How many classic cars are there?

Hello Dave -<P>For reasons that have been gone over thoroughly on this forum, the term "Full Classic" has been reserved for cars between 1925-1948, while "Milestone" has been applied to distinctive cars after that time (and probably a little too broadly).<P> In some ways it's a shame. While I know there are strongly opposing opinions, I think CCCA could still maintain their core mission and broaden their horizon by having both "Pre-War Full Classics" and "Post-War Full Classics," <I>with the latter label being guarded as jealously as the former has been.</I><P>For example, I could see the Mercedes Gullwing and 300SL convertible, as well as the 1956-57 Mark II as "Post-War Full Classics." They were very expensive, very exclusive, "best of the best" cars in their days. I don't think these cars would show poorly next to, say, a 1931 Fleetwood body Cadillac roadster.<P>Now what about my 66 Mustang? -- not in a million, zillion years <p>[ 07-11-2002: Message edited by: Cecil Bozarth ]

I guess the title of this thread isn't entirely accurate. But, seeing how many classic cars there were in the past. Of the cars produced today, how many do you think would later develop into a classic car?

Grrrrrr !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

Thanks Peter -- I know it was very, very hard to hold back on that one . I do think the CCCA is correct in only applying the label "Full Classic" to pre-war automobiles that meet the engineering, exclusivity and (to a lesser extent) styling characteristics that have been set up.<P>Given that, all I am saying is -- don't the truly exceptional post war cars deserve such a "home", albeit a *different* one from their pre-war counterparts? Would it "dilute" the CCCA to recognize the "best of the best" in years beyond 1948? Right now, a Gullwing has to share "residence" (AACA) with my Mustang. Just doesn't seem right.<P>By the way -- I'm looking at purchasing a Full Classic right now. Leaving pics and value guide printouts where the wife can see them, making the financial case, etc.... wish me luck.<p>[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Cecil Bozarth ]

Cecil:<P>Amen!!<P>I am convinced that CCCA's failure to recognize the postwar era will do nothing to preserve the greatness of the cars of the "Classic Era". Instead, it merely ensures that the CCCA will become more and more irrevalent as time marches on. <P>The general public can't understand why postward "Classics" are not recognized by the club, and neither can I or many of the CCCA's own members.<P>I also think they should lighten up on the list within the classic era, but all this has been said before.<P>Have at it!<P>Bill, Albuquerque

