Modified Classics

[Restorer32]

Anyone care to justify the Modified Classic Class? Used to have a '35 Auburn Phaeton which was a 6 cylinder and therefore non-Classic even though the body was identical to the "Classic" 8 cylinder. Now, I could take a "Classic" chassis, have a new but non-authentic body built and I would be welcome (though not judged) at CCCA meets. I also could have purchased an 8 cylinder sedan, trashed the body ( I certainly would not have been the first to do so) and fitted my 6 cylinder body. In light of the "declared purpose of the Club to further the restoration and preservation of distinctive motor cars..." isn't there just a tiny bit of hypocracy built into the system ?

[Buicksplus]

Restorer 32:

That is not the only problem with the modified Classic class, indeed I think I heard that CCCA was going to get rid of that class, and simply judge cars as they appear. I don't think the CCCA should get involved in either verifying or exposing authenticity, that is the job for the owner. I don't think the club has the resources or skills to establish provenence for these cars.

Having worked a bit on a '34 Auburn 6cyl phaeton, I can tell you the body appears the same as the 8 but actually it is not. I understand the front fenders and hood on the 8 are longer by inches, due to the longer wheel base of the 8. The '35 also has different wheelbases for 6 and 8.

But the question I have asked before is, why isn't the 6cyl Auburn a full classic? I know, fine common man car and all that stuff, but the reality is there are very few of these sixes and they are almost indistinguishible on the outside from the 8. And even though many were produced initially, there are very, very few left today and they would hardly dilute the club.

I know today's mood is very anti expansion, but I still think including cars like this will enhance the club. Oh yes, to Pete, I don't own one and I'm not trying to sell one, please spare me your comments....

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

[Shawn Miller]

Probably should start a different thread for this one. let me test my skills with this system and try to do that in a minute as it is a different subject than what we can talk about here, versus what we accept as full classics.

If PH were here which HE'S NOT ANYMORE, he would say that the 8 cylinder Auburns were only allowed into the club later since they werent terribly expensive, and the six would definately not be in our league. being an Auburn Guy I would tend to agree that the six shouldnt be a full classic just as the 6 cylinder (110/120) packards aren't. the 6 is shorter, and not as deluxe.

As far as Modified Classics go, I don't know enough to comment intelligently on that class, but from what i understand they cant be judged or shown, they are just sort of in limbo which does no one any good. I do think that we should not give rebodied cars the same clout as original cars, so I think there should be some differentiation made there, just not sure what.

Shawn

Hey I did it! I am really crusing now <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Restorer32]

Nor am I trying to sell a 6 cylinder Auburn, did that 3 years ago. I agree the 6 probably should not be a classic where basically the same car was available in an 8 but following that logic to its conclusion I guess Packard Eights shouldn't be Classics in those years when Twelves were available. And what about Cadillacs? 8 cyl, 12 cyl, 16 cyl, all classics ? What if Caddy had produced a 6 cyl ?

[Restorer32]

The 6 cylinder Auburn body shell is in fact the same as the 8. The difference lies in the length of the hood and front fenders to accomodate the longer chassis. I believe even the rear fenders and runningboards are the same. Perhaps the bodies were trimmed differently but the basic body shells interchanged.

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

The CCCA National Board of Directors is painfully aware of the many problems wit the Modified Classic Class. Work is underway to address it. I predict you will also see the term go away in the relatively near future.

We are trying to be cautious though. We know this is bad, but we don?t want to replace it with something worse.

[Shawn Miller]

I think it is good to have such a class to discourage the type of examples restorer quoted. taking the body from a 6 cylinder phaeton, and swapping it with an 8 cylinder sedan (assuming the body tubs are in fact completely interchangable) would increase the value somewhat(at least double). I had an 8 cylinder sedan and sold it because I wanted an open Auburn, knowing i cant afford bunches of Auburns. It took a while to sell it. I finally found someone who WANTED a sedan! I guess I could have found some 6 cylinder beater and done this instead, but it never occurred to me. Mine was a great original car I went all the way to seattle to get. I would rather have my old auburn back than have a phaeton I knew to be unoriginal. Some things are worth more than money. we are talking about pieces of history here. Actually I miss the sedan and regret selling it. There really aren't very many of them (Probably for this very reason) How many of them have died to create speedsters in the 50's and 60's is anyones guess.

I think we should just let them be judged, but keep the class.

Shawn

[Shawn Miller]

Just so you know I really see no problem with rebodying cars that have lost their body or parts of it for whatever reason. I have such a car. It was originally a sedan. obviously it will cost more to rebuild the body as a sedan than it would to make it a speedster or roadster, and will be worth less if I decide to do that. Part of the history of my car is that it lost parts of its body. I would have no problem with it being classiified as modified if I go the speedster route, but would like to be able to show it.

