Inclusion of vehicles through 1951 that are identical to 1948 design

And here the CCCA stands, at the very top of a very long, jagged, and extremely slippery slope, and we've just spilled grease on our shoes...

The postwar cars got in because of that logic, and now we're extending it again--how about making it any 1953 cars that were identical to a 1942 model? Are there any? I bet that changes the argument quite a bit, doesn't it? Or perhaps we'll eventually extend it to 1959 cars that are identical to the '53s, then to '65 cars identical to the '59s, and, well, you can see where this is going. Because, really, who doesn't love a 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow sedan? Truly a Full Classic. And wow, they sure are easy to drive what with A/C, and power everything. It's like you don't even feel like you're on an old car tour when you're driving it! Cool!

This is going to fracture the club in a very bad way. I finally got the Full Classic I've been seeking for 35 years, and this might very well be enough for me to dump the club (and I'm on the friggin' board of directors of our local region!).

I vote no. Actually, make that HELL no.

I believe the Cadillac you're referring to Steve is the 1949 Model 75. While the body and frame on this model is virtually identical to 1941 - 1947 model 75's, the problem is the engine. 1949 was the first year for the modern type OHV V8 in Cadillac, replacing the flathead V8 that remained largely unchanged from 1936 - 1948. I don't think any car with a modern type OHV V8 should ever be in the CCCA. The engine is what kept it off the list printed in the most recent Bulletin. In 1950 the Model 75 Cadillac had a new, lower body that looked nothing like the earlier one.

I have to give you some credit there Matt, taking the stance you are. Especially considering you're on the board of the Region that was the epicenter of the Town & Country debate. I bet the board meetings get pretty interesting.

I vote NO (Insert lots of 7 words you can't say on tv.) WAY!

Couldn't agree more with Matt and Edinmass. Sadly, after enjoying facets of the CCCA for many decades, the Classic Car Club of America, established 1953 by educated, well-read young fellows who happened to enjoy the finer automobiles from a unique, specific epoch,

is at the point where Walter Cronkite looked into the camera on February 27th, 1968, during another night's reportage of the quagmire in Vietnam, and said:

"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory conclusion."

That broadcast turned the tide. The CCCA had a good, long run. It'll survive, in name. But it's too late in the game to go home. Too many people wishing to feather their nests by glomming onto the once minor word, "classic."

Too many people too far from memories of these fine cars when they were lovely old cars in original preserved condition, or after their first Bill Harrah Collection era of sound mechanical restoration, cosmetically on par with how they were on the showroom floor, not the Pebble Beach parodies expected in order to win Grand Classics today.

Too many people who can tell you to the last lock washer HOW a car was built, but not WHY.

Perhaps, after limping along, buoyed by a handful of genuine enthusiasts who still get it, in five or ten years a new group will rediscover these cars, just as the Horseless Carriage Club is comprised of mainly 30- and 40-somethings today who are closer to Peter Helck and the late Ed Jurist (the Vintage Car Store, Nyack, NY) than the low-horizon bling-o-philes who've hijacked the CCCA.

For now, sadly, the party's over.

I vote NO but hey, now that the T&C is a "Full Classic" it's only a matter of time until my '48 Buick Woodie joins that once exclusive club. Reminds me of that old adage "money talks, nobody walks".

This is sad news. The term Classic was one that I always admired, as it applied to cars identified by the CCCA.

I made a point in the 1980's to secure a few nice examples, Cord, Pierce, Packard, cars that well meet the definition of Classic.

It doesn't matter what kind of water you add to juice, it still dilutes it, and if you add enough, it can no longer be called juice.

My vote, obviously, is no, and I'm out of the club if any car built in the 1950's is accepted as a Classic. The T&C fiasco was bad enough, this is ludicrous......

My vote is also "HELL NO". This is so far away from the original intent of the club . It was suposed be be Pre WW2 autos with this ride-on to make carry-over post WW2 the "same" 1946-1947 and very damn few 1948 cars also "classics". I only own pre war "classics" for that reason...........The era of "Classics" was all but over by WW2......period!!!!!!!!!

