Jump to content

Inclusion of vehicles through 1951 that are identical to 1948 design


Steve_Mack_CT

Recommended Posts

Well, I guess someone will start this thread, hope it is constructive. I for one, am pleased with the decision published in the latest Bulletin to accept those model cars through 1953 whose 1948 sister models are identical - Alfa, Bentley, RR, etc. I think there is a Sr. model Cadillac they missed but I could be wrong about that, do not have the Bulletin here at the office.

Also agree with the boards "overwhelming" vote not to expand beyond that, but to put it out for a general vote anyway. Putting expansion to a general vote is a good idea, this way membership has the final say and people can be comfortable that the board did not push anything through that overall membership did not want to see.

I recognize these are not easy decisions to make, and as a new member, I am happy so far with the decisions. While I am in the camp that says the club essentially recognizes an era, I think mirroring the pre-1925 logic with respect to those cars mentioned above makes a lot of sense. Passed on a Bentley once as it was too late for CCCA inclusion, although identical to it's 1948 sister car, so maybe my reaction is a tad self serving, but again, I think the logic makes more sense than including a postwar design (T&C), so for me it was easy to justify. Hopefully once membership vote is done this closes the expansion issue out for some time.

I also think some good thoughts on membership levels were discussed as well, which is really a separate issue in my mind. Some really good points were made by several members in the letters section regarding the issue of membership. The Bulletin seems to list around 25 new members with each edition, so I am not convinced membership levels for a special interest group like this are that big of an issue.

Note: edited 7-13; certain models through 1953, actually, are slated for inclusion - again they must be identical to their 1948 counterparts.

Edited by Steve_Mack_CT
Corrected info (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here the CCCA stands, at the very top of a very long, jagged, and extremely slippery slope, and we've just spilled grease on our shoes...

The postwar cars got in because of that logic, and now we're extending it again--how about making it any 1953 cars that were identical to a 1942 model? Are there any? I bet that changes the argument quite a bit, doesn't it? Or perhaps we'll eventually extend it to 1959 cars that are identical to the '53s, then to '65 cars identical to the '59s, and, well, you can see where this is going. Because, really, who doesn't love a 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow sedan? Truly a Full Classic. And wow, they sure are easy to drive what with A/C, and power everything. It's like you don't even feel like you're on an old car tour when you're driving it! Cool!

This is going to fracture the club in a very bad way. I finally got the Full Classic I've been seeking for 35 years, and this might very well be enough for me to dump the club (and I'm on the friggin' board of directors of our local region!).

I vote no. Actually, make that HELL no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the Cadillac you're referring to Steve is the 1949 Model 75. While the body and frame on this model is virtually identical to 1941 - 1947 model 75's, the problem is the engine. 1949 was the first year for the modern type OHV V8 in Cadillac, replacing the flathead V8 that remained largely unchanged from 1936 - 1948. I don't think any car with a modern type OHV V8 should ever be in the CCCA. The engine is what kept it off the list printed in the most recent Bulletin. In 1950 the Model 75 Cadillac had a new, lower body that looked nothing like the earlier one.

I have to give you some credit there Matt, taking the stance you are. Especially considering you're on the board of the Region that was the epicenter of the Town & Country debate. I bet the board meetings get pretty interesting. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Water Jacket

Couldn't agree more with Matt and Edinmass. Sadly, after enjoying facets of the CCCA for many decades, the Classic Car Club of America, established 1953 by educated, well-read young fellows who happened to enjoy the finer automobiles from a unique, specific epoch,

is at the point where Walter Cronkite looked into the camera on February 27th, 1968, during another night's reportage of the quagmire in Vietnam, and said:

"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory conclusion."

That broadcast turned the tide. The CCCA had a good, long run. It'll survive, in name. But it's too late in the game to go home. Too many people wishing to feather their nests by glomming onto the once minor word, "classic."

