Jump to content

'32 Cadillac V16 convertible coupe


Recommended Posts

I don't much care for the '32s either--I always felt that the headlights were a touch too small, like the King Bee lights on a hot rod.

 

That said, who the hell would kick that one out of bed for eating crackers? Certainly not I! I like the lack of sidemounts on this one, and while I do not believe double rear spares were offered, I think they would really finish the car nicely. One single little spare tire back there looks kind of bourgeois on such a car as this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This configuration was the designer's ideal: no side-mounts 'bullseye' to interrupt the flow as the eye traced the hood length and fender sweep to the windshield which then began defining the body mass.   The rakishly-mounted rear spare parallel with the sweep of the deck completes this sublime profile.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

32's are great cars but at the end of the day it is a convertible coupe which relates to a roadster as a convertible

sedan does to a phaeton. The 32 roadster has cut down doors and a sleek windshield since it does not need to deal

with the side windows. Its top also drops way down into the body when in the lowered position.

 

In 32 the convertible coupe was on the short wheelbase and used the standard Fisher body

unchanged from those on the v-8. In fact it is the same body as the red v-8 that started this thread. Maybe the market

is that strong on a very nice older restoration....... but that would shock me.

 

Johnny

Link to post
Share on other sites

A '32 V16 Roadster is also a Fisher body on the shorter of the two V16 chassis and has the same body as a V8 roadster.  I agree the sportiness of a Roadster wins every time, but I doubt there's more than a few hundred k difference given the great provenance of this convertible coupe, fantastic(older)restoration, and potentially one of two with a build sheet that matches the chassis and motor.  This is going to to be a good test.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I've been a very lucky boy and have been able to drive a couple of different 30 V16 Roadsters.  Smooth, easy to drive, don't make you look stupid trying to shift it.  But the one thing that stood out to me was the hood did not feel very long, relative to other "titan" level cars.   The 32 hood looks a little longer,  is true?

 

I really like this convertible coupe.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, alsancle said:

I've been a very lucky boy and have been able to drive a couple of different 30 V16 Roadsters.  Smooth, easy to drive, don't make you look stupid trying to shift it.  But the one thing that stood out to me was the hood did not feel very long, relative to other "titan" level cars.   The 32 hood looks a little longer,  is true?

 

I really like this convertible coupe.

 

I think the Cadillac hoods are a little more "broad" than other marques, particularly Packard. My '29, for instance, doesn't seem very long to me from behind the wheel simply because it's also quite wide and relatively flat along the top. I think that contributes to the feeling that it isn't quite as long. Packards are probably the pinnacle simply because their very design makes the hood look especially long, narrow, and pointed, and therefore it appears longer. I've never been behind the wheel of something like a Duesenberg, but I have a lot of experience with the Marmon Sixteen, which also has a very long hood and it's also a bit broad and not as long-looking as a comparable large series 1932 Packard despite the fact that the Marmon's hood is nearly six feet long... 

 

The lack of sidemounts on this particular convertible coupe surely helps with the side view proportions.

 

Your Royale should totally nail the long, lean hood though. Extra long, somewhat narrow, and butted right up to the dash. I bet that's an awesome view!

 

 

Edited by Matt Harwood (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 12/9/2020 at 8:13 PM, edinmass said:

The seven digit  is the Roadster number.............my fault. The correct over/under number would be 600k. Sorry, I was half asleep.

 

If it were a 30-32, the over under would be 375k.

 

I wanted to quote myself because I thought I went high on this,  but it seems I must have been dreaming.   But since you were wrong I'll quote you instead.  😁

 

 Sold For $1,022,500

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.....I did say seven figure over/under. That’s a world record price for a V-16 Conv Coupe......by a ton. I don’t care for the rear spare.......and 32’s are rare..........but seven figures is roadster money. Wonder where it went. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, edinmass said:

Well.....I did say seven figure over/under. That’s a world record price for a V-16 Conv Coupe......by a ton. I don’t care for the rear spare.......and 32’s are rare..........but seven figures is roadster money. Wonder where it went. 