Interesting, and while I can see the argument about the slippery slope, I guess I don't see the difference between the 1949 Bentley Mark VI and the 1948 model. I would argue most of us would not know the difference if they were standing side by side; except maybe a marque expert. I fully get the Cadillac exclusion due to a totally different powertrain. Well, I guess I am a bit unique here in my opinion (hope you guys don't stop talking to me!) but I don't see the harm in that move provided the expansion is limited to "identical" models, actually seems logical to me. That said, I will say I recently dropped of the board of my local AACA region - no single contoversy but just got tired of trying to keep everyone happy, I do empathize with anyone serving a group with multiple constituencies and varying opinions about "what's right" - it is not easy and it seems like sometimes compromise is defined by something no one loves, but all can live with. You guys are really going to quit over this decision? Why not see what the ramifications are first? I hope the club does not lose quality people but I suppose that is another challenge leaders need to contend with...

Another Classic FU just to appease a couple people

Steve, you can probably guess where I am on this

A.J. - I knew that before I posted this, sir!!

We can't agree on everything you know!!

I'm not a CCCA member. Please don't think I am jumping on. I think the CCCA should stop at 1942, so allowing a few makes/models through 1948 that were essentially pre war carryovers is OK but then STOP. Anyone knows there were significant cars manufactured in the 1950's and beyond. You could even call them "classic" in the venacular of our times. Just don't include them in the CCCA as a Full Classic.

The 49 75 series is a good example. They still had running boards and were carryover bodies except for the OHV engine, so in theory they should be included in the CCCA but the CCCA said at one time, I presume, nope 1948 seems a good stopping point. Leave it alone.

Well, while I stand by my opinion that if you go identical in one direction it only makes sense to do it on the other end I guess I am solidly in the minority at least among members who are active on the forum. As I understand it, and more knowledgeable members may correct me, the inclusion of identical models is a done deal, the membership-wide vote only addresses the different issue of general expansion, which I also agree is not the right direction.

So if I am right, are some of you guys actually going to quit? Just curious on this.

I'll keep my membership as long as the publications are worth the price

Well, I've been a member of CCCA since the late 1970's, when I bought my first Classic, a 1934 Pierce Arrow. I've owned about 15 Classics over the years, and now have 3 in my garage.

It's always been a love of the high quality cars, plus Pride of Ownership, that's kept me in the CCCA. Egotistical as it might be, it's always been a thrill to get the roster with lists of cars owned, and be able to be a member of that reasonably exclusive group of Classic owners.

The adding of cars to the list of approved Classics, apparently, is not going to stop. I've always stated that if a 1950's automobile is listed on the CCCA approved list, I'm out. I'll stand by that, and will not renew for next year if that happens.

I think it's sad that such a good concept for a club is being destroyed, for whatever reason. I was learning to accept the fact that a six cylinder wooden station wagon was accepted as a Classic, but that Capital C is getting smaller and smaller.................

The slippery slope argument is anything but dumb.

Well, Dave, I really don't think it's a "dumb" discussion. And, your "25 year" statement is meaningless, since CCCA was formed in 1952 and accepted cars that were half that old.

People join clubs and groups for a common interest, and sometimes that interest is more specific than others.

If you want to be in a group that likes all old cars, then AACA is for you.

If you want to be in a group that likes the high quality cars that were made pre-WWII (and a few post war made from same tooling), then CCCA has been the club of choice. It's not really an "exclusive" club, as there were over a million cars manufactured that meet CCCA Classic definition, and there are plenty still in existence.

It's not about the "classic era", it's about specific cars manufactured in that time period that were higher quality cars than the mass transportation vehicles produced.

The CCCA was founded in 1952, so the 25 year old policy had nothing to do with it. It's just that in 1952, the quality of workmanship of some vehicles was recognized, and a club formed to celebrate them.

Everyone has their beliefs, and mine is that when the club becomes so diluted with what I and others consider "non-Classic" cars, then belonging to that club has lost it's meaning.

To each his own.......

Dave, with all due respect, I think you're seeing the big picture without recognizing that the beauty of the CCCA lies in the details. You can generalize about all old cars of a certain era being classics, but you know that's hogwash. You can dismiss the slippery slope argument saying that the original founders would be including '80s Rolls-Royces, but you also know that's not true. The CCCA has a defined list which makes it easy to see what's included after the fact, but perhaps what is more difficult is actually defining what a Full Classic is. And there is where I think you're missing the point: It can't be simply defined by a single criteria such as age or year of manufacture, it's a combination of things. There's just nothing built after the war that's equivalent to a V16 Cadillac or a supercharged Duesenberg. There were many fine cars built, many expensive cars built, and quite a few custom-bodied cars built after the war, but they didn't quite have the same combination of... whatever it is that makes a Classic special. It's like Thurgood Marshall on pornography: I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it. Classics are much the same.