Too many people too far from memories of these fine cars when they were lovely old cars in original preserved condition, or after their first Bill Harrah Collection era of sound mechanical restoration, cosmetically on par with how they were on the showroom floor, not the Pebble Beach parodies expected in order to win Grand Classics today.

Too many people who can tell you to the last lock washer HOW a car was built, but not WHY.

Perhaps, after limping along, buoyed by a handful of genuine enthusiasts who still get it, in five or ten years a new group will rediscover these cars, just as the Horseless Carriage Club is comprised of mainly 30- and 40-somethings today who are closer to Peter Helck and the late Ed Jurist (the Vintage Car Store, Nyack, NY) than the low-horizon bling-o-philes who've hijacked the CCCA.

For now, sadly, the party's over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is sad news. The term Classic was one that I always admired, as it applied to cars identified by the CCCA.

I made a point in the 1980's to secure a few nice examples, Cord, Pierce, Packard, cars that well meet the definition of Classic.

It doesn't matter what kind of water you add to juice, it still dilutes it, and if you add enough, it can no longer be called juice.

My vote, obviously, is no, and I'm out of the club if any car built in the 1950's is accepted as a Classic. The T&C fiasco was bad enough, this is ludicrous......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest studepeople

My vote is also "HELL NO". This is so far away from the original intent of the club . It was suposed be be Pre WW2 autos with this ride-on to make carry-over post WW2 the "same" 1946-1947 and very damn few 1948 cars also "classics". I only own pre war "classics" for that reason...........The era of "Classics" was all but over by WW2......period!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, and while I can see the argument about the slippery slope, I guess I don't see the difference between the 1949 Bentley Mark VI and the 1948 model. I would argue most of us would not know the difference if they were standing side by side; except maybe a marque expert. I fully get the Cadillac exclusion due to a totally different powertrain. Well, I guess I am a bit unique here in my opinion (hope you guys don't stop talking to me!) but I don't see the harm in that move provided the expansion is limited to "identical" models, actually seems logical to me. That said, I will say I recently dropped of the board of my local AACA region - no single contoversy but just got tired of trying to keep everyone happy, I do empathize with anyone serving a group with multiple constituencies and varying opinions about "what's right" - it is not easy and it seems like sometimes compromise is defined by something no one loves, but all can live with. You guys are really going to quit over this decision? Why not see what the ramifications are first? I hope the club does not lose quality people but I suppose that is another challenge leaders need to contend with...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the Cadillac you're referring to Steve is the 1949 Model 75. While the body and frame on this model is virtually identical to 1941 - 1947 model 75's, the problem is the engine. 1949 was the first year for the modern type OHV V8 in Cadillac, replacing the flathead V8 that remained largely unchanged from 1936 - 1948. I don't think any car with a modern type OHV V8 should ever be in the CCCA. The engine is what kept it off the list printed in the most recent Bulletin. :)

So I guess the non-Cadillac post '48 cars mentioned would be rewarded for having technology that did *not* keep up with the times? I thought full classics were supposed to be differentiated, at least in part, by their superior engineering ;). What a laugh.

Edited by CBoz (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a CCCA member. Please don't think I am jumping on. I think the CCCA should stop at 1942, so allowing a few makes/models through 1948 that were essentially pre war carryovers is OK but then STOP. Anyone knows there were significant cars manufactured in the 1950's and beyond. You could even call them "classic" in the venacular of our times. Just don't include them in the CCCA as a Full Classic.

The 49 75 series is a good example. They still had running boards and were carryover bodies except for the OHV engine, so in theory they should be included in the CCCA but the CCCA said at one time, I presume, nope 1948 seems a good stopping point. Leave it alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bkazmer
I'm not a CCCA member. Please don't think I am jumping on. I think the CCCA should stop at 1942, so allowing a few makes/models through 1948 that were essentially pre war carryovers is OK but then STOP. Anyone knows there were significant cars manufactured in the 1950's and beyond. You could even call them "classic" in the venacular of our times. Just don't include them in the CCCA as a Full Classic.

