Possible Classic status?

[Restorer32]

Kissel "Gold Bug" 1921 Model 655 ? I believe a later Kissel with a 655 chassis has been added to the list. Thoughts?

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

If it is "virtually identical" to a model made in 1925 that is accepted by CCCA, then the owner should apply to the Classification Committee.

The burden of proof about the "virtually identical" part is on the car owner. Good documentation and pictures help a great deal in making your case.

[JLee]

The Kissel you refer to as having been approved is Al Nippert's 1923 6-55 speedster. It was unusual in the fact it was a very early 6-55 that actually used a left-over 6-45 engine. Kissel were thrifty in their production methods. The 6-55, the 1925 model that could be considered for pre-1925 "Virtually Identical" status, was a new model in 1923. It actually was a less expensive model than the previous 6-45. Some sources show the engine in 1923 being the same as the 6-45, as in the case of Al Nippert's car, but the usual power plant was a 265(264.8) cubic inch engine as opposed to the 284 inch version in the 6-45. Wheelbase was shortened by 3" on the 6-55 and the car as a whole was several hundred pounds lighter. During the discussions on the Kissel 6-55, the Classification Committee opinion was that the 6-45 was a significantly different car from the 6-55 and would not qualify as "Virtually Identical".

So, unless there is other evidence that the 6-55 was available prior to 1923 or that the 6-45 was available into 1925, the car you have noted as a 1921 6-55 would not fit the definition.

I hope this explanation helps.

Jon Lee, Chairman, Classification Committee

[Buicksplus]

Sounds to me like the Nippert car is a 6-55 in name only. Since it has a 6-45 engine it does not sound like it is virtually identical to a 1925 model 6-55. Did Nippert have to show that the 6-45 or 6-55's with 6-45 engines were also built in 1925?

I would assume the 1921 Gold Bug in question should be evaluated the same way as the 1923 Kissel.

But maybe I did not understand Jon's explaination...

Bill.

[JLee]

Not at all. The Nippert car is a genuine 6-55 in its chassis and body configuration. The use of the earlier engine, I suppose, does put this car on the edge as far as the "Virtually Identical" definition. The Committee considered that part long and hard, making the determination that the intent of the Kissel compnay was to identify the 6-55 as a new model, separate from the earlier 6-45. The use of the earlier style engine was undoubtedly a prudent economy measure to use up existing supplies. The earlier 6-45 model was significantly different in the design and specification(and somewhat more expensive) of the chassis, aside from the engine.

You have pointed out one of the major difficulties we face (The Classification Committee) while trying to be consistant in our deliberations; that is the fact that the manufacturers were not to consistant in their methods during the period.

The end result is that the 6-45 would probably (and I use that word cautiously) not be approved as Virtually Identical.

I hope this is a clearer explanation.

Jon Lee

[Restorer32]

My mistake. The Gold Bug we restored is in fact a 6-45. Haven't seen the carin 10 years. But let me get this straight. This car would likely not be accepted as a Classic because it had a larger engine and a longer wheelbase while the Gold Bug that was accepted apparently uses a "left over" 6-45 engine? Quote from "25 YEAR HISTORY OF KISSEL" by E.E.Hustings: "Late in 1922 Kissel announced a new smaller companion car for the 6-45 and then gradually phased the(6-45)out through the remainder of the 1923 model year.....The result was a very good modern engine, though still based on the 6-38 of July 1, 1915, as was the 6-45". I guess it depends on one's willingness to accept various definitions of "virtually identical".

[JLee]

You are probably right on the mark. The quote from Henry Adams is "Words are slippery." There has been some significant discussion of considering those cars built prior to 1925 that are of "Similar Quality" to accepted cars. That might go some way toward covering such cars as the 6-45. But, you didn't here this from me.

Jon Lee

[Restorer32]

Hear what?