Hi Buick Plus:<P>You are forgetting that the CLASSIC CAR CLUB AMERICA had some very good years when it was completely irrelevant. <P>In our first years, we did not waste time worrying about whether we were "irrelevant" or not. That was NOT a factor in our setting up our Club, or in selecting a little used aristocratic word "CLASSIC' to distinguish the cars we wanted to celebrate within the confines of this particular club.<P>What WAS a factor in our selecting the word "classic", is that straight out of the WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY of that era, it symbolized what kind of cars THIS particular club was all about. Again (for those of you who are not aware of how far the word "classic" has evolved) ....<P>" UNIQUE...FIRST RANK...OF THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE". <P>That was ONE of the two definitions that made us believe THIS particular word was the one for our club name. And explained why very nice, even superior old cars, were irrelevant to our purpose. <P>"FROM THE GREEK...A STATEMENT OF ART....WHERE FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION.."<P>This was the SECOND of the two definitions..and explains why a "moderne" or stream-lined car, such as cars built after the 1930's, were irrelevant to our purpose.<P>We DID it ! In a few short years, we went from being a completely irrelevant group of people who were laughed at for our interest in the large, arrogant luxury cars of the 1920's and '30s, to something "everyone" had to join. Heck..even NASHES were called "classics" by the mid 1960's.<P>Of COURSE the CCCA did not invent the word classic, but we sure as heck made it a word that, in a few short years, became SO desirable to "tack on" to some nice old car one wants to sell, that it is now hard to find a product for sale that is NOT called "classic".<P>BuickPlus has correctly identified a phenomena that might well occur. The Club might shrink in half..and then half again..who knows..unless we start admitting all those nice old cars from the 1950's that everyone wants to unload...we may again become irrelevant. To someone who remembers those "irrlevant" years of really great meets, rally, hill climbs, "hair and hounds" events...etc. I can deal with it..!<P>Should there be a Club for the nice old cars that are "stream-lined"..i.e. came AFTER the end of the "classic" era...? Well...why not? Of course my suspicious mind will note there already is a CAD LA SALLE CLUB, PACKARDS INTERNATIONAL, PACKARD MOTOR CAR CLUB, LINCOLN CLUB, BUICK CLUB...etc...etc...etc. I am or have been a member of all of them - they are great clubs...and have great events.<P>I saw posted elsewhere in here reference to the fact that some non-classic cars now sell for more than many classics. So what ? <P>In the early years, our classics, and our club, was so irrelevant, you couldn't GIVE one away. Does what the average non-technically inclined type will pay, who just wants something to show off at a public car show, have any relevance to what the CCCA is all about..? <P>No-one in or out of the CCCA has a right to tell members or non-members what to think. Please dont tell the overwhelming majority of our members what to do with our Club. <P>We dont own the word "classic". Why not start a club for "post war classics" if you dont like PACKARDS INTERNATIONAL, BUICK CLUB, LINCOLN CLUB, LINCOLN CONTINENTAL OWNERS CLUB, CAD-LA SALLE CLUB, FRANKLYN CLUB, THE PACKARD CLUB (aka "Packard Automotive Classic"....<P>Hmm...let's see...what should we call this new club to HONESTLY reflect why it should be formed...<P> " POST WAR CLASSIC CAR CLUB FOR REALLY <BR> NICEOLD CARS WE WANT TO GET A LITTLE<BR> MORE MONEY FOR....."<BR> <BR>You are wrong, Buick Plus...the CCCA DOES recognize the value of cars we do not accept as "classics". Over and over thru out our HANDBOOK AND DIRECTORY you will find references to mechanisims on how we can have joint events with such clubs, and how we encourage them, and invite them to participate in car clubs that suit their requirements. <P>Come to a CCCA event in ANY car you like ! And PARTICIPATE in your Region's affairs. Who knows....we get enough people participating in Club management.......maybe someday, there will be a spot at a Grand Classic for my Toyota sedan..!<P>Pete Hartmann

PH<P>Your posts are so long they leave me breathless, they are simply too much to respond to point by point. But for the record, I disagree with just about all the points you are trying to make.<P>I can only say for now that the Marque clubs (I too am a member of many of them) include many Full Classics among their marques and these are fine clubs. But the non-marque clubs, like the VMCCA, AACA, CCCA, HCCA and so forth are my personal favorites because I am a non-marque collector. I have owned probably 15 collector cars in the past, and most all of these cars are different marques. Check out the directory, you will see that not all CCCA members collect Packards, though I agree that many do.<P>I think the CCCA has a great niche and has done much for the collector car hobby in the past. I hardly think the club was irrelevant in the early days (don't equate size with relevance) when the CCCA brought special recognition to the large Classics you so revere when the other clubs classified them as used cars or tow vehicles.<P>I think the movement of the CCCA to include newer "fine and unusual" motorcars consistant with their founding philsophy is a natural progression of the club and will provide new energy to the club that the owners of the cars involved and most CCCA members will appreciate, especially as time marches on.<P>I know you don't agree, but so be it. You see the CCCA as some sort of holy enclave that must be protected from foreign invasion. It is rather just an organization of people, and any organization needs some variety of people and interests within it to survive and thrive. <P>Bill<BR>Albuquerque, NM

How many current cars will develop into Classic Cars (per CCCA qualifications),hmmm, let me think about this for a moment or two...NONE! The Classic Car denotes both an era and the automotive style of that era. It has yet to be repeated and I do not expect it ever will be. However, if you start seeing a large portion of current luxury cars styled either in pre-art deco or art deco design with chauffeurs and possibly a footman that isn't mass produced and costing anywhere from 5 to 20 times the price of a Ford, let me know. Postscript: I don't know how many Classic Cars exist but there are currently 7,968 Full Classic Cars recognized by CCCA. How's that for a factoid?

