revere spells the death of any club.

[alsancle]

Jim,

You are thinking it is a club about cars but it is really a celebration of an era, the "Classic Era" which lasted from roughly 1928 to 1938 (with some rounding errors). Are there some 1950's cars which have mechanical or styling attributes similar to cars of that era? Well yeah, but that's not the point.

Edited January 18, 2012 by alsancle
spelling (see edit history)

[Guest bkazmer]

I think the debate would just move to a different set of cars. For argument's sake, let's say the 50's "Classics" would be the Continental MkII, the 1953 Eldorado, Skylark,Fiesta, and Caribbean, and the SS roofed Eldo Biarritz.

Now the 54 versions of the 4 53 convertibles are all much more production based. Are we going to count them? If the 54 Caribbean is in, isn't the 55-56, a more differentiated car? If the 56 Caribbean is in, the hardtop is in too, right? And since the hardtop is basically a 400, it's in too. And if the 400 is iin, so is the Patrician.

Starting with the 53 Eldo, you can follow a similar chain of GM products.

Do you really want to start with what should be in if the 48 Chrysler T&C is in?

[trimacar]

From the CCCA website, the focus of the club is,:

"As in the beginning, automobiles manufactured during the Grand Classic Era® from 1919 to 1948 remain the primary focus of the club today"

I don't even like the 1948 date, the "Classic Era" to me is pre-WWII.

Everyone's got an opinion on the word classic or "Classic". Opinions aside, the fact is that the year a 1950's car is accepted into the CCCA will be the last year I pay dues to that club, and I'd be willing to bet many share that thought.

You don't bring a Chevrolet to a Model T meet, and there's no need for further dilution of the cars accepted into the CCCA now. There were over a million cars built that meet the definition of the CCCA Classic, and there're are plenty still out there....

[motoringicons]

The CCCA just published a wonderful 60th Anniversary book which they just sent to its members. This book talks about the cars, the people and the history of the club. After reading this book, it furthers my belief that the club needs to hold true to its roots and ideas and not to dilute itself into becoming just another big old car club.

Years ago, one of the leading car clubs was the VMCCA-The Veteran Motor Car Club of America. When it was established, it strictly adhered to its appreciation of Veteran (brass-era) vehicles. The club grew further and further away from the older cars, and ironically, now has a membership of old people that basically drive modern-era cars on their events. The club has probably struggled for membership more than any other national car club in America and continues to struggle. I dropped my membership years ago because I did not feel that the bulk of the VMCCA's membership appreciated old cars.

On the other hand, the Horseless Carriage Club of America, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year, has never strayed from its Pre-1916 acceptance policy. Over the years that I have been a member (I have been member since I was 12 and now I am 46), there have been people on the board who have tried to modify the pre-1916 policy, but the membership and other board members have never budged. This has resulted in club that has had an overall and continual growth in membership both on a regional and national level and today is probably one of the most active and focused national car clubs in existence with events throughout the country. This totally negates the theory that by allowing newer cars into a club you will attract a younger audience and your membership will grow. Obviously, there is virtually no one that is alive today that can remember pre-1916 cars when they were new-or even used cars for that matter. So, why does this group continue to grow and why is it thriving after 75 years? It grew because they stayed focused, promoted the cars for what they were and stayed true to their roots without giving into the temptation of appealing to the masses. Like all clubs they try to recruit new members on a daily basis, but they have also let the club's foundation speak for itself- kind of like the old phrase "if you build it, they will come." I find it interesting that I see more young people driving and participating in the pre-1916 events then I do at the local cruise nights that are filled with 50s, 60s and later cars which tend to be owned by old guys wearing gold chains that don't interact with the public!

[Su8overdrive]

Might we tender an amazingly simple solution? The CCCA should have a cordial, polite form e-response to those wanting a post-1948 car considered referring them to the Milestone Car Society, the Antique Automobile Club of America, the Rolls-Royce Owners Club, the Bentley Drivers Club, the Contemporary Historical Vehicle Society, the Buick Club of America, the Packard Club, the Nash Club, the Cadillac-LaSalle Club, the Walter P. Chrysler Club, the Mercedes Club, the Sports Car Club of America, www.nationalwoodieclub.com, www.ferrariclubofamerica.org,

www.barret-jackson.com,

www.classicmotorcarauctions.com,

www.kruseclassics.com (because it's really all about money and that now vaunted word, classic )

and the myriad existing clubs awaiting their cars with open arms.