[Buicksplus]

I think what Jon is saying is that the Classification committee is scared stiff that the club membership will flog and quarter them for been too cavalier with expanding the CCCA list. But I assume he will answer your question himself.

As I understand it, the purpose of the pre 1925 rule was just to allow earlier Model A Dueseys and the like ("virtually identical" to the 1925 and even later models) into the fold. It was not intended to really draw in additional cars, such as the Kissel 6-45 that have most of those charactistics of similar "Full Classics" but were produced only before 1925.

I suppose there is concern among some club members that the "virtually identical" rule could be used as a pretext to admit some car models that were not actually produced during the sacrosanct classic era.

I have argued before that it is time for the CCCA to lighten up on the whole process, including looking at adjusting the so-called classic era. I support the Classification Committee's and Jon's efforts to expand the list into pre 1925 cars as step in the right direction. I urge them to go even farther, and ask for some relief on the definition of "virtually identical" so that cars like the Kissel 6-45 could be admitted.

Bill.

[JLee]

Buicksplus is pretty accurate. I have a good friend and fellow CCCA member who puts it this way, "If half of the people think you are too liberal and the other half think you are too conservative, then you probably have it about right." You are also quite on the mark with the assesment of the pre-1925 "Virtually Identical" program. Personally I do not disagree with the idea of considering other cars that are of similar quality to the currently accepted models. There is probably more logic there than not. The Club has traditionally been very cautious about making any substantive changes in the era of focus, 1925-1948. Back when the Committee was first considering the original idea of accepting pre-1925 cars, one member cautioned us to consider some of the unintended consequences of our actions. I had no idea of the varied items that would come to the Committee for discussion since then. Wouldn't it have been so easy, if the founders of the Club, some 50 years ago, had used a clear parameter of "Between the Wars"? Hard to un-ring a bell isn't it.

Great discussion.

Jon Lee

[Restorer32]

Actually, I agree that the Classic era should be pretty strictly defined. My problem is with the apparently sometimes inconsistent application of the rules. If a 6-55 Kissel with a 6-45 engine is admitted, then I suppose I could have transferred my 6 cylinder '35 Auburn Phaeton to an 8 cylinder frame, kept the 6 cylinder engine and applied for Classic status. After all, the 6 cylinder body is identical to the 8. Wouldn't that make my Auburn "virtually identical"? Is there documentation that the 6-55 Kissel in question came from the factory with a 6-45 engine? Please don't think I have any animosity toward the car or the owner in question. Not familiar with either. Just wanting to understand the theory. If the envelope can be expanded post 1948 to include "virtually identical" and expanded pre 1928 for the same reason, then why couldn't it be expanded sideways to include such cars as the 6 cylinder Auburn? Or the 6 cylinder Packard for that matter? Please explain to me at what point on the assembly line did a 6 cylinder Auburn become a non-Classic? The 6 and 8 cylinder bodies were identical. Did the change occur when the body was dropped onto a 6 cylinder chassis? Or did it happen in the minds of the designers? Were they conscious of the fact that they were creating two lines of cars, one Classic, one not? I maintain that the cars we now consider Classics were the product of a particular mind set and that the Classic Era should be defined as beginning and ending with the flowering and withering away of that mind set. I'm thinking for example of a pair of Bentleys with which I am familiar. One, a 1935 Drophead is considered a fine example of Classic styling while the second, which happens to be a 1949 Sedanca Coupe'is beyond the pale. Both were designed by the same man, both full cusom bodied, both extremely limited production, in the case of the '49, 7 cars total, all differing in details. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to try to explain to the designer why his 1935 creation (at the beginning of his career) is a Classic and his 1949 effort is not.

[JLee]

Interesting questions, some of which I can answer easily, others, less so. Either way, I'll at least try to give you the Club policy and some of my opinion.