Hello Peter -<P><B>Why the term "Full Romantic" might be more appropriate...</B><P>Sorry, but I really have to call you to the carpet on this one. The gist of your argument for protecting the term "classic" is that only certain cars made between 1925-1948 fit the traditional definition of "classic" and that any attempt to apply the term elsewhere would dilute the true definition. Your case centers around a two-prong definition reflecting a)excellence, and b)a certain type of style. Well, let's see if you are right ...<P>From Webster's New World Dictionary,<I>1953</I>:<P>"1. of the highest class; most representative of the excellence of its kind; having recognized worth."<P>No problems here. The next 2-4 definitions deal with the Greeks and Romans, so are not of direct interest here. On to 5:<P>"5. balanced, formal, austere, regular, simple, etc.; a term variously interpreted, generally opposed to <I>romantic</I>"<P>Now, c'mon, Peter! Is there anything about a V12 Packard, V16 Caddy, Duesenberg that is "austere, regular, simple"? I recall it was you who said that Full Classics were the cars you would see pulling up to the club, one more ostentatious than the other. Hardly "classic" by the definition in place at the time of CCCA's founding, but certainly "romantic" -- and in the very best sense, I might add.<P>So where does this leave us?<P>1. Any argument that only CCCA cars meet the traditional definition of "classic" is clearly wrong.<P>2. CCCA may choose to only allow in pre-war cars, which is absolutely fine. But to say other cars cannot be "classics" requires that the term be redefined to suit <I>CCCA's</I> needs. I humbly suggest that the term "Full Romantic" would be more appropriate.<P>Finally, when it comes to discussions about post-war cars, let's not evade the issue by referring to Toyotas, "72 Dusters", or lawn tractors as if they are representative of post-war efforts. Rather, tell us, Peter, why a Mercedes Gullwing or Lincoln Mark II doesn't meet the definition of "classic" while a Packard V12 does. Hmmm?<p>[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: Cecil Bozarth ]

I was very pleased to see an acquaintance show his fabulous original 1923 Locomobile on the field at this weekends CCCA Grand Classic in Cleveland. He had the car at our Concours d'Elegance at Ault park in Cincinnati (they drove it from Cleveland to Cincinnati) and it has been at other events such as the Meadowbrook Concours d'Elegance. It always seemed out of place sitting in a class of brass cars, though it fits right in with the early classics. At times, it is also a shame to see a 1949 Talbot Lago separated out of the classic class. However, when you look across the board at what was produced in 1949/50/51 the era was dwindling down with the cars that could fit in as Classic being few and far between verses say 1939.<p>[ 07-17-2002: Message edited by: JOHN MERENESS ]

Why not just quit all the bovine droppings...and admit it...guys...what is so terribly wrong or embarssing about admitting the truth...you LIKE the word "classic"...you dont CARE what the technical requirements were, are, or will be... you WANT to "tack it on" to the post-war car you like ( or want to sell) because you like the sound of it !<P>Of course I understand. If I owned a post-war stream-lined luxury car that I liked, and I felt "good" about the word "classic"...of course I'd want to call it a "classic 53 Cadillac" or "classic '53 Buick"...etc. But no matter how loudly you scream the word "classic" at such cars, you can be assured of several things...1) It will "blow the doors" off anything..and I mean ANYTHING from the classic era, for the simple reason..that technology marches on.......2) if the air conditioner is working properly, YOU will find ME asking YOU for a ride in it on a hot, muggy day, rather than drive my '38 Packard Twelve !<P>What is so terrible about going to Cad La Salle Club meets, or Packards International meets, if you like post-war cars ? What is so terrible...about calling a 1953 Packard......a 1953 Packard....?<P>C'mon...guys...be honest...you LIKE the word "classic"... it IS a free country...!<P>I promise you one thing...if it is a hot day, and I need to hitch a ride...and your '53 Packard or Cadillac's original factory air conditioning is working properly...you BET your hinquarters I will say... "that is one COOL car.....! and if that is what it takes to get a ride...of course I will call it a "classic"...too !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