This, I think, is why we're getting upset. The pool is getting diluted because the generally accepted concept of a Full Classic is being applied to cars that don't really fit the bill, and it kind of offends our sense of right and wrong, although most of us can't say specifically and quantitatively why. It's not JUST the era, it's not JUST that they're expensive, it's not JUST that they were meticulously built, it's something else that's almost intangible, and most certainly a combination of factors that you're dismissing out-of-hand. After the war, whatever that was was pretty much gone from the automotive kingdom.

So don't belittle us for feeling passionately about this, don't make us out to be idiots who don't seem to understand the idea of the club or the vision of the "founding fathers," and don't insult us for wanting to keep the club reserved for special cars, however they are defined. As far as many of us are concerned, there was NOTHING built in 1953 that fits the generally-held concept of Full Classic, no matter how similar it is to something older that got in on a technicality. As I said, perhaps the true barometer of the 1953 additions is whether they're identical to the 1942 models, not the latest possible 1948 models. Ignoring that and yes, the slope does become slippery as hell.

I also think that a post up above got it right--why are we amending the by-laws for a very, very small number of cars? The guys who own those cars surely own other Classics, and if not, well, too bad. There's an argument to be made that since it isn't that many cars, maybe we shouldn't care, but isn't that the very definition of the slippery slope? That they're PROMISING us that they won't move the date again (which I'm guessing they promised when the 1948 date came up and the Town and Country question was posed) is further proof that they KNOW they're going out on a limb here and that it will get a bunch of the membership up in arms. And sooner or later some group of motivated, vocal Continental Mark II owners is going to start lobbying, saying, well, look, the MKII came out just a year or two after the 1953 cut-off date, and it really was hand-crafted, and it was the most expensive car built and... and... and...

...And here we will be again.

Everyone knows the XK 120 Jag is a Classic and the 140 and the 150 are basically the same car ....oh what the heck, let's include all English built Jags, and of course all woodie wagons, T Series MGs look kinda like SS 100 Jags so let's include them too and ALL Bentley and Rolls cars of course and the '53 Buick Skylark too and why not ALL Packards...

OK, so I've been thinking about it, and I guess "close enough" might be OK.

So:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag (or any other flag which might be flying at the time which is more or less the same appearance as that flag) of the United States of America (or any other nation which may be adjacent to, or within 200 miles of, the border of the United States of America), and to the republic for which it stands (and any other adjacent republic), one nation (or adjacent nation, as mentioned beforehand), under God (or some similar Godlike being that is similar to and adjacent in age to the God referenced), indivisible (or not), with liberty and justice for all (more or less)."

Yep, works for me.....

200 miles seems awfully restrictive ...great work!

Matt did a great job of explaining the intangible quality of true, no BS, Classic with a Capital C, automobiles.

If you get it, then you understand. No beating of gums nor gnashing of teeth is going to change the viewpoints of those who don't get it.

If this moves forward, then the CCCA has lost the one thing that made it, and membership therein, special.

What a shame....

It is just one more step down the slippery slope.

1. First you allow in the high production 40s Caddys so everybody has a modern car to drive in Caravans.

2. Then you allow in the post war identicals to the prewar cars you should not have let in in the first place.

3. Then you allow post war T&C because they are every bit as good as the other post war cars you should have never let in.

4. Then you expand into the 50s because those cars are every bit as good as the T&C which should have never been let in.

I'm not sure how you could say this isn't a slippery slope. Personally, if the guys in my region that do all the work were cool with it then I'd go along with it to. But I know they are against the whole deal.

Guys, I guess I am a little sorry I posted this, as I expected opinions to differ but hopefully we remember we are all friends here, right? I think Dave F. is just as passionate about making his argument, and is not looking to insult anyone personally - heck for that matter I don't want to have to hide from any of you guys at Hershey - at least that is far enough away that you may forget this thread...

David C. - I understand your feelings on this, and your post #18 makes a lot of sense, but hopefully you don't drop off, as I think that would be a loss...

So forget for a moment the decision on "identical cars" - where each of us stands on that is already pretty clear. While I understand the slippery slope argument, I guess I would also ask what makes people so sure vocal groups will push to include their whatever mobile? The Jag is a good example. There are already marque specific clubs as well as tours and activities that include those cars. Maybe current members who own a Jag 120 would put forth a push, but the average Jag guy is not likely to be that motivated - his needs are already taken care of. All I am saying here is I think we may be overestimating the number of people who will passionately push for incusion in a club comprised of vehicles from a different era. I am just guessing there is not that desire on the part of people who own postwar cars, lots of people with these cars have only a vague notion of what CCCA is anyway. Also, don't you think the vote will finalize that decision anyway?