Shawn

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

The number one reason you?re likely to see the name ?Modified Classic? go away is because it is a term that is often used in the hot rod community. There is simply too much confusion as to what we mean. If you read our Handbook definition of ?Modified Classic? it is likely that you will conclude that we don't even we know what we mean. It is confusing at best.

Several name suggestions are in the works, including ?New Coachwork,? which is fairly well accepted in the old car hobby, even if isn?t a totally accurate way to describe some cars. Getting this right may take more than one class to make everything fit in a logical manner. In any case, we want to keep it simple.

Speaking personally, I think whatever we choose to call them; they should be judged among their peers. The Club should take the stigma out of owning one of these cars, but at the same time do what it can to accurately record the history of what has happened to the car over the years. In some cases, they?ve had the wrong body on them for much longer than they had the original body. For instance a 1939 Rolls that got a new Piccadilly Roadster body fitted to it in 1959 has had the ?wrong? body on it for 43 years, or about 2/3 the time the car has existed. Like it or not that roadster body has become a significant part of the history of the car.

I also think the Club should adopt a judging program for Original Cars. Currently, we do award a ribbon to cars that we think are basically original, and we even give a trophy for the best and/or most original car. This is a good first step, but I think we can carry it much farther. Hopefully, this would encourage people to preserve a car, rather than restore it.

Just a few random thoughts?

[Guest]

I do not think cars w/ modified or repro bodies should be judged against cars with original bodies. How would you feel if you owned a rare, limited production car and standing next to yours at a meet was an identical car, but with a repro body? Wouldn't you feel the least bit uncomfortable? There's an old saying among Duesenberg owners that goes something like this: "Of the 7 original Derham Toursters built, 13 exist today." That's because all the originals exist, plus several repros. I do think cars with repro or modified bodies should be allowed at CCCA events, but in their own class.

I was at the Indiana Annual Meeting several years ago when the following occured. The meet organizer (a guy from Indiana) invited a local club member who had a Duesenberg with an new body on it to bring his car to the Annual Meeting and show it. The body was put on in the 60's and the best way to describe it is that it looks like the Greta Garbo car, but with more exagerated lines. I don't think the car was registered for the meet, but who cares, a Duesenberg is a Duesenberg. When the National Board arrived, the had a cow about it and made the owner park the car off to the side behind a temporary wall. Then the owner drove the car out 1/2 thru the meet, leaving in disgrace. I think this was a big black eye for the National Board. I don't think you had anything to do with it Chuck, because from reading your other posts, you seem open minded. Just to set the record straight, the Duesy had an original chassis, but a body fitted at a later time that was not originally produced. A few years later, at Hickory Corners, a purple P III Rolls was exhibited with a coupe body that was never originally produced either. They found an artists rendering of a copuple body on a Rolls chassis from the late 30's and copied it. It was never originally made though. Why was the Rolls allowed at the meet and not the Duesenberg? Incidently, the Duesy was at Auburn this past fall, and was on the show field.

[Shawn Miller]

I will try to keep this brief because I am real busy today at work. I was there obviously. the duesie in question is the struther mcminn car. the body was designed during the classic era by Mr. McMinn, but never realized during the classic era, so therefore this car under the current modified classic rules is not acceptable. We had asked bill to bring this car, so it was kind of tuff for us in the region, to have to push it off to the side. But that is what happened.

I personally like this car, and especially like the owner, who is one of the most unassuming and classy people I can think of. His grandfather had this body put on in the 60's. Yes this is an instance where I think the rules are a bit muddy. Following this logic, If I rebody the daVinci using one of the 5 original body designs Booth had inked during the classic era, but not the close coupled sedan that was the only one actually built, my car would not be welcome in the modified class. It really makes no difference to me. I feel it is the clubs loss if it cant even be shown.

Shawn

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

You will note that I said these cars should be ?judged among their peers.? By this I meant that they should not be judged against cars that are in their original configuration (the ?full classics??) I see no problem with judging these cars among themselves though. I think it would encourage people to come forth and be honest about the car?s history.

We are finding out that some cars, which have always been listed as 1925 models, are suddenly being listed as the earlier versions they really are. I?m sure that this is happening because the Club finally recognized that magically on January 1, 1925, some of the finer automotive manufacturers didn?t all get together and decide, ?Today, we are going to start building Classic cars.? It didn?t happen that way. Thanks to a recent by-laws change, there is no longer a stigma to owning a 1924 Duesenberg. My only question is what took us so long to figure that out?

We should do things that encourage our members to be honest. Unfortunately some of the things we do give people incentive to be less than forthright. That doesn?t do much to help to accurately record the history of these very interesting cars.

