Post war car NOT a Classic?

Come to the Annual Meeting, and allow the process to continue in a peaceful and orderly fashion.

I think in a few months all will be fine. CCCA has always moved at "glacial speeds" which can be quite frustrating from time to time. This process is no different.

" The truth is, none of us ever will agree on what is and isn't a Classic Car. No amount of voting, discussing, arguing or debating will change that simple fact. We will never agree on a list. "

I disagree. If a club sets a "frame" by which to accept cars, then we have our guidelines. I personally believe the CCCA should "close" new applications. I mean, it's a well defined era that has been mined for years, debated and written about by the highest level of automotive historians.

Some cars should be de-classified - removed from the CCCA (post war Cadillacs such as the 60S and 62 series)

It's just a club, not life and death. If they want to set parameters the CCCA should just set them and get on with enjoying the experience of owning these cars.

There are clubs for literally every kind of car/make -heck, one is called the AACA!

The seven passanger Packards & Cadillacs of the 1940's were more for funeral & livery service than taxi service. Just about every funeral home in every major US city had either a Packard or Cadillac limousine. You can usually tell these apart from the ones sold new to private owners because they don't have division windows, don't have black leather front upholstery, and are radio delete cars. I agree the "Classics" from the 1940's are a "lessor breed" then the big chassis cars of the 1930's. Another way to chart the end of the Classic Era is the demise of the custom body business. Rollson lasted until 1941/42 and that was just because they were in New York where half the custom bodied cars were sold anyway. Derham was still putting padded tops on cars, and yes a few Packard Darrins were made, but that's about it in the US. The reason 1946/1947 Cadillacs are in the club is because they are virtually identical to the 1942 Cadillac except for a few minor trim pieces & the parking lights. 62 series Cadillacs were added into the club in 1986 I believe, and this was because the early days of the club were very Packard-centric. Remember 160 Packards were not on the original list of accepted cars either - they were added later on. I think the problem people have with the 62 series Cadillacs is that there are just so damned many of them. There was one CARavan where out of 100 cars, 16 of them were 1941 Cadillacs - that's ridiculous. As the membership gets older, many people don't want to drive the early cars because they steer & shift harder. I don't think Chrysler T & C are going to take over the club like 62 series Cadillacs did, but I think people just have an adverse reaction to any more 1940's cars being added in.

I have a question. I'm told the pre war Chrysler T & C were only on the 6 cylinder chassis. Why on earth didn't Chrysler put the T & C on the big eight chassis? The T & C was by far their snazziest model. I asked one senior CCCA guy this once & his response was: Chrysler has always done things backwards.

T & C was just getting tested pre-war, basically. A lot of manufacturers had wood bodied station wagons. The market was not defined pre-war as an upscale niche. Therefore, Chrylser was able to price the T & C competitvely as a better alternative to Chevrolets station wagons for instance. These were always low numbers cars. I think Hudson had one - but not many built.

You're splitting hairs. Take a 1941 Cadillac Model 75. Some had division windows, some did not. Some had black leather front compartments with or without a division window, some did not. You can't individually go through car by car to determine which ones you think are "Classic" and which ones not. However, taking in a whole new series of car, with a 6 cylinder engine no less, is a much bigger step. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no other 6 cylinder American built car from the 1940's is currently on the CCCA list. In fact, I can't think of a 6 cylinder American car from the mid to late 30's either that's a Classic. Franklin went out in 1934, the Stutz Blackhawk 6 went out in basically 1930 except for a handful built after that, the last Packard 6 accepted as a Classic is 1928. Pierce Arrow ended their 6 in 1928 as well. Meanwhile you have lower priced economy cars like Olds, Pontiac, Buick & Ford all with 8 cylinder models. The non classic Packard 120 even has an 8. It makes no sense. If Chrysler had put the T & C body on the Imperial chassis, they probably would have been accepted into the club back in the 1980's with the Cadillac 62's. But because they didn't, that makes them Milestone Club cars, and not CCCA cars.

