Classification of CCCA Full Classics

Thanks for starting the new thread Jon. The Pre-1925 issue has certainly stirred up a lot of interest, both inside and outside the Club. As a result, more members participated in this year's election than at any time in the club's history. I'd assumed that the measure would pass, but even I was very surprised by the very large margin that came out in favor of this change.<P>Does that mean we're road to accepting '57 T Birds? Hardly. The cars we honor were the product of an era that had all but vanished by then. Although there are many wonderful cars out there, not all of them belong in CCCA. <P>For the same reason you wouldn't expect the Vintage Chevrolet Club of America to have a Ford class, it is unrealistic to think we would want to add cars that have nothing to do with the purpose of the Club. That doesn't mean we don't admire them. Some of us may even have some in our personal garages. <P>It is refreshing however to see that CCCA is willing to listen and to learn. Very little is absolute in life, and it probably shouldn't be in our hobbies either.<P>The National Board of Directors and the Classification Committee will have their work cut out for them. I'm sure they will do the right thing. I may be biased, but my observation is that currently, it is a group of very fair and open minded people.

Congratulations to the CCCA on the overwhelming approval of the "Pre 1925 identical to 1925" issue. Although I feel this particular issue is a softball, perhaps the vote indicates there may be more membership support for adjustments to the Full Classics list than our leadership thinks.<P>I know there are loud voices out there opposing much of any change. But I believe there are quieter voices who think it's time for some careful but significant changes.<P>Perhaps it may be helpful to the forum if some of the conclusions regarding recent membership polls were published and discussed. I must say sometimes I feel very much alone in my views about CCCA's policies, and maybe that's exactly the case. I am not sure.<P>Bill S<BR>Albuquerque, NM

Bill, on the CCCA Home Page chuck has a link to "Membership Survey Results". If you wish to check that synopsis by Matt Sonfield, it might give you some insight on what some mebers are thinking. This Survey was done in 1999 and has been the basis for this recent move to accept the Pre-1925 "Virtually Identical" cars.<BR>Jon Lee

Jon:<P>Thanks so much for that lead staring me right in the face!<P>This survey summary is very well done, and I am sure you don't need to be a statistician to draw many conflicting conclusions from it. For me, I can see that I am hardly alone in my desire to expand the classification list, 41% also want to. This is pretty close to the 43% who favored including pre 1925 identical to 1925 Classics.<P>I can also see that 43% don't want any change in the list. Of course, how the membership will really line up will depend on just exactly what and how many cars involved in any expansion.<P>I remain hopeful that our leadership will see from this survey that maintaining the status quo is not necessarily the best future course for this fine club. <P>Bill S<BR>Albuquerque, NM

Peter, were you one of the original founders of the CCCA? If not how do you know what the original intent was?

Just to set the discussion in line with published policy, please allow me to quote from Article I of the Club By-Laws: "for the development, publication and interchange of technical, historical and other information for and among members who own or are interested in fine or unusual foreign or domestic motor cars built between and including the years 1925 and 1948, but including cars built before 1925 that are virtually identical to 1925 Full Classics™, and distinguished for their respective fine design, high engineering standards and superior workmanship, and to promote social intercourse and fellowship among its members"<BR>I realize that this sentence (actually part of an even longer sentence) breaks just about every rule of grammar, but it is the essence of what we, the members of this Club, do.<BR>Jon Lee<BR>1926 Bentley 3 Litre<BR>1928 Packard 443<BR>1932 LaSalle<BR>1938 Bentley 4 1/4

Expand The Definition Of What Is A Classic..?<P>Let's not kid ourselves..we in the Classic Car Club Of America KNOW what has happened. <P>We have been SO successful in drumming into the auto public's head that there is something worthwhile in the concept of a "classic" car...now EVERYONE wants to call ANYTHING they are trying to sell....a "CLASSIC".<P>Look how ANGRY some people when we explain that of COURSE the cars we tried to save are "elitist"...even arrogant. They KNOW what our Club purpose is...and they just dont LIKE it. THAT is why they want it dilluted. Heck..if I was back in the 1930's...driving my nice Packard "120" up a mountain grade, and a big powerful Packard TWELVE like the one I personally own, roared by me, demonstrating its superior power...I would resent it too !<P>The bold bare faced FACT is, we started this Club for a VERY narrow purpose, that NEVER WAS intended to be attractive to the masses. Most of us have a WIDE variety of automotive-technical tastes - I am a good example..in that I belong to ALL KINDS of auto buff clubs. But in THIS particular Club, our purpose is to draw attention to the values of the "best of the best". Reminds me of that famous author who once said.." I want SO LITTLE out of life......ONLY THE BEST...and there is SO LITTLE of that....!<P>I watched the Scottsdale on TV last night. Apparently, there are no more NON classic cars left in the world...EVERYTHING they were trying to peddle is called a "classic". These guys KNOW....they KNOW what we are all about...no WONDER they don't like us ! <P>There is NOTHING we can or should do about this. A Cadillac V-16 or a Packard Twelve IS a better..heavier..faster, more luxurious car than the ordinary cars of their respective company's product lines.<P>Three cheers for the difference...!<P>Pete Hartmann