A.J. your point about guys who do all the work is dead on; having seen that in AACA I totally get that. There seems to be a few cars on the current list that make me scratch my head, as well as some missing that also make me scratch my head. I guess no matter what range of years a club like this takes in, that would be the case. The problem is having the time and energy to serve on these things - part of me understands that those who do the work tend to have more infuence, but this is just like a corporation in some aspects, work and decisions don't always filter both ways!

I'm surely not mad at anybody, just disappointed that the CCCA is even considering the inclusion of additional 1950's cars, over and above the "identical" models that they've just accepted.

A vote of the membership on whether or not to let in additional 1950's cars shouldn't even have been considered, in my opinion. That said, what an interesting thing that will be.

I think I'll start a separate thread and ask the question, what would be on a 1950-1987 list of "Classic" cars. Just as soon go all the way up to the AACA cut-off.....

I wish Bob Turnquist were still alive. His words on this subject would be priceless. I think he said it best many years ago when he coined the phrase "This is a club for yachts, not rowboats"

Every club is formed for a reason, when a club compromises the reason it was formed, there is no longer a need for that club.

No argument with Turnquist's comments, Guy, but would it change anyone's position here if it took Duesenberg 'till 1949 to sell the very last Model J? just something to ponder...

Now I am curious about this group's position on the inclusion of pre-1925 identical vehicles? Was this problematic to anyone? If so, for what reasons, same or different?

What was Groucho's line...."I wouldn't belong to a club that would admit someone like me" ? If the CCCA fritters away its exclusivity before long it will be just another car club. I would much rather see the CCCA become part of the AACA than see what it stands for (or used to stand for) diluted. Kinda has a ring to it anyway..."The CCCA Region of the AACA".

No worries, Steve, this is a good discussion that we needed to have. I have no ill feelings toward any individuals here (or anywhere), but like others, I feel very strongly about the topic. All my life I lived on the periphery of the CCCA, going on caravans with friends who owned Packards and Rolls-Royces and Pierce-Arrows because we didn't own such cars. As a result, the CCCA became the goal for me, and owning a CCCA Full Classic was something I've dreamed of since I was 8 years old and got a ride in a big, blue 1933 Packard Twelve sedan that I still yearn to find and purchase. That, to me, is the CCCA. Great, powerful, elegant cars on tour. Not Model As, not 1948 Oldsmobuicks, not muscle cars, but cars with AT LEAST eight cylinders, sidemounts, and yes, even wide whites and trunks (remember I am a product of the CCCA in the 80s!). As a result, my 1929 Cadillac is the realization of a 30-year dream, and hopefully just the first step in a lifetime enjoying the things that the CCCA (currently) espouses. I'm not willing to give up on that dream, but it also doesn't involve chasing a bunch of modern (sorry, 1953 is modern) vehicles on a Caravan, arriving at each stop as everyone else in their faster iron is breaking camp, and feeling like an anchor on the whole group. No thanks.

I sincerely hope that the folks in charge of the club monitor this message board and have been following this discussion, as it brings up good points. None of us here is throwing stones, and there are more than a few well-reasoned opinions. While we are a very tiny fraction of the CCCA's membership, the overwhelming opinion here from people of all ages and from all walks of life is that we are displeased with the idea of further diluting the club and simply don't see the wisdom of the decision. It will surely not add significantly to our membership, and if folks here are to be believed, it may have exactly the opposite effect. Would I walk away on principle? I think I would. It would be disappointing and a very tough decision, but the club to which I aspired my whole life would no longer be the one that I joined. This club needs people like me: young, energetic, willing to drive the old iron, and with the disposable income to get involved and participate on a grand scale. Yeah, I said it--the CCCA needs me more than I need it; let my voice at least be the equal of the guy with the 1953 Bentley who is aching to get in (or, more likely, just looking to add to the car's value with Full Classic status attached to it).

This is a road the club has traveled before, and we have all [hopefully] learned lessons along the way. Let's hope they will be applied here.

Matt, you bring up a valid point on car values...and one not discussed very often....once a car is classified as a CCCA Classic, value of that series of cars usually goes up 50% or more immediately....I passed up an early 20's Locomobile not that long ago, and one reason in the back of my mind was that it wasn't a Classic....but then the club did the "just like it but not the same year as the club era" trick, and the car easily doubled in value.....but more importantly, I could have had another Classic in the stable...