"If a car has a 6 and is made in Europe, it can be a Classic, but if made in the USA, it can't?"

Yes. There's no such thing as a cheap Rolls, or a cheap Bentley, or a cheap Lagonda, all of which had sixes. By the mid 1930's an American built car with anything less than an eight under he hood would have been considered a middle class working mans car. The CCCA isn't about middle class working mans cars. Look at your Nash. Nash mainly built cars for the middle class, but they also built a few top end cars which are, rightfully so, accepted in the CCCA. The Chrysler Imperial from the 1940's is accepted in the club. The thing that kills the T & C, at least the pre war ones for me, is the fact that it was not put on the top of the line chassis. Besides, it's a major deviation from a standing 56 year club policy to accept cars as series only and not individual models. In regards to the Packard business sedans, which I am not an expert on, my arguement would be that they are still on the large, top of thre line chassis with the 356 motor. If they had the 327 or the later 288, then no, they shouldn't be in the club.

I guess it seems pretty simple to me. The 6 cylinder 320 Mercedes cost roughly 6500.00 dollars delivered in NY circa 1938. That was a lot of money at the time and I think makes it pretty easy to identify that model as a classic. Was there a U.S. manufacturer with a 6 cylinder car that even cost 1/2 that much at the time?

Personally, I would be for freezing the accepted list as far as model lines go and then allow individual non-accepted cars with custom bodies in by application.

This thread is funny, seeing folks creating rules and regulations for what qualifies as a classic, even though I doubt this is what the founders of the club did or intended. Weren't they wisely vague? I think they said the club was for "fine and unusual" cars. That would include just about anything the club members wanted on the list, certainly not just eight or twelve cylinder, expensive cars.

Note the Lincoln Continental is similar to the T&C, it was a specific model built on a middle priced, non-classic chassis.

How the demographics have changed. The CCCA was founded by and originally comprised largely of college educated professionals with a sense of humor who shared an interest in automobiles from a clearly defined classic era, 1925 through 1942, with postwar examples allowed so long as they were carryovers from the prewar era.

Now we have people shouting "Wake up" and branding those with an interest in CCCA Classics "geezers," even as they wish to join. This is tantamount to urging the Shakespeare festival to include the work of modern playwrights, or a classical music station to play rock, country or hip hop.

Similarly, there already exist wonderful organizations for the enjoyment of Lincoln Zephyrs, junior Packards, 1934-40 LaSalles, as well as postwar Chrysler Town & Countries, Dual Ghias, Cadillac Eldorados, Bentley Continentals, et al: the AACA, the Contemporary Historical Vehical Association, and the Milestone Car Society, among others.

Why the interest in glomming onto the word "classic?" It won't make your already interesting old car worth anymore. In fact, there are any number of Fords worth vastly more than many CCCA Classics.

There are clubs for every car already, without diluting the concept of a CCCA Classic.

If you want to enjoy Edward Albee or Susan Sontag theater, you don't come to a Shakespeare festival. If you want to listen to jazz, folk or rock, you don't tune in a classical station. If you're a WWII buff, you don't curse Civil War reenacters for not allowing your Jeep on their field.

Why is the above so difficult for so many people to grasp?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Su8overdrive</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Now we have people shouting "Wake up" and branding those with an interest in CCCA Classics "geezers," even as they wish to join. This is tantamount to urging the Shakespeare festival to include the work of modern playwrights, or a classical music station to play rock, country or hip hop.

Why is the above so difficult for so many people to grasp?

</div></div>

The CCCA is a long established "Club" with a very defined interest in a specific era of automobile history and a class of automobiles built during that era. I just don't understand why anyone would get their nose out of joint just because a certain car is not included in the CCCA list. A couple of years ago a CCCA CARavan stopped overnight in our city. It was such a joy to see all the big Full Classic cars assembled in one location. If the club chose to allow more mundane and common cars to participate it would have certainly diminished the experience. Even the postwar Packards and Cadillacs seemed out of place. What is the big deal?

