This is consistency?

[Buicksplus]

Friends:

I just noted a small item in the recent bulletin: Request for Classic status for the series consisting of 1936-39 Buick Series 80 (Roadmaster) denied.

Why is this a problem? Well, in 1940 Buick happened to call the Series 80 a "Limited" along with the Series 90 that year only. Both 1940 Buick Limited series (80 and 90) are CCCA Classics. Yet the 1940 Series 80 is essentially the same car as the 39 and earlier Series 80 Roadmasters. The main difference is in the name and annual styling differences, not the wheelbase, price, production quantity or quality.

I suppose this is another case of the CCCA trying to say that it goofed when it included the 1940 Series 80 Limited. Or the club is stopping "dilution", as if there are hundreds of Model 80's out there, all waiting to dilute the CCCA at the first opportunity.

I guess the message is clear, "borderline" classics need not apply, the club is not interested. I feel sorry for those who waste their time preparing applications, seems like the answer will always be the same. Still, to whoever made the application, good for you, I for one agree with what you were trying to accomplish....

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

[Guest]

If you read anything on history you will find example after example of other organizations and even governments where this sort of attitude eventually destroys the organization. I call it "Classic Car" attitude and it is the undoing of the club and it's goals, I can think of no other better way to guarantee it's demise than to exclude other "like" automobiles from the ranks of the show worthy. Sadly those in charge will see this and point and say exclusion is too important to relax. I think the whole attempt to copyright the term "Classic" was the first indicator that something smells in Denmark, what could the executive possibly be thinking? TSK TSK, the modern world has overtaken the attitudes that formed this club and the common man snickers at the idea of such Victorian thoughts. If your not moving forward your going backwards, pretty soon you won't catch up...ever.

You must open your mind and your a$$ will follow, how could more members ever be a bad thing?

[Guest]

Now I am REALLY confused. These two guys seem unhappy with the CLASSIC CAR CLUB OF AMERICA not wanting to accept more "almost classics".

First of all, let me first agree that the late 1930's Buicks (or ANY Buick, for that matter, is an excellent example of what we Americans do (or used to do)BEST...provide an excellent product for the money. Those old Buicks ( of ANY series )....were a great buy, and were at least the equal of any other car in their respective price classes.

So...given how great they were...and are...and given how fantastic their reputation...and given the fact that there are already a number of very well-managed car clubs where they would be welcome.....WHY..pray tell...would anyone GIVE a damn WHAT the CCCA does....after all...we have read over and over again in here...that people DONT try and "pollute" the CCCA with "almost classics" just to make a "fast buck" off of classic status.....and...after all...the CCCA is just FALLING APART for its nasty elitist attitudes...isnt it...why....just LOOK how nobody wants to be a member of the CCCA any more...

C'mon...guys....you are so obvious...it is embarrasing..! Of COURSE there was a lot of inconsistancy in the past, and the damage to the CCCA concept, has been serious - we have WAY too many cars and people in the CCCA now, who have little or know understanding of what the Club was formed to do.

But I rather doubt if those past inconsistancies, tho hard to deal with, and impossible to explain ( other than to admit the truth....lots of people with lots of "also rans" recognized the value of association with the CCCA, and wanted to profit from it).....

The whole idea of the CCCA orignally, was to try and preserve the "best of the best". Those magnificent REAL classics were trully the "arrogant elite". There is always someone with a bigger, faster, longer one that yours....DEAL WITH IT.

Pete Hartmann