For cmj :<P>I was only a teen ager when the classic car movement began. I did enjoy going to the events, and knew some of the "founders", butI did not actually join myself until early 1955 when I got my first "classic" (a '34 Super Eight Packard) <P>Do I detect that you are a bit troubled by the fact that the Club really DID, as its original purpose, intend to involve itself only with the "best of the best" ..i.e. only the largest, most powerful, most elegant (yes...ARROGANT ) "super cars" of the late 1920's to late 1930's...<P>May I suggest some readings to give you a better perspective on the early years of the classic car movement, and why it came to be ?<P>I strongly recommend "CLASSIC CARS AND ANTIQUES" by Robert J. Gottlieb. it has a Library Of Congress number...should be relatively easy to find. Let me give you an example of what the general attitude was in those days. <P>First of all, most people did not want old cars around...ESPECIALLY the big "arrogant elegant" ones.....! I recall Bob Gottlieb pointing out in some of his articles that it would be unwise to invest more than a hundred bucks restoring a classic, in view of their low resale value....! People just didnt WANT REAL classic cars around. <P>The Club had to CONCENTRATE its efforts on ONLY THE BEST ! In "Classic Cars And Antiques"...you will see a picture of my "ordinary" Packard Super Eight 1103 Sedan...which Bob used as an example of a car that was too ordinary to be a REAL "classic". He went to great lengths in his early writings to explain that our focus was to be in only the "BEST" of the best. I think what he wrote in those early articles will give you an excellent perspective of why this particular Club was formed, WHY we think the TRUE "classic" should be recognized as so "special"...and WHY we think it is ABSURD to want to dillute our Club purpose.<P>As I have noted elsewhere in these "posts"...of COURSE a TRUE classic is "elegant arrogance"..that is what it is all about ! Again...this is NOT to say that the lesser cars should be buried in a mud hole....most CCCA members are like myself..with a wide variety of auto related technical interests....but in THIS particular context...we like the biggest...baddest..and BEST of the super luxury cars of the 1920's and 1930's....to us old-timers..it is ABSURD that the VERY nice stream lined cars produced after 1939 could POSSIBLY be thought of as "classics". They ARE...what they ARE...nice old cars...collector cars....art deco..cars.."moderne"...cars..but CLASSICS....PLEUZE......!<P><BR>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, Arizona

Peter H:<P>Jon's post says what the club is about: ...fine or unusual foreign or domestic motor cars ...<P>Your taking this statement to mean the BEST of the BEST is an absurd distortion of what the club is about. Sorry, but BEST is in the eye of the BEHOLDER (you do like to shout, don't you) and everyone does not agree on what is best or appropriate for the club to support. Fine and unusual is a broader, more reasonable statement, and it is what the club is telling us it represents. <P>I have radical views like I think Lincoln Zephyrs are great and in some ways more significant than model K's. Cords are beautiful, but the engineering was the worst of the worst. My "streamlined" '39 Buick 90 would easily outpull most of my friends' 12 cylinder monsters in the mountains here. All of these cars are fine and unusual. None are the best of the best. Indeed, there is no such thing and the best of the best car. That's like saying there is a best of the best painting. It is a fantasy. <P>What is the best of the best should be left to individual owners to decide. Let our club deal with a broad (and hopefully someday broader) range of fine and unusual cars.<P>Bill S<BR>Albuquerque, NM

Buickplus Bill~<BR>That was eloquently stated.<P>CMJ~<BR>Let Mr. Hartmann's response be noted wherein, contrary to his many previous pronouncements, he now admits to not being a founding member of the CCCA. His references to "we" when discussing the intent of the founders is thus 'misleading'.<BR>We may further conclude that his statements describing the intent of the founders is fabrication, unless accompanied by substantial contemporary material.<P>I say this for the purpose of archival accuracy.

Bill<BR>Does that mean that A) He wasn't the sole guiding hand in the formation of the club? and if I should buy the lowly eight cylinder Packard I am lusting after that I won't be stoned by the membership when I show up at a meet?

Terry~<BR>A) Rest assured<BR> The closest I ever witnessed to this was when a fellow showed up in a chopped, lavender Olds. He was not stoned (not in the mineral sense, anyway) but there were more than a few wry chuckles and gentle shakes of the head.