I wish the CCCA would not continue to look for additional cars to add to the roster, and rather spend that energy on promoting the club and making it more attractive to people who own Classics, but view the CCCA as not a "friendly" club to everyone.

David, your post gave me one other thought, and then I think I'm done: these additions and extensions both earlier and later than the "original" Classic Era may very well make the club LESS approachable rather than more.

Go ahead, try to describe the current criteria (never mind the proposed 1953 extension) to someone who isn't familiar with the club. It used to be "Exceptional luxury cars from 1925 to 1942," which was easy. Clarify the "exceptional" part by saying, "You know, Lincoln, Cadillac, Packard, Mercedes-Benz stuff like that." Then the post-war Continentals were added, and you could say, "Exceptional luxury cars from 1925 to 1942, plus Lincoln Continentals to 1948" and that actually might have made it EASIER for people to grasp, because they knew what a Lincoln Continental was. Then we back-dated cars, making it "Exceptional luxury cars from 1925 to 1942, plus Lincoln Continentals to 1948, and if a car was identical to a car built in 1925, but was built earlier than that, it's in, too." Then we added a bunch of post-war Cadillacs, but not all of them (60, 62, 63, and 75 but not the 61), then the Town and Country (and a six cylinder, no less!), and now this proposal.

Is it any wonder why laymen think we're snobs trying to keep people out?

Perhaps the non-member says, "I have a car, maybe it's a Classic, maybe not, but trying to navigate the definition is a major headache and sure looks exclusionary. What if my car isn't good enough? Why bother?"

I like the idea of pursuing avenues that make the club more approachable and accessible and using those tools to expand membership among owners of cars already on the list. Trying to attract new members with expanded criteria is like digging your own pond, filling it with fish, and then going fishing, rather than simply fishing in the ocean.

Well, one way to eliminate both concerns about a slippery slope as well as cronyism at national level would be pretty simple - change powers of the classification committee to simply making recomendations about any additions and put it up to an annual, semi-annual or quarterly vote. The committe would publish their recomendations rather than rule on the car.

Upsides to this - most (but maybe not all) cars within the 1925 - 1948 range have been vetted already after all, and I assume the upcoming national vote will put expansion beyond those years to bed. the list then, should not be too voluminous for members to review and consider. Membership no longer need think choices are made to appease a small group.

Another upside in the event a new car is approved - the owner need not worry about acceptance (as in a "welcoming") as the majority of members would have approved of the entry. This thread has been interesting. Not so sure I would rush on in with a 1949 Bentley if I was to get the "cold shoulder", but at least if approved by popular vote, I would not have that worry.

Downsides - any vote more frequently than annual would be expensive, and prospective car owners would likely need to wait a bit longer, but of course an annual vote would give the classification committee a long time to review a vehicle, and state their recomendation on the ballot sheet or in the Classic Car or Bulletin for member review.

IMO there is no way anyone can say these choices are based 100% on standard criteria now, of course they are subjective to some degree despite best efforts.

Also, as I said in post #1, my views are shaped somewhat by self interest, or my perception of what I would like to see. I happen to like the Bentley, could afford a nice example, and the universe of candidate cars is a lot bigger due to the identical model accceptance. That said, the could shoulder thing is still an issue, but we'll see. David, I bet dollars to doughnuts If you owned the Locomobile you described, you would not have been upset at the decision to include it, right? I would not fault you for that, I am simply pointing out the obvious. Would you really vote against inclusion of the locomobile using my above approach if it's identical but newer sister was already accepted?

Of course membership overall would rule, and one hopes members as a whole are educated enough to make good choices here. This approach may not guarantee every member is in agreement, but it would eliminate many of the present concerns.

Last, I wonder what happened to David C's other post, on vehicles 1949 through 1987 - did it get out of hand even though he noted it was just for fun? To Matt's point about hoping members follow this thread, it is also likely people considering the club would read this forum and perhaps walk away with certain impressions of membership, fair representation or not. It is unfortunate not everyone can act like an adult if they don't see eye to eye. Isn't that behavior in a public forum not the way to best represent the club???

On the other thread, I decided it wasn't a productive question after all, and instead of being a "fun" post that it could quickly have a dark side. Thus, I decided to delete it.

This thread was started with one word used in explanation, "constructive", so let me state some constructive ideas.

Instead of spending the money to have a member vote (what's the math, 6000 members, gotta cost $1 each for printing, postage, etc.), why not spend that $6000 on advertising?