Some of the inconsistency in the application of the rules has been caused by the inconsistencies within the the Club and the Classification Committee in the past half-century. Looking at some cars that have been approved in past years, there are some that probably would not be approved today. About 40 years ago, an Adler Trumph was approved, and this is a car with a 1 liter 4 cylinder engine in a very small chassis,a production model, the least expensive in the ramge. Secondly, there is the inconsistency of the manufacturers themselves, during the period. For example, in 1932 the Nash Advanced Eight was in the 90 Series of cars, an accepted model. The next year, 1933, the Advanced Eight was an 80 Series (non-classic) car priced about 30% lower.

Concerning your 6-cylinder Auburn, you wouldn't be the first to switch the body to an 8 cylinder chassis... The only rational explanation on the Auburn is marketing. The 6-cylinder cars were priced 25 - 30% lower than the comparable 8-cylinder models. The cars were not necessarily less, but the market to which it was aimed was not the luxury end of the scale. Many years ago, this same discussion was held concerning the acceptance of the 8-cylinder Auburn vs. the 12 cylinder cars. It's entirely possible that if this were to come to the Committee today, then 8-cylinder cars might not gain approval. However, it is traditional within the Club not to disenfranchise any previously approved model. Imagine what a can of worms that would be. The important part is that the manufacturers themselves often determined what was a "Classic Car" by the way they they merchandised and to whom they sold their product. Another example might be the Buick Roadmaster and Cadillac 70 Series of 1937. The body on the Buick was badged Fisher and the Cadillac as Fleetwood. However, both bodies were built in the Fleetwood plant, the Buick bodies shipped to Flint and the Cadillac units mounted in Detroit. Both were on a 131" wheelbase. The major interior difference was the Cadillac has a rear compartment interior light. The Cadillac sold for almost double the price of the Buick. Cost of building the Cadillac may have been incrementally more than the Buick, but certainly not double. The Cadillac is a Full Classic and the Buick is not, primarily because of the way that General Motors pricing structure was set by Alfred Sloan.

During the consideration of the Kissel, we heard from the Curator of the Hartford Wisconsin Museum where Kissel records are housed (His name escapes me at the moment). The records there indicated the use of left-over 6-45 engine in early 6-55 production. Apparently there are fairly extensive Kissel company records on file.

I really like the way you have stated the idea of a "Mind set" defining a Classic car and the Classic era. That is so good that I'll probably steal it and use in the future.

By the way, the Classification envelope has not been expanded past 1948.

In consideration of U.S. built Classic Cars the 1948 date is quite rational. 1948 was the final year of the V-12 Lincoln, Cadillac Flathead V-8, and all the Chrysler Crown Imperials (1949 registration or not) were built in the 1948 calendat year. That's all there are, unless you look at post-war designs, which puts us into an altogether different discussion.

While looking at Foreign built Classics, the picture is not so clear. You mention the Bentley; well, in my shop is a 1948 Mark VI standard steel saloon we are restoring. My co-owner on this car also has a very nice 1950 Mark VI standard steel that we have used as our "instruction sheet" for the restoration. We have used a 1951 parts car. The point is, I understand the dilema, while I don't have a satisfactory explanation. The only rationale is that the 1925-1948 era is the time period on which the CCCA has chosen to focus. Similar discussions come up in other Clubs such as the Horseless carriage Club that has a 1916 cut-off date, the Vintage Sports car Club with a 1959 end date and, the date most often discussed in early car circles, the 1904 cut-off for Veteran cars eligible for the London-Brighton run in England. A "Virtually Identical" 1905 car, in England, is worth significantly less money than its 1904 counterpart.

For a better understanding of the reasons for the concentration on this era, I strongly recommend (If you do not already have it) Beverly Kimes book, "The Classic Era". Bev does a much better and more thorough job of explaining the significance of this short period of time in automotive history. It's a terrific book that deserves to be in every enthusiast's library. And for the shameless commercial plug, it's available through this web-site.

I probably have not answered all of your questions, but maybe there is some food for further discussion.

Jon Lee