Personally.....like Groucho Marx once said;

"I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.” :-)

Dave,

There is a difference between a great car and a classic as defined by the CCCA. Most classics are great cars but not all great cars are classics. That is the case with the T&C - a great car but certainly no classic. In an era were all standards are being eroded to basically make as many people happy as possible I hope the CCCA can maintain theirs.

A.J.

Dave Fields, The T&C is a very outstanding automobile.It is neither common or mundane! In my opinion it certainly is as deserving as my 1947 Packard Super Clipper which resides in my garage alone without the company of a Duesenberg! The fact remains that it is up to the club to make those determinations and from what I understand the Senior Clippers were included because they are essentially pre war models and make excellent touring cars for CCCA purposes. Likely many CCCA members were opposed to inclusion of this model and personally I would tend to agree. That it is a Full Classic is relevant to me should I decide to participate in a CARavan I can do so without expenditure of a lot of money that I don't have. I am grateful for that.

Dave:

I agree with your position on the T&C but I must say your pictures have made this thread very difficult to read on my computer! I suggest you reduce your pictures to 500X500 pixels or so, they will be smaller and easier to see without scrolling in every direction.

I can't add much more to this discussion except to say that even undisputed traditional "Full Classics" have a wide spectrum of impressiveness. If you compare a senior Packard or Cadillac limo to a Dietrich convertible sedan, you could argue that the limo does not belong in the same room. Yet there they are, and many active members own and drive those lower end cars to CCCA events.

Relax and enjoy those few T&C's you might now see at a CCCA event. They are hardly mundane and most folks will enjoy them thoroughly, 6 cylinders or not.

Bill

Mr. Fields,

You took my comment out of context. There IS agreement for the CCCA on what a Classic Car is - it's defined as 1925-1942, etc etc etc.

That is what the club is based on. That's agreement.

What you are referring to is the argument that many make - "my 1957 Chevy is a classic" THAT is subject to constant disagreement.

Dave,

The T&C is simply outside the parameters of the club. Don't open the floodgates. This discussion is like a take on diversity in the workplace or government. Accept everyone! Because we don't want anyone's feelings hurt.

Just curious if anyone has an update from the CCCA Annual Meeting.

Here is one for the CCCA Board -

Because of the CCCA's decision to include model numbers in the definition of a Classic, an illogical decision has been made regarding late 1930s Buicks. Specifically, the 1939 Buick Roadmaster is the same car as the 1940 Buick Limited, except for superficial styling details. Buick decided to introduce a new body for the Roadmaster in 1940, but wanted to retain the older body design of the 1939 Roadmaster, so they re-designed the former 1939 Roadmaster as a Limited in the 1940 model year. The CCCA does not accept the 1939 Buick Roadmaster, but they do accept the 1940 Buick Limited, even though they are the same car.

Grandpa

Application had been made in the past for the all series 80 Buicks using Grandpa's argument. I remember it was rejected, I was not pleased with that outcome.

Perhaps the earlier application was too broad, I think it included all series 80 Buicks, 1931-1939. Also, like the T&C, maybe one should try, try and try again.

I have not done it, but I think applying for CCCA status for a model series is not that easy, you really need to want to get it done to go through the trouble.

Bill.

Applying for a series means a bit more research than for just a single car, so yes, you do have to provide some information about the whole range of cars. If I were to do it and expect it to have a chance, I would not just give the specifications of the cars, but also photos, both original and of restored cars, cite where they have been at prestigious events, and also how they were marketed when new - such as ads in upscale magazines. I would also compare them to cars that are classics of the same era, both in performance, quality, price, value, features, trim level, engineering advances, etc. I recall when the application was made for 31 - 39, and I would agree, that was too big of a span of years in one application. I own a non classic Buick and I like the 80 series cars.