-put CCCA ads in the various magazines that would help increase membership, AACA, ACD, other clubs which have Classics, Hemmings, and so forth; spend the money getting people aware of the club and reasons to join, instead of spending money to increase size of accepted car list

-publicize the Caravans and Grand Classics - I understand that the Club wants exclusivity, but what it has now is invisibility.....in an effort to keep the "public" away from such events, there's little mention of events outside of the CCCA magazines....thus, there could be a Classic owner right down the street from the event, who maybe would join the CCCA just to participate

-have regional activities that are publicly (at least in car magazines) advertised, again, to draw out the Classic owners who might be on the fence about joining, once they participate in a regional activity they might join

The CCCA was founded for high class automobiles, but that doesn't mean that every owner of a Classic is a millionaire. There are a lot of "common folk" like me who love and own Classics, and I'd be willing to bet a lot of them haven't joined CCCA due to either bad publicity (thinking everyone in the club is highfalutin) or NO publicity.

Just some constructive thoughts....

David, glad to know what happened with the other thread, likely a good call.

To paraphrase the old adage, sometimes my fingers start typing down the road before my brain gets in gear, indicating of course that it's downhill from there!!!

My suggestion to moving acceptance approvals to the entire membership was actually half serious - serious because it would not solve every issue but would certainly address many that have been raised here and off forum. Half not serious because I do not believe this is a club that would entertain such a sweeping change. No matter, I accept that no one is going to be in complete agreement with the list under any methodology, and you take the good decisions along with the "other" decisions.

It will be interesting to see if the values of the newly admitted cars change at all. I seriously doubt this will be the case on the Bentley Mark VI, as the guides show virtually no difference between pre and post '48 models, although to Dave's point, once you go to LHD here in the US that does add value. CCCA acceptance would be a factor, but certainly not the deciding factor for me with one of these.

So to the points on value, I cannot help but wonder if that speaks to the car itself - if CCCA acceptance has driven up the value of say, Cadillac 62 series cars, where is the value, in the car itself or acceptance to a club? I guess I would rather choose a car whose value originates with the design, with CCCA or other acceptance being secondary.

In discussing value vs. CCCA accepted list of car, I think that numbers show that CCCA acceptance equals greater value.

Town and Country cars were valuable, but it seems that the asking (and selling?) prices surely went up after the cars were added to list of approved Classics.

I personally was involved in a deal with a late 40's car, that missed being a Classic by JUST THIS MUCH, and the discussions were very much "gee, if it was a Classic, the asking price wouldn't be bad, but for a REGULAR ANTIQUE CAR, that pricing sounds high" (yes, bold letters mine, just trying to make a point, as we all are...)

So anyone who thinks that the "list" doesn't equate to more value, you're dreaming. There are big bucks out there, controlled by people who want to make sure the cars they buy are the "best of the best", and CCCA recognition surely helps that perception.

David, I understand the overall influence but am speaking to the latest change in particular, with my focus on the Bentley Mark VI. If identical models show no price variance today, pre-post 1948, what would suggest inclusion on the list will drive up their prices now? My roster shows 21 Bentleys 1946 - 1948 if my count is right or IMO, a relatively small % of surviving cars based on what I see on market activity. Could be owners of these are just active in other clubs?

On the T&C, I would argue the PRICES on these cars has risen, not sure if it is permanent or a bubble, but the value of them has not changed, if that makes sense. I feel bad for anyone shelling out a 30 - 50% premium for a Classic most membership rejects if that is the primary motivation for purchase. No one's fault, buyer beware but that to me is a ridiculas situation to put yourself in.

Actually, I agree it is an influential list. There are a few cars on the list whose value is at least in part derived from inclusion on the list rather than the vehicle itself. All I am saying is that while a Classic would be nice, for me it is not going to drive my choice entirely; there are plenty of somewhat later vehicles that fit the definition more closely in my mind, than may of the cars on the current list. (Not lobbying for inclusion at all, it is just my perception when thinking about some of the cars Dave F. points out vs. some of the cars on the list that share bodyshells with regular mass produced sister cars, and were in some cases, what would be considered "near luxury" today.)

Having sold my "old car" recently I have been thinking about what's next, and certainly looking at CCCA cars, wouldn't be a member if I didn't have the interest.... This thread has helped me put "the list" in perspective by making me think about what is more important, an imperfect list or the most interesting car you can buy for the money. I am not criticizing the club or the list, it is just that that is crystal clear, for me...