This most polite form letter can conclude with a long list of various car clubs' websites.

However, as the CCCA already does, we remind these people in our most cordial form e- or slow mail reply that they are still welcome to join us even if they don't own a CCCA car if they've an interest in CCCA cars.

That's the end of it. It really is.

Now can we get back to discussing CCCA cars?

Haven't seen a Jensen Model H saloon in a looooong time. And wasn't it astounding the quality you got in an Auburn Twelve, especially for the money?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Su8overdrive (see edit history)

[motoringicons]

Dave- The nickel era HCCA events are a regional group-Nickel Era Region- and produce their own tours. The National HCCA and National sponsored tours are still pre-1916, the nickel era cars are not listed in the national HCCA roster.

Su8overdrive-I agree!!!!

Edited January 18, 2012 by motoringicons (see edit history)

[Guest ExpertTransport]

Jim,

You are thinking it is a club about cars but it is really a celebration of an era, the "Classic Era" which lasted from roughly 1928 to 1938 (with some rounding errors). Are there some 1950's cars which have mechanical or styling attributes similar to cars of that era? Well yeah, but that's not the point.

They had a club for that - Milestone Car Society - dead.

[alsancle]

I think any fan of pre-war cars should be a member of the CCCA regardless of ownership of a qualifying car. The publications alone are worth the 60 bucks. I belong to 12 clubs, all of which are prewar focused and all of which I enjoy the publications but there is nothing that compares to the CCCA.

I see a lot of pot-shots taken by people that are non-members who seem to be annoyed their 73 Pacer isn't classified as a "Classic" by the club. I think this helps to foster an incorrect perception of the club as stuffy or elitist. If I started taking shots at their club it would cause a huge brouhaha but it is always ok to tear down the perceived "snobs".

There are probably 10k to 20k eligible cars (yeah, I'm just guessing) sill in existence. They are not going away. If their elderly owner passes somebody has to own the car and that person should be a member of the club.

Edited January 19, 2012 by alsancle (see edit history)

[TG57Roadmaster]

I think any fan of pre-war cars should be a member of the CCCA regardless of ownership of a qualifying car... I see a lot of pot-shots taken by people that are non-members who seem to be annoyed their '73 Pacer isn't classified as a "Classic" by the club.... If I started taking shots at their club it would cause a huge brouhaha but it is always ok to tear down the perceived "snobs".

Plus, AJ, they'd be the first to point out that the Pacer didn't arrive till '75.

Don't you know anything?!

TG

[alsancle]

Plus, AJ, they'd be the first to point out that the Pacer didn't arrive till '75.

Don't you know anything?!

TG

The mistake was I was going with the Gremlin and then I remembered I actually like Gremlins but forgot to change the date. I'm sure there are guys that like the Pacer too but I figured I would be offending a much smaller audience.

[LINC400]

I don't understand why everyone thinks they need to change a club simply to get more members. If the club is financially sound, and able to host events and put out newsletters, that should be sufficient.

If I join a club, it is because I am interested in what that club represents. I would not be interested in joining CCCA only to see Model A's and 1950's cars. Same as I would not be interested in joining a Lincoln club that decided to allow Mustangs and other Ford products just to increase membership. If the club no longer features the cars it supposed to represent, I see no point in joining or remaining a member of it. There are thousands of car clubs, and at least one should already exist for whatever you are interested in. Why not join that one instead of trying to convince another club to allow vehicles that they currently do not?

[Steve_Mack_CT]

I was thinking, the other day, CCCA could have avoided a lot of grief by using the term "Olympian Cars" (ALA Burns' book) rather than "Classic" - you know "classic" vs. "Classic" - but everyone would then want to have an "Olympian" car...

We currently don't own a Classic and it may be a while but I guess I fall into the camp that it is the era, not just the cars. Same reason you don't show up to a period hot rod meet in a mid year vette - or MB 560 SL even if it is red and tan... That said, the suggestion of discussion should not bring the wrath of he** down on anyone. Having been a volunteer I know what my response would be to that!