For Buick Plus....and Terry and Bill :<P>C'mon...guys...lighten up....to a true car buff...there is NO SUCH THING as a "lowly" car...remember...we are a Club about PEOPLE. We dont care HOW you get to our meets as long as you COME, and have an interest in what we do. <P>Durn right those late 30's Buicks were fast. I had a Century once...would blow the doors off just about ANYTHING of that era (until the rod bearings pounded out...which was "sooner" rather than later..but that is another story..maybe someone can explain why Buick didn't bother to go to the extra expense of using the more durable "insert" type connecting rod bearings the expensive cars had...? ? ? )<P>Be patient..you guys...as you learn more and more about the real world technology of the REAL classic car, you will understand there ARE major differences in quality and performance and "presence". <P>Why the "best of the best" is so offensive to you..is understandable....it isn't, by today's standards, "politcally correct". But I suspect your irritation reveals what is bothering you...you must have SEEN a big engined super car from the 1930's at a meet...and were a little 'taken aback' by its bold statement of arrogant excess. But...again...THAT is the kind of car this PARTICULAR Club was created to celebrate.<P>Again...to get a "feel" for why this Club was created, read some of our early writings that I suggested to you elsewhere. <P>Of COURSE you will find examples, even in our formative years, of how people wanted to dillute our definition (just so they could sell cars that didn't quite measure up...but even early on...recognized the value of callign a car a "classic")..but I think you will find the GENERAL theme consistant thru the years.<P>Not that it matters .....I personally WROTE the section in our Handbook And Directory that applies to "joint events". It was adopted word for word, after extensive debate....to fully explain our attitude towards cars that we do NOT feel should be set forth to the public as "classics'. Again..I, like YOU...am a car buff...I LOVE to be around ANYTHING that has wheels...which is WHY I have always pushed the Club on the concept of "joint events". <BR>At the risk of sounding like I am bragging, I think we have good mechanism by which a Classic Car Club Region can go out in the car buff world and hold joint events, so that there be more and more of our SHARING what THIS particular Club is all about, and at the same time learning MORE about how OTHERS enjoy THEIR version of the old car hobby, while avoiding CONFUSION in the car buff as to what WE in THIS Club are about.<P>C'mon..guys...do a little research...there really IS something SUPER SPECIAL about the TRUE CLASSIC...! Deal with it ! <P><BR>Pete Hartmann

Peter<BR>I do not object to, nor am I jealous of full classics. What I do object to is your holier than thou attitude anyone, myself included, that for one minute believes that anything lesser than a V-12 Packard Formal Sedan is worth owning. I am not saying that they are not fine cars; nor do I deny that they represent the top of the pecking order at Packard. But your statements, and the attitude behind them certainly do not come off as a person that "likes all types of cars." When I asked my first question about the potential purchase of a 32 Packard you immediately let me know that it was basically not worth owning. After talking with several friends I have found that the MINORITY of CCCA/Packard owners that have such ridiculous views are so vocal that there are actually people out there who are ashamed to admit that they own Jr. Packards. How absurd! I am afraid I find that attitude to be akin to bullying-I will force my beliefs on you no matter what. I may not like another car, but I don't put it down to the person that owns it. I would consider that rude. This whole discussion only proves to me that money can't buy manners or judgement.

After these months of wrangling and essentially getting nowhere, there can be only several conclusions.<P>A) The poster is an imposter. He (she) is having a lark repeating essentially the same story for the purpose of creating a heated but pointless and one-sided debate. When one side of a conversation intends to be amused by the other's response, communication cannot proceed. <P> The poster is genuine but is of diminished capacity. With the conviction of baseless zeal but lacking the wherewithal or common sense to accept alternative viewpoints, the poster blindly mouths the same response to all comments. Add a couple grains of pomposity and it becomes all the more frustrating to attempt an even-handed discussion. Again, this does not make for straight communication. <P>C) The poster has a hidden agenda. For example, it is not unheard-of for owners of certain valuable or semi-valuable articles to use the press or other media to create awareness and enthusiasm for the article prior to a formal announcement of its availability for sale. There are of course many more examples. All of them, however, are based in deceipt and interfere with full communication. <P>None of these actions may be at work here, but the unavoidable conclusion is that a serious discussion of the various auto-related topics is a pointless exercise.