7 figures is 30/31 roadster money.  You are discounting the 32 factor.  Much more attractive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

NOT a roadster.........in the 30/31 cars the price ratio is 4-1 to 6-1, and while 32's are rare......its no where near a roadster. The earlier vs later is understandable, but as a purist, and a early era collector, I prefer the first design for lines...but not the fuel system.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, edinmass said:

NOT a roadster.........in the 30/31 cars the price ratio is 4-1 to 6-1, and while 32's are rare......its no where near a roadster. The earlier vs later is understandable, but as a purist, and a early era collector, I prefer the first design for lines...but not the fuel system.

 

As someone with taste,  I understand why the 32 fender line would bring a lot more money.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw,  I've been heavily involved in the hobby since I was 4 years old.    I was over 50 before I knew that there was a whole pack of people who wanted sidemount cars.  That was news to me.

 

With European cars, especially Mercedes there is almost a 2x premium for the rear mount cars.   Typically they are double vs single,  but there is a big premium.   I always assumed that was true across the board.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alsancle said:

Btw,  I've been heavily involved in the hobby since I was 4 years old.    I was over 50 before I knew that there was a whole pack of people who wanted sidemount cars.  That was news to me.

 

With European cars, especially Mercedes there is almost a 2x premium for the rear mount cars.   Typically they are double vs single,  but there is a big premium.   I always assumed that was true across the board.

 

1 hour ago, alsancle said:

 

As someone with taste,  I understand why the 32 fender line would bring a lot more money.

 

 

Someone with taste??????????? You like post war cars.......nuff said!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I too was way off.  I think Fran Roxas Restoration helps. But is seems like it is 3x that of a 30-31 convertible coupe.  I was unaware of the 32s having that high a premium.  

I was always told that fisher bodies were less desirable (in the 1990s).  I guess that does not ring true in 2021.  
 

 


 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't play in or understand that high end of the market, so a question for Ed or AJ or anyone: is the strong price preference for roadster over convertible coupe (like, I assume, a preference for phaeton over convertible sedan) rooted in the assumed awkwardness of how the car looks with the top down?  Similar to how, on a J, I gather the disappearing top cars are much more valuable?  Putting aside that I don't totally understand why that would matter all that much, I wonder if it might explain a little bit that the '32 Cadillac convertible coupe looks great with the top down.  Top goes pretty flat, and windshield is pretty thin and only chrome, etc.  No idea if that might explain it, but wondered what the wise ones here think of that idea. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right Orin.  It is all looks and the 32 convertible coupe looks awesome.

 

I guess I would wonder what the comp was for the last 32 2 door 16 open car that has sold?

 

They made literally thousands of the 30/31 chassis.  Not so many in 32.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, alsancle said:

I think you are right Orin.  It is all looks and the 32 convertible coupe looks awesome.

 

I guess I would wonder what the comp was for the last 32 2 door 16 open car that has sold?

 

They made literally thousands of the 30/31 chassis.  Not so many in 32.

 

Thanks, Aj, glad that makes sense.  Might also explain why there isn't that much of a price difference between the '34 Packard convertible sedans and phaetons (on the convertible sedan, the convertible top goes down pretty flat, and the the windshield frame isn't bulky), while the 1931 Cadillac 16 all-weather phaetons seem to be remarkably inexpensive relative to other 16 open cars (the windshield is ungainly and the top when down is pretty tall).   It still seems pretty quirky that this  issue would make so much of a market difference, but then I guess this hobby isn't for normal people.