As for the Indianapolis incident, that was one of the few times I have been embarrassed to be a National Director. I was very disappointed by the way the situation was handled, especially when a big deal was made of it from the podium during the evening?s banquet. To be fair, it was not just some members of the Board who made a big stink over this car being on exhibit. Some of the more conservative members of the club also wanted it removed.

You could make a case either way about the Club?s rules regarding the exhibition of this car. By our rules, non-CCCA Classics are not allowed to register for any CCCA National Activity. But I don?t think the car was actually registered. I just took it to be an interesting and decorative piece of automotive art that was intended to be part of the stage set for the Regional Awards Banquet. I think that was the intention. There was a huge sign beside it that gave an accurate description of the car and it?s history. It couldn?t have been clearer. I was happy to have the opportunity to see this very unusual car.

I would have no problem with the concept of allowing that car, or others like it, to participate in CCCA activities. We should be happy to have them. I would ask that they be judged in their own class, not with the cars that have original coachwork. Other than that, why should we penalize someone for owning a really interesting car that otherwise meets the Club?s standards? Who cares when the body was built? There are plenty of cars in CCCA that we call ?legitimate? that have had ?heroic restorations? which amount to essentially the same thing. For all intents and purposes, these cars have been rebodied. There are also lots of body swapped cars with CCCA Senior badges on them. For a long time, the Club considered taking the body off of one car and putting it on another perfectly acceptable. Under some circumstances (the right body, the right chassis), it still is OK. Somewhere along the line we changed the rules to say that changes in coachwork had to be done during the Classic Era. 1948 and earlier was OK, post 48 was not. When the rule was changed, all cars that had been rebodied after 1948 were ?grand fathered,? so they were still OK. Many years later, it is getting pretty hard to figure that one out. It?s hard enough to tell an old restoration from an original car; much less figure out if this is the original body we?re looking at. It will only get worse, unless we address the situation.

[Buicksplus]

This is a complex question, that's for sure. I think it is easier to start with what should definitely be excluded. I am sure all would agree that complete Repro cars, such as the fiberglass Mercedes SSK's, and the ubiquitous Auburn Boattails are and should be excluded.

But I think rebodied or even reframed cars that reflect the materials, construction techniques and replicate actual vehicles that existed in the classic era is not a problem with me. The CCCA should encourage honesty and look at each car as it appears. I really don't see much difference between fabricating a complete body from scratch and reforming a fender or bumper -- or restoring a car from many bits and pieces from parts cars covering different years and different body styles.

What we don't need is deception. I think any car that is known to be falsely represented should not be allowed to participate in a CCCA event. But I still think it is up to the owner or interested buyer of any collector car to do the research needed -- if complete tracability and provenence is important to them. I do not think the CCCA should get into these disputes.

The good news is that it is simply not possible to replicate very convincingly any car, let alone a rare classic car. Does anyone really think the CCCA would be innundated with repro cars?

I strongly favor unrestored original classes also, to encourage owners to keep those clean original cars original. Any restoration always destroys the patina and many original features of a car no matter how carefully it is done. Anything a car club can do to keep those few truly original cars unrestored is fine with me. Today, by glorifying the 100 pt restoration we are discouraging and shaming owners of original cars into restoring them....

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

[Guest]

I think the AACA got it right when introducing the HPOF class. Hopefully more car clubs will follow suit. I had an original 1950 Cadillac coupe (non CCCA car) tha I got an HPOF plaque for a few years ago and am very proud of it. The CCCA should come up with a similar program. Even some major Concourse such as Meadowbrook have a class called "the way it was" for original cars. We are starting to see more unrestored cars at Grand Classics. There was a great original '28 Stutz coupe at the Annual Meeting at San Francisco. Remember in the '70 & 80's it was unheard of to bring anything less than a 90 lus point car to a Grank Glassic. Thankfully times are changing.

[Shawn Miller]

We do have a class called the Touring class which is for more driven cars. If you score more than 93 points in this class you are disqualified. I have had 2 cars that were great original cars, that had only been repainted, but were otherwise completely original (except for maintenance things). My Caddy is such a car. From what I understand these would not be considered "original" by most people. I think in our club the car has to have at least 75% of its original paint to be so designated. I am not sure there are enough of these cars in running condition to justify an entire new class. These cars are getting pretty old. a car that is totally original and is 60-80 years old is going to look pretty ratty in most cases.

Shawn Miller

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

CCCA does make awards to original cars. A team of National Directors inspects each car that is registered as an ?original car.? Depending on how much of the car they deem is actually ?original,? it is awarded a ribbon for either ?Original Car? or ?Original Features.? At the Awards presentation, a trophy is awarded for either ?Best Original Car? or ?Most Original Car.? Sometimes both awards are made. The reason for the two awards is sometimes the ?most? original car is not the ?best? in terms of condition. Either way these cars are fascinating, and we are working on ways to encourage people to preserve them, rather than restore them.