The 49 75 series is a good example. They still had running boards and were carryover bodies except for the OHV engine, so in theory they should be included in the CCCA but the CCCA said at one time, I presume, nope 1948 seems a good stopping point. Leave it alone.

The 49 Cadillac has a different engine than the 48. The 48 - 50 Packard 356's do not, and share most of the main stamping and chassis with 42-47. The Chryslers have the same engine until the hemi. Buick Roadmasters anyone? Doesn't that make the Packard and Chrysler more "carry-over?" This gets pretty hard to cut off. Remember 49 is not when postwar designs came out, it's only when GM got around to it. Leave it alone, the immediate pre-war cars are controversy enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, while I stand by my opinion that if you go identical in one direction it only makes sense to do it on the other end I guess I am solidly in the minority at least among members who are active on the forum. As I understand it, and more knowledgeable members may correct me, the inclusion of identical models is a done deal, the membership-wide vote only addresses the different issue of general expansion, which I also agree is not the right direction.

So if I am right, are some of you guys actually going to quit? Just curious on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've been a member of CCCA since the late 1970's, when I bought my first Classic, a 1934 Pierce Arrow. I've owned about 15 Classics over the years, and now have 3 in my garage.

It's always been a love of the high quality cars, plus Pride of Ownership, that's kept me in the CCCA. Egotistical as it might be, it's always been a thrill to get the roster with lists of cars owned, and be able to be a member of that reasonably exclusive group of Classic owners.

The adding of cars to the list of approved Classics, apparently, is not going to stop. I've always stated that if a 1950's automobile is listed on the CCCA approved list, I'm out. I'll stand by that, and will not renew for next year if that happens.

I think it's sad that such a good concept for a club is being destroyed, for whatever reason. I was learning to accept the fact that a six cylinder wooden station wagon was accepted as a Classic, but that Capital C is getting smaller and smaller.................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Dave, I really don't think it's a "dumb" discussion. And, your "25 year" statement is meaningless, since CCCA was formed in 1952 and accepted cars that were half that old.

People join clubs and groups for a common interest, and sometimes that interest is more specific than others.

If you want to be in a group that likes all old cars, then AACA is for you.

If you want to be in a group that likes the high quality cars that were made pre-WWII (and a few post war made from same tooling), then CCCA has been the club of choice. It's not really an "exclusive" club, as there were over a million cars manufactured that meet CCCA Classic definition, and there are plenty still in existence.

It's not about the "classic era", it's about specific cars manufactured in that time period that were higher quality cars than the mass transportation vehicles produced.

The CCCA was founded in 1952, so the 25 year old policy had nothing to do with it. It's just that in 1952, the quality of workmanship of some vehicles was recognized, and a club formed to celebrate them.

Everyone has their beliefs, and mine is that when the club becomes so diluted with what I and others consider "non-Classic" cars, then belonging to that club has lost it's meaning.

To each his own.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, with all due respect, I think you're seeing the big picture without recognizing that the beauty of the CCCA lies in the details. You can generalize about all old cars of a certain era being classics, but you know that's hogwash. You can dismiss the slippery slope argument saying that the original founders would be including '80s Rolls-Royces, but you also know that's not true. The CCCA has a defined list which makes it easy to see what's included after the fact, but perhaps what is more difficult is actually defining what a Full Classic is. And there is where I think you're missing the point: It can't be simply defined by a single criteria such as age or year of manufacture, it's a combination of things. There's just nothing built after the war that's equivalent to a V16 Cadillac or a supercharged Duesenberg. There were many fine cars built, many expensive cars built, and quite a few custom-bodied cars built after the war, but they didn't quite have the same combination of... whatever it is that makes a Classic special. It's like Thurgood Marshall on pornography: I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it. Classics are much the same.