For Cecil - on why those very unique and wonderful post-war cars you suggested, can NEVER be "classics" in the traditional sense...<P>First of all - I'd give my left you-know-what to own one...!<P>Second of all....remember the other REAL definition of the word "classic", as used down thru the centuries...by anyone with even the most transitory exposure to art, engineering, and design theory....<P> " form follows function"...<P>A pre-war Damiler-Benz has separate fenders, headlights, hood, so that each shape of the car, follows its function.<P>A post war "gull wing" is, in my mind, one of the finest examples of "stream-lining". I suspect it would be at least equal in low wind resistance to most cars today! <P>And, a "gull wing" as a car..? Who would question it is overwhelmingly superior in technology, performance, handling, etc. etc..to the ordinary car of its day. <P>But LOOK at it...man..you SERIOUSLY going to tell me you think it is of the same "design school of thought" as a pre-war 500K...?<P>(say...you dont happen to have a "gull wing" for sale...do you...? maybe THATS what this is about...? )<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

Hello Peter -<P>Thanks for the response. Obviously, neither of us is going to change the other's mind, but it's been fun trying! <P>I'll end my contribution to the thread with two thoughts. First, the mission statement of the CCCA doesn't <I>preclude</I> the existence of classics after 1948, but simply states that the CCCA's interest is in classics of a certain period. So what we are really debating are our opinions about the characteristics of certain vehicles outside that range.<BR>Second, this is not about applying the label "classic" to "any old car" in order to turn a buck. As others have said, the label "classic" has effectively no influence on price. Rather, it's about recognizing that there were indeed some very special automobiles that meet the definition of "classic" made after WWII.<P>Gullwing? Me? I don't think I have a chance of getting my 6' 5" frame in one. At least not with my wallet intact. But I've found that the <I>back</I>of a 1938 V16 Caddy is plenty big...<P>PS -- By the way, Peter, I studied Greek and Roman classics <I>in loco citato</I>, so you can be assured my knowledge of what the term means is not "transitory" <p>[ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: Cecil Bozarth ]

for PH<P>RE your constant harping on how "stream-lined" cars should not be Classics. <P>Please lead the charge to get those dreadful Cord 810, 812's out of the club, along with the Cad V16 Aerodynamic Coupes and the Pierce Silver Arrow. Their lines are sooooo, well just plain-- "unClassic", so moderne. How on earth did they slip through the cracks? Yes, don't forget the Heinz Corsair and all those awful Faghoni and Falischi (no, I don't know how to spell it) Delahayes that dazzle Pebble every year. They really look more like boats or a space ship than a Classic Cars. Talk about pontoon fenders!<P>Need I go on? <P>Bill<BR>Albuquerque, NM

BuickPlus :<P>Excellent point - I agree with you....everything...CCCA included...has inconsistancies. My own personal opinion as that the Aburn is NOT the kind of "top dollar high quality" car that should have been in the Club in the first place...same for the Lincoln Continental. But what is done is done. While these guys are insisting adding "classic" to their car's names, does not boost their value, the FACT is....just WATCH what would happen if you tried to take someone's "classic" status away-you have a "proprietory-economic value" dispute beyond compare.<P>If I may suggest so, it is more relevant to think about where we are going, then errors of the past (and if you think I am the only one who thinks letting the Lincoln Continentals have "classic" status...may I suggest a phone call to Bob Turnquist...?)