One of my pet peeves

There is already a generous list of undeserving automobiles accorded CCCA Classic status.

Each candidate for Classic status is to be accepted on its own merits and not because a similar vehicle is recognized. This sounds noble and high minded but it only means that the majority rules, re: ACD, Cadillac and Packard.

For example, this policy and the way it is administered allowed a 1932 Auburn 8 but a 1932 Chrysler 8 is not acceptable

One of my pet peeves . .

there is already a generous list of undeserving automobiles accorded CCCA Classic status.

Each candidate for Classic status is to be accepted on its own merits and not because a similar vehicle is recognized. This sounds noble and high minded but it only means that the majority rules, re: ACD, Cadillac and Packard.

For example, this policy and the way it is administered allowed a 1932 Auburn 8 but a 1932 Chrysler 8 is not acceptable.

Dep5 -- Good point regarding the Buick/Hudson-class Auburn 8 being a CCCA Classic, but not the same years' Chrysler 8, especially given the Chryslers' superior engine bearings and hydraulic brakes.

In my 'umble opine, the Auburn 12, the best bargain in automotive history, is the only Auburn that should be a CCCA Classic. The eights should be strictly "special interest autos,"

interesting old cars and call it a day.

The Auburn/Chrysler 8 disparity is the sort of thing the CCCA should be focused on, NOT further diminishing the concept of the club by letting '50s cars in on a technicality so people whose principal interest in vintage cars is glomming on to the word "Classic" so they can feather their nests.

BTW, notice we don't see owners of later Talbot-Lagos, etc. whining about not being "Classics." They're too busy enjoying their cars to worry about what some "classification committee" thinks. It's always the usual RR/Bentley/Cadillac contingent, even the already accepted examples being overrated.

But that goes to adroit marketing and an entire other thread.

As the former owner of a 1949 Alfa 6C2500SS which is EXACTLY like the 48 model I don't see where we are heading down any kind of slope. the only cars that are virtually identical post war, are limited production European luxury cars, like my Alfa. They wont overwhelm the CARavans, its not going to lead to XK120's being admitted. it just keeps people from having to claim that their Alfa is a 48 in order to get to take it to a CCCA event, just like people used to have to claim their Model A Duesenberg is a 25 and not a 22 (also used to have one of those-actually the first pre 25 car approved by the club).

My feeling when I had the Alfa was that it was the Club's loss, not mine, that it couldn't participate. I still feel that way.

Frankly I would vote to eliminate all post-war cars, period. And I think we've gone backward too far as well. The late teens, even early 20's and the late 40's are not part of the "Classic Era" in my view. Nothing wrong with the cars made then but they just don't fit the time frame I envision for truly "classic" vehicles. My 41 Cadillac drives like a 54 Buick, almost like modern iron, and even though it qualifies as a true "Classic" I feel like I'm cheating if I drive it on a Caravan. Earlier cars are slower and just can't keep up with the post-war cars and they seem out of place together on a tour. There are plenty of VMCCA, HCCA Nickel-Era, and AACA tours and shows around for those cars exclusively and I enjoy them greatly, but I think "Classic" era cars are something special and the trend toward wider inclusion of both newer and older cars for the sake of increasing membership appeal is misplaced. I would rather see smaller membership than more members with cars that just don't fit together as a group. But that's just my opinion and I can't conceive of dropping my CCCA membership because I disagree with the broad scope of eligible cars. But I can see a day not too far in the future when we will allowing Continental Mark II's to participate.

Shawn I cannot help but wonder if there is any material difference in value between a 1948 and 1949 example of your Alfa? In other words, does CCCA eligibility increase the value of such an already special car?

Not only no, Hell NO!

I dont think people are wanting their cars included because it increases the cars value, and I dont think the club has ever included new cars with an eye towards increasing membership. I have sat in on more than my fair share of Classification Committee meetings. Potential new members are NEVER one of the things they look at. Its all about the car/chassis, the importance of design, engineering, etc.

For the record, while on the board I voted against the Town and Country. It was a close vote. Later the Town and Country was included and we all know what wrangling that caused. The Town and Country is a Post War car. They were already expensive prior to inclusion and I dont think they ave gone up since inclusion.

The 6C2500 Alfa Chassis debuted in 1938 or so. Its a Pre War Chassis. Period. End of story. We're talking about VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL cars here...NOT bringing in 56 Continentals or 57 Eldo's.