This, I think, is why we're getting upset. The pool is getting diluted because the generally accepted concept of a Full Classic is being applied to cars that don't really fit the bill, and it kind of offends our sense of right and wrong, although most of us can't say specifically and quantitatively why. It's not JUST the era, it's not JUST that they're expensive, it's not JUST that they were meticulously built, it's something else that's almost intangible, and most certainly a combination of factors that you're dismissing out-of-hand. After the war, whatever that was was pretty much gone from the automotive kingdom.

So don't belittle us for feeling passionately about this, don't make us out to be idiots who don't seem to understand the idea of the club or the vision of the "founding fathers," and don't insult us for wanting to keep the club reserved for special cars, however they are defined. As far as many of us are concerned, there was NOTHING built in 1953 that fits the generally-held concept of Full Classic, no matter how similar it is to something older that got in on a technicality. As I said, perhaps the true barometer of the 1953 additions is whether they're identical to the 1942 models, not the latest possible 1948 models. Ignoring that and yes, the slope does become slippery as hell.

I also think that a post up above got it right--why are we amending the by-laws for a very, very small number of cars? The guys who own those cars surely own other Classics, and if not, well, too bad. There's an argument to be made that since it isn't that many cars, maybe we shouldn't care, but isn't that the very definition of the slippery slope? That they're PROMISING us that they won't move the date again (which I'm guessing they promised when the 1948 date came up and the Town and Country question was posed) is further proof that they KNOW they're going out on a limb here and that it will get a bunch of the membership up in arms. And sooner or later some group of motivated, vocal Continental Mark II owners is going to start lobbying, saying, well, look, the MKII came out just a year or two after the 1953 cut-off date, and it really was hand-crafted, and it was the most expensive car built and... and... and...

...And here we will be again.

Edited by Matt Harwood
Full Classic, not True Classic. Doh! (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone knows the XK 120 Jag is a Classic and the 140 and the 150 are basically the same car ....oh what the heck, let's include all English built Jags, and of course all woodie wagons, T Series MGs look kinda like SS 100 Jags so let's include them too and ALL Bentley and Rolls cars of course and the '53 Buick Skylark too and why not ALL Packards...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so I've been thinking about it, and I guess "close enough" might be OK.

So:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag (or any other flag which might be flying at the time which is more or less the same appearance as that flag) of the United States of America (or any other nation which may be adjacent to, or within 200 miles of, the border of the United States of America), and to the republic for which it stands (and any other adjacent republic), one nation (or adjacent nation, as mentioned beforehand), under God (or some similar Godlike being that is similar to and adjacent in age to the God referenced), indivisible (or not), with liberty and justice for all (more or less)."

Yep, works for me.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt did a great job of explaining the intangible quality of true, no BS, Classic with a Capital C, automobiles.

If you get it, then you understand. No beating of gums nor gnashing of teeth is going to change the viewpoints of those who don't get it.

If this moves forward, then the CCCA has lost the one thing that made it, and membership therein, special.

What a shame....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is just one more step down the slippery slope.

1. First you allow in the high production 40s Caddys so everybody has a modern car to drive in Caravans.

2. Then you allow in the post war identicals to the prewar cars you should not have let in in the first place.

3. Then you allow post war T&C because they are every bit as good as the other post war cars you should have never let in.

4. Then you expand into the 50s because those cars are every bit as good as the T&C which should have never been let in.

I'm not sure how you could say this isn't a slippery slope. Personally, if the guys in my region that do all the work were cool with it then I'd go along with it to. But I know they are against the whole deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I guess I am a little sorry I posted this, as I expected opinions to differ but hopefully we remember we are all friends here, right? I think Dave F. is just as passionate about making his argument, and is not looking to insult anyone personally - heck for that matter I don't want to have to hide from any of you guys at Hershey - at least that is far enough away that you may forget this thread... :D

David C. - I understand your feelings on this, and your post #18 makes a lot of sense, but hopefully you don't drop off, as I think that would be a loss...