A view from the Outside:

This topic is discussed such with vigor (and sometimes rancor) so often that it makes for reliable entertainment on wet afternoons.

I really like the English language, especially as revealed by the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED attempts to trace the usage of words and what meaning they convey at various times and contexts but makes no attempt to give a definitive definition of a word. That is the real beauty of our language. It does not have a conclave of ancients (French?) that define the language, purge non proper usages, and makes every speaker and writer conform to its standards.

So as a club, if the CCCA wants to define a Full Classic as a car made in Indiana between 1929 and 1934 with overhead cam(s). So Be It! I realize that the CCCA definition is a bit broader than that, but the concept is the same even though the details may be different.

But as a club, if the CCCA wants to say that any particular car is not a classic, they have overstepped their authority. It is the users of the English Language in the aggregate, that define what a word means, not a self appointed set of arbitrators.

For what it is worth, I own a car for which all models are allowed in the CCCA but mine is not within the year range. I never refer to my own car either as a Classic or as a classic, but can easily recognize a nice VW Microbus as a real classic.

Man oh man! How about the word semantics? I am sure that's in the OED.

By not including a car in the CCCA, the CCCA is not saying anything about it. They aren't saying it's less desirable. They aren't saying it's more desirable.

It's just a club. Like hundreds of other clubs that cater to a particular interest. They aren't out to hurt your feelings or my feelings. They are just out to enjoy a certain period, and a certain style of car in that period. When they started, they could not possibly include every possible car so from time to time, an interested party applies for inclusion of their car in the club. Just a process, not a statement.

Maybe the club should just close the application process. Seems smart to me. Close the door, so to speak.

That way you won't get any more feelings hurt. What's next? ACLU gets involved because the club isn't being tolerant? Kumbaya, include all cars for DIVERSITY reasons. Groan!

I agree trademarking the comment FULL CLASSIC is a bit over the top. I don't like those silly Corvette marketing schemes where they trademark SURVIVOR and Bloomington Gold. Who cares!

Those Buicks are beautiful cars and there at least 4 clubs I know of that that fellow could participate in to show, drive,a nd have fellowship with. Is it so important to be included in the CCCA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BJM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

By not including a car in the CCCA, the CCCA is not saying anything about it. They aren't saying it's less desirable. They aren't saying it's more desirable.

</div></div>

I could not disagree more. I have seen many ads stating that a car is recognized by the CCCA in an attempt to add lustre to the car.

The term classic car has been taken over by the CCCA intentionally or not. Just look at the subject line of this thread. It does not say "Post war car NOT eligible for CCCA inclusion" it says that it is not a Classic. Look at the second sticky thread on this forum "What Exactly is a Classic Car". Rarely in any discussion is the "Full Classic TM" used instead of the easier and more generic term classic car. The "Full Classic TM" seems to be used only when quoting from the CCCA publications.

If the CCCA is not intentionally trying to define the term "classic car" for the rest of us, they seem to be doing an aggressive campaign to that end. (Remember, this is a view from the outside.) If indeed it is NOT the CCCA's intention to define classic car, perhaps they could change the name of the club to something that is NOT a normal and well understood term in the English language. How would we all feel about the formation and national prominence of "The Really Nice Car Club" which would narrowly define what a really nice car is. Ads would appear stating that "this Car is defined as a Really Nice Car by the RNCC" and there would be countless threads on many forums arguing what constitutes a really nice car but in the end, the Really Nice Car Club would trademark the term and define it for the rest of us.

That is exactly how I see the CCCA.

Let us suppose that the Classic Car part of the CCCA was changed to something previously not used and for which others do not have a preconceived notion of its meaning. For example, the Zerdan Car club. Then when someone asks what is a Zerdan Car, they are starting from ignorance and you can go ahead and define it as "a car eligible for inclusion in the ZCCA which is ...."

Perhaps after 50 years, there might be a fight for the generic use of term zerdan car. But I doubt it. We do not have zerdan literature, music, architecture, physics, sculpture, or cooking. So it will never be as generic as classic car.