Edited January 24, 2012 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)

[trimacar]

I don't think there was anything wrong with using the word Classic to describe the finer cars of the day, but in recent years the word has been so overused that it's become meaningless.

Hemmings "Classic Car" just came out with an issue about the "new 1987 Classics", about the cars that just turned 25 years old, and are classified as antiques by AACA and most states.

Just look how meaningless other terms have become by overuse..."barn find" to describe every car that's sat in a garage over 5 years, "original" when a car has been painted and reupholstered and rechromed.......... Classic has the same issue.........

[Restorer32]

I don't understand why everyone thinks they need to change a club simply to get more members. If the club is financially sound, and able to host events and put out newsletters, that should be sufficient.

If I join a club, it is because I am interested in what that club represents. I would not be interested in joining CCCA only to see Model A's and 1950's cars. Same as I would not be interested in joining a Lincoln club that decided to allow Mustangs and other Ford products just to increase membership. If the club no longer features the cars it supposed to represent, I see no point in joining or remaining a member of it. There are thousands of car clubs, and at least one should already exist for whatever you are interested in. Why not join that one instead of trying to convince another club to allow vehicles that they currently do not?

Same line of reasoning wife and I use when deciding whether or not to stop at an antique shop. If the sign says ANTIQUES we will likely stop. If it says ANTIQUES and CRAFTS or ANTIQUES and COLLECTIBLES we will likely pass by. No business or club can be all things to all people.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

So I re-read Mr. Kroemer's column last night, which I had only glossed over before. While I am solidly in the "Change will dilute the club" camp he does probably the best job of articulating his concerns of anyone in club leadership I have seen in the 3 clubs I belong to. I believe, overall, way too much energy is being spent on this issue, but Kroemer is clearly writing out of concern for the club.

My opinion as it relates to CCCA is for the club to continue doing what it was intended to do, and membership/club offerings will take care of themselves as long as leadership recognizes chanigng times. What do I mean - consider:

Current membership is aging, ok, but likely to stay around until one is simply too old to participate or passes on. This is part of the natural cycle of life. Meanwhile, new members are joining (My wife and I also happen to be noted in this issue of the Bulletin - new members.. ) - These members will be younger and likely internet oriented. So over time, it may be likely that the club moves the bulletin online, and if membership was to shrink (possible) other adjustments could include moving the Classic Car to 3 times per year, couple that with increasing dues slightly and you can address the cost issues IF the club membership was to shrink. It has been noted that membership has been relatively stable for decades, so it is possible it could remain that way.

I think the Internet can be leveraged to a much higher degree than CCCA currently does. One example, weeks ago I sent a request in for my password to the "members only" section of the CCCA websight, no response as of today, several weeks later. So if that is a door to anything "special" it remains closed to me for now... Another example is the low utilization of this forum, which the CCCA website links to directly. My prediction is this will change as membership does turn over, and perhaps another approach rather than diluting the purpose of the club is to take a fresh look at the activities. This year, I decided to step off the BOD at my local AACA region because of a fixation on a couple of issues, membership being one of them - and a lack of appetite for new ideas. Not enough energy on quality events - (making a point here only as CCCA seems to do a good job here) was another concern - that will kill a club quicker than anything else.

One last thought, I think the suggestion of two divisions would fail, and break the club into two factions. But maybe others have different insight. If you want to alienate those members who join and participate because of the exclusive (as in limited interest, not "snobbery") nature of the club, diluting it will do that for sure. I could see a future where a faction breaks off, do we really want that?

Anyway, I get the concern but from a personal perspective, if this becomes another AACA, I will just stick with AACA, same reason I belong to only one Packard club. No doubt that column will spark further discussion, though.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Steve_Mack_CT
clarity (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

I did not renew in the CCCA because of the ridiculous decision they made by turning down the 1941 Buick Roadmaster cars which share the same body with the Cadillac, outpower the Cadillac in horsepower (as well as Packard unless Packard has the optional aluminum head), are far advanced with the dual carburetors (forerunner of 1950s 4-barrel carburetors), ram air induction and positive crankcase ventilation, and are as deluxe as the previous Roadmaster Buicks which were accepted (i.e. I won the battle and lost the War). This was a head in the sand decision in my opinion, and I provided enough documentation to PROVE my points.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Yep, a bad decision for sure. One issue I did have with Al Kroemer's comments was (paraphrased, not an exact quote) "The T&C was a good choice because it brought new members to the club" IMHO the '41 Roadmaster is much more legitimate.