So forget for a moment the decision on "identical cars" - where each of us stands on that is already pretty clear. While I understand the slippery slope argument, I guess I would also ask what makes people so sure vocal groups will push to include their whatever mobile? The Jag is a good example. There are already marque specific clubs as well as tours and activities that include those cars. Maybe current members who own a Jag 120 would put forth a push, but the average Jag guy is not likely to be that motivated - his needs are already taken care of. All I am saying here is I think we may be overestimating the number of people who will passionately push for incusion in a club comprised of vehicles from a different era. I am just guessing there is not that desire on the part of people who own postwar cars, lots of people with these cars have only a vague notion of what CCCA is anyway. Also, don't you think the vote will finalize that decision anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A.J. your point about guys who do all the work is dead on; having seen that in AACA I totally get that. There seems to be a few cars on the current list that make me scratch my head, as well as some missing that also make me scratch my head. I guess no matter what range of years a club like this takes in, that would be the case. The problem is having the time and energy to serve on these things - part of me understands that those who do the work tend to have more infuence, but this is just like a corporation in some aspects, work and decisions don't always filter both ways!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surely not mad at anybody, just disappointed that the CCCA is even considering the inclusion of additional 1950's cars, over and above the "identical" models that they've just accepted.

A vote of the membership on whether or not to let in additional 1950's cars shouldn't even have been considered, in my opinion. That said, what an interesting thing that will be.

I think I'll start a separate thread and ask the question, what would be on a 1950-1987 list of "Classic" cars. Just as soon go all the way up to the AACA cut-off.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish Bob Turnquist were still alive. His words on this subject would be priceless. I think he said it best many years ago when he coined the phrase "This is a club for yachts, not rowboats"

Every club is formed for a reason, when a club compromises the reason it was formed, there is no longer a need for that club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No argument with Turnquist's comments, Guy, but would it change anyone's position here if it took Duesenberg 'till 1949 to sell the very last Model J? just something to ponder... :)

Now I am curious about this group's position on the inclusion of pre-1925 identical vehicles? Was this problematic to anyone? If so, for what reasons, same or different?

Edited by Steve_Mack_CT
added question (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was Groucho's line...."I wouldn't belong to a club that would admit someone like me" ? If the CCCA fritters away its exclusivity before long it will be just another car club. I would much rather see the CCCA become part of the AACA than see what it stands for (or used to stand for) diluted. Kinda has a ring to it anyway..."The CCCA Region of the AACA".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries, Steve, this is a good discussion that we needed to have. I have no ill feelings toward any individuals here (or anywhere), but like others, I feel very strongly about the topic. All my life I lived on the periphery of the CCCA, going on caravans with friends who owned Packards and Rolls-Royces and Pierce-Arrows because we didn't own such cars. As a result, the CCCA became the goal for me, and owning a CCCA Full Classic was something I've dreamed of since I was 8 years old and got a ride in a big, blue 1933 Packard Twelve sedan that I still yearn to find and purchase. That, to me, is the CCCA. Great, powerful, elegant cars on tour. Not Model As, not 1948 Oldsmobuicks, not muscle cars, but cars with AT LEAST eight cylinders, sidemounts, and yes, even wide whites and trunks (remember I am a product of the CCCA in the 80s!). As a result, my 1929 Cadillac is the realization of a 30-year dream, and hopefully just the first step in a lifetime enjoying the things that the CCCA (currently) espouses. I'm not willing to give up on that dream, but it also doesn't involve chasing a bunch of modern (sorry, 1953 is modern) vehicles on a Caravan, arriving at each stop as everyone else in their faster iron is breaking camp, and feeling like an anchor on the whole group. No thanks.