But while were on that subject, I used to think that bringing in Post War cars would ruin the club, and was unabashedly against it. Now, I'm not so sure. Sometimes I think we're clinging to 50's doctrine. It is 2013, after all, and from the outside looking in we may seem a tad hairsplitting to the vast majority of the population, who think of a 57 Chevy when the word Classic is mentioned (and no Im not suggesting we take in pedestrian production cars, I'm just stating a fact). I do occasionally look around the room at any given meeting and wonder what the room will look like in 10 or 15 years. Will the handful of us in my age group be sitting there by ourselves? Face it the number of members we have under 55 is a pretty small percentage, but the same thing can be said of the AACA. People tend to "graduate" to this club and hobby really, so I am hopeful we'll be OK.

Change is difficult for organizations like the CCCA. People dont like change.

Change, however, is a daily fact of life today.

Recognizing Identical Cars isn't change-it's common sense.

Luckily this isn't my problem to solve, and I will never quit this Club over the inclusion or exclusion of any given car. I love this Club and the people in it. This is a Great Club I am honored to be a member of.

Thanks for the feedback, Shawn. I think all agree the Classification Committee has good intentions but has not made 100% perfect decisions. I still contend that you can put 10 of us in a room and no one's personal list would be identical. I get the CCCA mission, and support it. That said, I think by not including the handful of European Luxury cars with prewar roots that are identical in nature is a lost opportunity for the club, not the owners. Hence my question to you on value. No way do I believe the small group of Alfa owners, or larger but still not huge group of Bentley MK VI owners are up nights worrying about CCCA acceptance. Another thing that is different from the 50s - their are plenty of other venues to enjoy one's car, and even the most exclusive concours includes many non CCCA eligible cars. So your point about the club's loss vs. the loss an owner of a potential candidate for inclusion might feel is dead on. (that is loss of interesting vehicles, not members)

I do think the desire by an owner may be a lot more relevant in the Chrysler vs. Auburn example previously noted - an American car in the heart of the Classic Era (say '28 - '38 but again, opinions on this vary also) is somehow a different animal -

Throwing the Mercedes out is a specious argument. A Mercedes Diesel delivered through Mytropia Motors in the 1930s was a 4k dollar car in the U.S.A. Maybe the Popes at the CCCA knew that "factoid" when they added it to the list?

So the new criteria for a Classic car would be a pretty good car of the 50's or 60's that old people are capable of driving? That's really a good direction to go in.....

The better direction is to have CCCA events which are family friendly and affordable. I haven't driven a Caravan for a while, but the ones I did in the 80's and 90's cost thousands of dollars each when all was in and done. A lot of people own true Classics, but aren't in the CCCA, nor would they attend current events, due to the feeling it is an "old rich man's" club and the cost of the events.

One more thing that hasnt been addressed here and then I think I have said my peace on this issue. The Classifications Committee does not approve cars without member input, a prime example of which is this discussion.

Step 1.They make their recommendation to the board (who we elected to represent us).

Step 2.Board Approves Recommendation

Step 3.Recommendation published in Bulletin for some period (I forget off the top of my head, but I think its at least 2 bulletins) to allow member feedback.

Step 4. Board finally Approves Recommendation after member feedback (or lack thereof in most cases-No feedback assumes there's no big problem with recommendation).

So while the membership doesn't vote on each and every recommendation (which would be quite cumbersome) we do get the opportunity to chime in on every one of them before they are finally approved.

From what I'm gathering this "virtually Identical Post War" proposal is dying or has died because of negative feedback, so the system works!

Keep in mind these volunteer board members spend a lot of their time and money attending these meetings at their own expense. If you are flying in (like many are) I bet it runs at least $500-750 per meeting. I drove there and it still ran me about $250 with hotel room, gas (I drive fast), and meals. Trust me the people on the board have no hidden agenda, they are simply trying to do whats best for the club in an ever changing landscape.

We need to appreciate their efforts and thank them for their hard work, whether we agree with their recommendations or not.

Always Remember- Its a Hobby-its supposed to be FUN!

Here we go again.I went to the National Meeting when the TOWN AND COUNTRY crap was talked about . Many ,Many members beat out the board about their thinking about this.They didn't listen. Most if not all no longer sit on the board Why? Was their decision correct.....or was there a monitary reward? The Club was a Pre-second world war car club. Because that is when all the custom body makers were in bussiness. We have fought over encluding to damn many cars that weren't Classic. If you want more make them Prewar.If you ask about pre 1925 cars many had custom bodies . So you could enclude all of them as to cost of manufacture and custom body.That could be a hell of alot of Brass era cars....more members right?