For Terry and Bill <P>C'mon..you guys...this is for fun and education....again..LIGHTEN UP !<P>Bill...I dont mind you critisizing my views...but I respectfully suggest you READ my "posts" more carefully before becoming irritated. Of COURSE you are correct that I am nuts - no-one in their right mind would have fooled around with these old cars..(at least that is what my parents told me when I came home in '55 with my '38 Packard Twelve, on which I had squandered the outrageous sum of twenty five bucks of a whole summer of lawn mowings.....!).<P>But you are wrong about your thought I am somehow "puffing up" my own car for sale. WRONG ! ONLY way that thing is ever coming on the market is AFTER some jealous husbands find out...get together...and put me out of my misery. Until then...I shall 1) be my naughty self...and 2) NOT part with my Packard Twelve !<P>TERRY...will you RELAX...where in HELL did you get the idea I think anything but my own '38 Packard V-12 is fit for nothing more than a scrap drive. Will you PLEASE go back and READ the "post" you referred to. My response to your question about the 1932 Packard line was meant to be helpful, to provide you with GUIDANCE ! Your taking offense because I pointed out the OBVIOUS..is just plain childish ! I DO understand...you apparently have been so beaten up by the "politically correct" crowd, you are uncomfortable with the FACT that Packard really DID produce cars that were "tops" in their respective price ranges. Why are you so troubled by the FACT that a FIVE THOUSAND dollar car is likely to be MANY TIMES better than a ONE thousand dollar car. C'mon..be honest..have you ever actually RIDDEN in WELL MAINTAINED Packards of the various price ranges. EACH does its job well..and is a rolling explanation of why there is STILL, nearly FIFTY YEARS after the company folded, a "Packard Mystique". <P>Dont you guys feel a little silly trying to tell someone with my background that "all Packards are alike..."?<P>For you to state that a lower priced Packard is the same as the high priced ones...is..well....difficult to understand...WHY do you need to believe that? <P>How can we help you better understand WHAT the Packard mystique was all about, and WHY the Classic Car Club Of America was formed. Did you see my suggestion on some proposed reading material for you, from the Club's early years, by people, there at the time, trying to explain to the outside world why we were doing what we were doing..?<P>Pete Hartmannn<BR>Big Springs Arizona

Pete makes some good points. There will always be differences in opinion, and that is part of the reason for this forum. While one person may not particularly like a certain make or model another might find it just the item to keep for, say, 47 years. The general idea is that we all are interested in what automotive writers used to call "Fine Cars". Yes, there is a difference between a Chevrolet and a Cadillac of the 1930's. Just as Pete indicates, that doesn't mean the Chevvy should be ignored, only that it is different. <BR>This thread began with a discussion about what might be classified as a Full Classic and what might not. Any takers?<BR>Jon Lee

Jon:<P>Here are a few of my favorite candidates for "fine and unusual" full classics that I don't believe are currently listed:<P>All Lincoln Zephyrs: Surely this is the only 12 cylinder American car of the classic era that is not a Full Classic. This car gave us the platform for the revered Continental. It has pleasing yet radical styling year after year, especially the early ones. Sure, the engine's no good, but it's good enough for the Continental isn't it?<P>Six cylinder Auburns: Don't expect hundreds of these cars to show up at a grand classic, there are hardly any left. Sure, some were taxicabs, but they have the same elegant style as their big brothers. And six cylinders are enough for a Bentley, why not Full Classic Auburns.<P>'34 to '40 LaSalles: It's boxy brothers (27-33) have been Full Classics for years, yet the car that almost out-Corded the Cord and had massive influence on styling of the late 30's is left out in the cold. I guess CCCA thinks these beauties are just too cheap, they recently rejected application for the '34.<P>Packard 120: Yes, Peter H will implode his vacuum tank, but it's time to let the lowly Packard 120 into the tent. Can the 110 and 115 be far behind?<P>Buick Master 6: You know I like Buicks, these large cars (1925-1929) evolved into the 90 series that is a Full Classic.<P>There's my short list, I sure I could think of more. I submit all of these cars are fine and unusual. What are their chances of getting past the classification committee? You tell me, Jon, I suspect not much, but maybe next year.<P>Bill S<BR>Albuquerque, NM

Hey Terry~<P>The CCCA says "Pete makes some good points".<P>See you in "Customs, Hot Rods, Harleys and Old Pickups". I'll be the bald guy in the Dodge.

As long as we are listing cars that should be lets throw Jordan into the mix. The Continental 8 that Jordan debuted in 24 was to Jordan patents and Jordan owned the tooling, exclusive to Jordan in 24 then Continental started selling outdated versions to esteemed cars like Diana in 25. Autos using versions of the Jordan 8 to name a few were: Elcar,Dupont,Diana,Ruxton,Stutz Blackhawk, Recognizable cars to the CCCA to be sure.<BR>4 Wheel hydraulic brakes on all 4 corners since 1924. they were expensive and luxuious to be sure. I recently had the opportunity to see a 27 sedan next to a a big Packard and Cadillac and it belonged and in fact had the most attention. The model G I believe is currently being submitted I think,if not soon will be. A dual cowl speedboy is currently in the AACA calender I believe its Aug.