[alsancle]

I actually agree with most of what you are saying, especially with regard to the earlier years. The problem with the post war cars is it's a can of worms rolled into a slippery slope.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Dave, my comment was not meant to be emotional or inflamatory at all; just feedback and saying, as a new member, why I joined, and that I would likely drop off if things were dilluted. There were 30 - 40 new members in the Bulletin, another thought might be to ask those folks after a year or so what they think. I honestly have no idea if I would be in the majority or the minority there.

Gotta play Devil's advocate here, you pick some great cars, but the Continental Mark II has more modern, envelope lines, otherwise every inch the car of a 6 cylinder RR, no? While there are cars I believe have the CCCA "spirit" from many eras (slab side Lincoln Continentals come to mind) I think it would be a really difficult transition especially without the commonaility of the era to pull it all together.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

BTW - I think the lack of a common era is what killed Milestone Car Society, along with somewhat less stringent rules for inclusion. Most of those cars slot into other special interest groups easily enough that a critical mass just isn't there. Too bad, good concept, too hard to execute postwar.

[alsancle]

The post war inclusion process would turn into WWIII. I would be against ALL American makes. Rolls, Bentley, Ferrari, Mercedes 300, maybe. This is from a guy that Loves the halo cars.

[Dynaflash8]

Following that line of thinking shouldn't a '48 Buick convertible be accepted as a Full Classic since the body is identical to a '47 Cadillac?

I'm not sure that the '48 Buick out-engineers the '47 Cadillac, as the horsepower was dropped back to 141 after WWII on the Roadmaster. On the other hand, a '37 Roadmaster was, I think just 141 horsepower. The '41 Buick Roadmaster, by contrast, was 165 horsepower; outdoing every other make, including Cadillac.

[Dynaflash8]

Yes, the Model 75

[Steve_Mack_CT]

That's an interesting one - even as Cadillac was positioning itself as the leader in US luxury brands with its new engine and groundbreaking new '48 (I think) bodyshell, the Model 75 soldiered on as late as '49. I know Buick had a model or two with prewar styling that late as well. CCCA notwithstanding, I just find that interesting. They are around so they must have sold fairly well.

So Dave, you would include only those cars with prewar styling if you had your druthers relating acceptance of post-48 cars? Just curious. Like I said, this is interesting and no doubt will be debated beyond our forum here...

Along similar lines does anyone have a list of "Milestone" cars? Been a long time since I looked at one of those, curious but understand totally different criteria. Tri Five Nomads, and the first Mustangs come to mind - not anything that would fit in a CCCA-like list but as I recall it was a pretty long list.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)

[Restorer32]

Consider a 1949 Bentley James Young Sedanca Coupe. Total of 6 produced, all slightly different and all custom ordered. Hand built all aluminum, excuse me, all alloy bodies over a very complex wooden framework.

[West Peterson]

Along similar lines does anyone have a list of "Milestone" cars? Been a long time since I looked at one of those, curious but understand totally different criteria. Tri Five Nomads, and the first Mustangs come to mind - not anything that would fit in a CCCA-like list but as I recall it was a pretty long list.

You have touched, or perhaps hit the nail on the head, on the reason the Milestone Car Society failed. As I recollect, the club was started by mainly CCCA members (and a few others) trying to put together a CCCA-type club for postwar cars. Cars were "qualified" with a set of 5 different criteria. For roughly 10 years or so, it was quite active, mainly in Indiana and Ohio, had a national meet held at the Indy speedway, and CARavan-like "Safaris" every year. As Mustangs, Corvairs, Jeepsters and '55 Chevys intermingled with Cadillac Broughams, Ferraris, Mercedes and alloy-bodied Rolls-Royce and Bentleys, it quickly became clear it was not a postwar CCCA club, more like a slightly exclusive AACA club for postwar cars.