I sincerely hope that the folks in charge of the club monitor this message board and have been following this discussion, as it brings up good points. None of us here is throwing stones, and there are more than a few well-reasoned opinions. While we are a very tiny fraction of the CCCA's membership, the overwhelming opinion here from people of all ages and from all walks of life is that we are displeased with the idea of further diluting the club and simply don't see the wisdom of the decision. It will surely not add significantly to our membership, and if folks here are to be believed, it may have exactly the opposite effect. Would I walk away on principle? I think I would. It would be disappointing and a very tough decision, but the club to which I aspired my whole life would no longer be the one that I joined. This club needs people like me: young, energetic, willing to drive the old iron, and with the disposable income to get involved and participate on a grand scale. Yeah, I said it--the CCCA needs me more than I need it; let my voice at least be the equal of the guy with the 1953 Bentley who is aching to get in (or, more likely, just looking to add to the car's value with Full Classic status attached to it).

This is a road the club has traveled before, and we have all [hopefully] learned lessons along the way. Let's hope they will be applied here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt, you bring up a valid point on car values...and one not discussed very often....once a car is classified as a CCCA Classic, value of that series of cars usually goes up 50% or more immediately....I passed up an early 20's Locomobile not that long ago, and one reason in the back of my mind was that it wasn't a Classic....but then the club did the "just like it but not the same year as the club era" trick, and the car easily doubled in value.....but more importantly, I could have had another Classic in the stable...

I wish the CCCA would not continue to look for additional cars to add to the roster, and rather spend that energy on promoting the club and making it more attractive to people who own Classics, but view the CCCA as not a "friendly" club to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, your post gave me one other thought, and then I think I'm done: these additions and extensions both earlier and later than the "original" Classic Era may very well make the club LESS approachable rather than more.

Go ahead, try to describe the current criteria (never mind the proposed 1953 extension) to someone who isn't familiar with the club. It used to be "Exceptional luxury cars from 1925 to 1942," which was easy. Clarify the "exceptional" part by saying, "You know, Lincoln, Cadillac, Packard, Mercedes-Benz stuff like that." Then the post-war Continentals were added, and you could say, "Exceptional luxury cars from 1925 to 1942, plus Lincoln Continentals to 1948" and that actually might have made it EASIER for people to grasp, because they knew what a Lincoln Continental was. Then we back-dated cars, making it "Exceptional luxury cars from 1925 to 1942, plus Lincoln Continentals to 1948, and if a car was identical to a car built in 1925, but was built earlier than that, it's in, too." Then we added a bunch of post-war Cadillacs, but not all of them (60, 62, 63, and 75 but not the 61), then the Town and Country (and a six cylinder, no less!), and now this proposal.

Is it any wonder why laymen think we're snobs trying to keep people out?

Perhaps the non-member says, "I have a car, maybe it's a Classic, maybe not, but trying to navigate the definition is a major headache and sure looks exclusionary. What if my car isn't good enough? Why bother?"

I like the idea of pursuing avenues that make the club more approachable and accessible and using those tools to expand membership among owners of cars already on the list. Trying to attract new members with expanded criteria is like digging your own pond, filling it with fish, and then going fishing, rather than simply fishing in the ocean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one way to eliminate both concerns about a slippery slope as well as cronyism at national level would be pretty simple - change powers of the classification committee to simply making recomendations about any additions and put it up to an annual, semi-annual or quarterly vote. The committe would publish their recomendations rather than rule on the car.

Upsides to this - most (but maybe not all) cars within the 1925 - 1948 range have been vetted already after all, and I assume the upcoming national vote will put expansion beyond those years to bed. the list then, should not be too voluminous for members to review and consider. Membership no longer need think choices are made to appease a small group.

Another upside in the event a new car is approved - the owner need not worry about acceptance (as in a "welcoming") as the majority of members would have approved of the entry. This thread has been interesting. Not so sure I would rush on in with a 1949 Bentley if I was to get the "cold shoulder", but at least if approved by popular vote, I would not have that worry.