I find the "logic" of the CCCA hard to follow. It also appears difficult to contact them via e-mail. Ex" it would appear that NO Alfa Romeo is a classic as it is not on their second page. If somebody can explain how to approach them that would be great.

Thanks

Dorien

BJM makes it sound like CCCA is under attack from the outside by ACLU or CCCA wannabes who want to take over the club.

Many people who post on this forum are long time members, potential members or ex-members of the CCCA. Is it OK for them to have comments about the direction the club is taking?

Thanks for reminding us, BJM, that the CCCA can choose any car it wants to sit on its list. As if we didn't know.

I think that vigorous discussion about classification is interesting and fun, I hope it continues. And I hope CCCA leadership might read some of the posts and maybe adjust its thinking now and then. Others feel the same way, this forum is usually dead until someone posts a comment about classification.

ps. Quite a few years ago CCCA did mount a costly legal campaign to get folks to stop using the term Classic in a generic way for cars. It ended meekly with nothing more than the "Full Classic" trademark. The club found it was an impossible task to stop folks from using the term classic. This was long before Hemmings Classic Car was published.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DriveAG2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I could not disagree more. I have seen many ads stating that a car is recognized by the CCCA in an attempt to add lustre to the car.

</div></div>

People selling their cars mention the CCCA recognition because it means the potential buyer will own a car he/she can bring to CCCA events. That is a selling point to some people.

Does it bother you that the CCCA recognition may add luster to a car? Why would you care one way or the other?

Many Alfa's from the 1920's through the 1940's certaintly are in the club. They used to have the approved list of cars on the website - maybe they took it down temporarily due to the Town & Country fiasco. All high quality European cars of the 1920's & 1930's are included in the club.

These are all fair points and I don't mind the discussion but I am just stating my view that they should shut the door and that their mission is relevant and it's a club, nothing more or less.

I had heard about that lawsuit to stop the use of the term classic. Those folks that promotoed that - now THAT is elitist.

I have owned cars that are classified as Full Classic.I have not advertised them for sale that way but the comment that this is done is to promote to a potential buyer that by ownership of that car, you can join the club.

Not elitist. Since many, many non Full Classics bring more money then some Full Classics. Hey, the mission of the CCCA outside of basic fellowship is very valid. We will never see this time again. Special circumstances created the 1925 to 1942 period.

I'm just saying to close the doors and get on to the representation and enjoyment of the cars include din the club presently.

As an observation, I believe that the CCCA is on its' way to a slow death to inevitable extinction. I believe that as more and more high value Classics find their way to museums and investors, that the club membership will decline. By taking an inflexible interpretation of the club's definition of a Classic, they effectively limit the membership of owners of many fine cars made in the 1930s and 1940s that fail to meet the club's definition of a Classic. The 1939 Buick Roadmaster and the 1940 Buick Limited (see above) illusrate this point.

I think that the CCCA can be compared to some 18th and 19th century religious sects that prohibited their members from having children, with the result that the sects membership declined to zero as time passed

Grandpa

(Long time CCCA member)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: K8096</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Many Alfa's from the 1920's through the 1940's certaintly are in the club. They used to have the approved list of cars on the website - maybe they took it down temporarily due to the Town & Country fiasco. All high quality European cars of the 1920's & 1930's are included in the club. </div></div>

Ok but at this point Alfas are NOT on the CCCA website. Many other makes are so that is odd. Also there is no way to contact the club via the sitea and no point having a non working or inaccurate site. So it would seem that they are not interested in any contact.

A strange setup!

Dorien

All Alfa Romeos from 1925 - 1948 are accepted as classics by the CCCA. The email address is on the "Our Club" page, classiccarclub@aol.com - the phone number is on the bottom of every page, and perhaps when the club switched websites the new person forgot to put the email link on the first page. The club may still be operating out of one of the staff member's basement after the flood this fall wiped out the offices.