Link to post
Share on other sites


I disagree with AJ’s analysis. Across the board, roadsters always bring a lot more money than a convertible coupe. There are two 1932 V-16 Roadsters.........and three Phaetons. Certainly much more valuable, desirable, and ten times more collectible. 32’s are twenty five times  more rare than the first series, and are better mechanically also. I just don’t see the justification of a early car worth 1/3 the value of a identical 32. I could see a 32 roadster top 2 large..........with the 30-31’s bringing about 1.25-1.5 now. The high price is probably someone wanting a two door open 32 and they know the chance of securing a roadster are less than slim to none. 

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So Ed,  if you think a 32 Roadster might top 2 large,  why is it hard to understand why a really nice convertible coupe brought 1/2 that much?

 

In 1932 they built 14 convertible coupes and 3 roadsters.

 

In 1930/1931 they built 100 convertible coupes and  105 roadsters.

 

I personally think the 32 is MUCH more attractive and the production numbers say a lot more hard to find.

Edited by alsancle (see edit history)
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alsancle said:

So Ed,  if you think a 32 Roadster might top 2 large,  why is it hard to understand why a really nice convertible coupe brought 1/2 that much?

 

In 1932 they built 14 convertible coupes and 3 roadsters.

 

In 1930/1931 they built 100 convertible coupes and  105 roadsters.

 

I personally think the 32 is MUCH more attractive and the production numbers say a lot more hard to find.

  For 30/31 there were two convertible coupes. 4235 (94 made) and 4335(100 made).  The 4300 series were $1000 less expensive than the 4200 convertible coups $5900 vs $6900.  
 

Quick difference is the sills.  4200 are curved.  4300 straight.  The roadster is in the “cheap” 4300 series.   Interesting that it is now the most expensive.  The sport phaeton is in the “expensive” series -4200. 
 

 

 

4235

 

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/25719/lot/134/

 


4335

 

https://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/am15/amelia-island/lots/r183-1930-cadillac-v-16-convertible-coupe-by-fleetwood/181616

 

 

In my opinion the 4235 convertible coupe is better looking than the 4335 and compares favorably to the 32 convertible coupe.   But I love all v16s even a 1938-40 sedan. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2021 at 8:51 AM, alsancle said:

Btw,  I've been heavily involved in the hobby since I was 4 years old.    I was over 50 before I knew that there was a whole pack of people who wanted sidemount cars.  That was news to me.

 

With European cars, especially Mercedes there is almost a 2x premium for the rear mount cars.   Typically they are double vs single,  but there is a big premium.   I always assumed that was true across the board.

I am doing a 1936 Auburn 852 Phaeton with no sidemounts and the spare tire in the trunk - A lot of people like our 35 851 Phaeton with the formality of sidemounts, though I purposely went out of my way for an Auburn Phaeton with built on trunk and spare tire w/in trunk.

 

Here is the 1935

 

254704224_247491(1).thumb.jpg.a693228f4545a66e2bf14edce03740a6.jpg

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the mid to late 1970's, we stopped in at a fellows place in I believe NJ (a side trip while visiting my Aunt in Wilmington, Delaware) - he had a 1932 V-16 Roadster (for sale for like 200K back then) and had a entire scrap yard of 1928/1929/1930/1931 Cadillac's.  He had cancer and was selling everything - he was sort of waxy looking and his fingers were curled up I believe backwards. I recall a 28/29 chassis with budd disk wheels and there was a 30 sedan with collapsible rear quarter.   We walked away without anything 31 as his prices were so high and ....  Anyone remember visiting him ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
1 hour ago, alsancle said:

Mecum actually has some nice real cars sometimes.


 

I agree.....amazing people are so lazy they send a car to the worst auction it could go to. Then they will bitch it didn’t bring any money.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, alsancle said:

Mecum actually has some nice real cars sometimes.

No offense to Mecum as they have a very nice system, good marketing, a large television presence, and ..., plus have been trying to focus more 365 degrees- but generally the people following and attending their auctions tend to not be focused on such as brass cars, nickle cars, and such as CCCA classic cars - some times Mecum hits the ball out of the ballpark, but most of the times I just hear the complaining. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
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...