Downsides - any vote more frequently than annual would be expensive, and prospective car owners would likely need to wait a bit longer, but of course an annual vote would give the classification committee a long time to review a vehicle, and state their recomendation on the ballot sheet or in the Classic Car or Bulletin for member review.

IMO there is no way anyone can say these choices are based 100% on standard criteria now, of course they are subjective to some degree despite best efforts.

Also, as I said in post #1, my views are shaped somewhat by self interest, or my perception of what I would like to see. I happen to like the Bentley, could afford a nice example, and the universe of candidate cars is a lot bigger due to the identical model accceptance. That said, the could shoulder thing is still an issue, but we'll see. David, I bet dollars to doughnuts If you owned the Locomobile you described, you would not have been upset at the decision to include it, right? I would not fault you for that, I am simply pointing out the obvious. Would you really vote against inclusion of the locomobile using my above approach if it's identical but newer sister was already accepted?

Of course membership overall would rule, and one hopes members as a whole are educated enough to make good choices here. This approach may not guarantee every member is in agreement, but it would eliminate many of the present concerns.

Last, I wonder what happened to David C's other post, on vehicles 1949 through 1987 - did it get out of hand even though he noted it was just for fun? To Matt's point about hoping members follow this thread, it is also likely people considering the club would read this forum and perhaps walk away with certain impressions of membership, fair representation or not. It is unfortunate not everyone can act like an adult if they don't see eye to eye. Isn't that behavior in a public forum not the way to best represent the club???

Edited by Steve_Mack_CT
added thought (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other thread, I decided it wasn't a productive question after all, and instead of being a "fun" post that it could quickly have a dark side. Thus, I decided to delete it.

This thread was started with one word used in explanation, "constructive", so let me state some constructive ideas.

Instead of spending the money to have a member vote (what's the math, 6000 members, gotta cost $1 each for printing, postage, etc.), why not spend that $6000 on advertising?

-put CCCA ads in the various magazines that would help increase membership, AACA, ACD, other clubs which have Classics, Hemmings, and so forth; spend the money getting people aware of the club and reasons to join, instead of spending money to increase size of accepted car list

-publicize the Caravans and Grand Classics - I understand that the Club wants exclusivity, but what it has now is invisibility.....in an effort to keep the "public" away from such events, there's little mention of events outside of the CCCA magazines....thus, there could be a Classic owner right down the street from the event, who maybe would join the CCCA just to participate

-have regional activities that are publicly (at least in car magazines) advertised, again, to draw out the Classic owners who might be on the fence about joining, once they participate in a regional activity they might join

The CCCA was founded for high class automobiles, but that doesn't mean that every owner of a Classic is a millionaire. There are a lot of "common folk" like me who love and own Classics, and I'd be willing to bet a lot of them haven't joined CCCA due to either bad publicity (thinking everyone in the club is highfalutin) or NO publicity.

Just some constructive thoughts....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My suggestion to moving acceptance approvals to the entire membership was actually half serious - serious because it would not solve every issue but would certainly address many that have been raised here and off forum. Half not serious because I do not believe this is a club that would entertain such a sweeping change. No matter, I accept that no one is going to be in complete agreement with the list under any methodology, and you take the good decisions along with the "other" decisions. :)

It will be interesting to see if the values of the newly admitted cars change at all. I seriously doubt this will be the case on the Bentley Mark VI, as the guides show virtually no difference between pre and post '48 models, although to Dave's point, once you go to LHD here in the US that does add value. CCCA acceptance would be a factor, but certainly not the deciding factor for me with one of these.

So to the points on value, I cannot help but wonder if that speaks to the car itself - if CCCA acceptance has driven up the value of say, Cadillac 62 series cars, where is the value, in the car itself or acceptance to a club? I guess I would rather choose a car whose value originates with the design, with CCCA or other acceptance being secondary.

Edited by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)
Link to comment
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...