The club only defines Classic cars for the purpose of the club - everyone has their own defintion, and no one is wrong, and the club just says what cars are accepted in the club, nothing else. I was on the national board when we got the trademark status for "full classic", and there was absolutely no lawsuit involved, the club did not sue anyone for using the term classic, and wouldn't have considered it. The club knows that the term classic has a different meaning and different use to everyone in the hobby, and was only searching for a term to describe the cars that was different than just "classic" - which no one can trade mark. I don't care for the term "full classic", and was against trademarking it, but they did, and if they don't use it, they will lose it. The goal of the club isn't to force their defintion of classic on the world, but to have fun with people who like the same kind of cars and work to preserve them.

I don't think that the club will die just because they don't take newer cars. The Packard clubs are alive and well, and there are no more Packards to take, same with the Pierce Arrow Society, or the Horseless Carraige club, Nash club, Velie club, Hudson Club or lots of others with rules that define a brand that no longer exists, or cars from a specific time period.

Dave,

Thank you. You said it perfectly. Thaks for clarifying the lawsuit rumor. I too can't see it dying out (the CCCA). Basically all car clubs except muscle car clubs are shrinking. And let's face it - even the muscle car guys are getting older. The argument always revolves around numbers. Quality is more important. I am a member of the Peerless Club. I don't own a Peerless, I just have a strong historical interest. the Peerless Club is about 150 members. The last peerless made was 1932.

Totla production for all Full Classics from 1925 to 1948 must number in the several thousands. 200,000? Just 1% in the club would be 2,000 members (I am totally making that number up - I am not sure how many Full Classics were originally built- but my point is 2,000 or 1,000 members is a decent sized club and I suppose CCCA has more then that in membership.

I think the number of "Classics" produced is around one percent of all vehicles produced during the Classic era. Maybe less.

The CCCA has close to 6,000 members, if I'm not mistaken.

An article a few years ago by some members of the CCCA put the number of American-made Full Classics at 1,366,843, give or take. Of this about half (725,000) were Cadillacs and Packards. The last membership number I saw, about a month ago, was 5969 members worldwide.

Ok Thanks for the link. I will give them a try. I have a Bristol 400 and a 1946 Alfa and was curious about how the CCCA works. Not really concerned either way.

Dorien

Read an article many years about how long you would need to stand on a street corner before (statistically) a Full Classic passed by in comparison to the more common makes. Very interesting reading, wish i knew where I read it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave Mitchell</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The club may still be operating out of one of the staff member's basement after the flood this fall wiped out the offices.

</div></div>

Office operations are still limping along in a private home basement. It looks like it will be a couple of months (maybe more) before they move to more suitable quarters.

I'm sure the oversights on the web site are just a part of the club's "growing pains." I'll bet they are corrected quickly. By the way, did you know that CCCA is actually growing, not shrinking as some would have you think?

List of approved clasics

I was sitting at lunch yesterday at a table in a small diner with 3 other CCCA members. A couple of 40 year olds, a 70 year old and a 80 year old. We were unanimous in our dislike for the Town and Country decision. All four of us also have non-CCCA cars, I'm into Musclecars, one of the others has hot rods, another guy is into vintage racing and the last guy has some very nice 50s cars (some of which are much more valuable then most CCCA cars). So we all had broad interests, a 40 year age spectrum and differing pocketbooks. Yet we all completely understood and agreed the CCCA should stay focused on it's mission.

There are a bunch of debatable pre-war cars on the list, but going to post-war is just way out of bounds. It really opens a can of worms. I would agree with a previous poster who suggested freezing the list and only allowing individual applications for cars with custom bodies.

Alsancle puts this well in his previous post. I always just think of it like this - why show up to a gathering of traditional 50s hot rods in a new Corvette? Nothing wrong with the Corvette (would love one, but that is not what it is about in this example, right?) Why is that so hard to understand that there are at least ten threads related to inclusion in the CCCA here on this board??