as an owner of the so called "lesser full classics", some of you guys will find it suprising that I really don't think we should accept cars built after 48. In fact I think the cut off used to be 42 and was changed at some point in the 70's since most cars built in the years right after the war are basically the same as those built right before it, at least structurally. 42 was fine by me!<P>Back to this guys question...Although this club and undoubtedly the milestone club (if it ever gets resurrected) will probably not expand their lists to include "neo classics" as I call them-there are some nice cars being made these days that do cost 5 times what a ford costs. they generally are foriegn, like Jags, Aston Martins, Ferraris, lamborghinis, Bentley, Mercedez, etc., although detroit has jumped on the bandwagon from time to time with the viper, prowler, ZR 1, etc. these are low production cars. they do have very high build quality.<P>It is not inconceivable that in the year 2025 or 2035 these will be classified as "antiques" and will be "collector cars". They may represent a "good buy" as they reach the bottom of their value curve (usually at the 10-15 year old point).<P>Shawn Miller<BR>Indiana Region

Shawn - you are a little "behind the loop" on your use of the word "classic" and "antique". If you go to any large magazine or book store, where they have current auto buff magazines, you will be hard pressed to find a car more than a few years old, that is NOT called a "classic"...or an "antique" or "antique classic"...or whatever combination of words the owner and/or writer likes.<P>This is consistant with the evolution of our language from its earlier period of precision, towards what we are changing into (change from a first world manufacturing economy, where precision in speech is essential to precision in mfg/production type enterprises, to a third world and/or "service" economy.)<P>Without the need for precision in speech, it is normal and natural that a culture's speech patterns will evolve towards the flamboyant. As a one-time student of languages and how they reflect a culture, I can tell you I am impressed with how much "richer" a culture's language is, as you go down on the evolutionary scale. You ask a northern european-descent individual what the weather was like yesterday, and you will get something like this...<P> "scattered clouds, light winds, temps. <BR> in the 70's". <P>You ask the same question of someone from a culture where precision of speech is considered a hinderance to communication, and you will find a much richer expression of how the individual feels...<P> " well it was such a nice day my mother<BR> was in a good mood, and the cows were<BR> giving better milk...etc".<P>In the automotive hobby, we USED to say that in order for a car to be "antique"...well...(this may be tough for you "young uns" to follow.....) it had to BE an "antique" car.<P>Now...in order to determine whether a car was an "antique" or not, it would have to have "antique" features...and to determine that...you had to 1) find one to look at 2) understand what you are looking at. Some of the typical features of an "antique car", were "T" head motors, no electrical systems other than the magneto that drove the ignition (if there was lighting at all, it was by carbide /accetylene gas) and two wheen EXTERNAL CONTRACTING brakes. Once we start seeing on-board electrical systems, such as storage batteries, self-starters, electric lighting, "ballon" type tires, and "internal expanding" brakes, we know they are too "modern" to be "antique", and thus would classify them as "vintage" era ( roughly 1918-1925). Obviously, there are a number of exceptions to this - but such is life.<P>We have already discussed the elements of classism, and have noted that at the time our Club was formed, our educational system was such that there was a fairly clear understanding that the word meant BOTH<BR> " unique, first rank...HIGHEST standard<BR> of excellence"....<BR> AND<BR> " a school of design ..in which "form<BR> follows function".<P>Of course NONE of this matters today, to the average car buff. We have seen how well-meaning but un-informed chatters in here got all excited over the use of radial tires on a '41 Cadillac, because they didn't understand the basics of car wheel design evolution. We cannot critisize our fellow chatters for getting confused and agitated over langauge and information discrepancies.<P>I therefore suggest events have long since over-taken your above "post". And I fully understand and appreciate your irritation over comparisons - we had a very "avante garde" governor in Calif. a few years back, who made a lot of friends, and probably won the election, on his campaign slogan of<P> " LOWER YOUR EXPECTATIONS "...<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

Shawn:<P>I certainly agree that there is no shortage of cars built after the Classic Era and even today that are constructed with the philsophy, quality and prices similar to the cars CCCA accepts as classics today.<P>Some of my candidates for postwar classics might include various custom bodied Rolls and Bentleys, the Continental MkII, the MB 600, some MB 300's (like the SL or other custom bodied models), the 57-60 Cadillac Fleetwood Broughams, some exotics like Ferraris, Maseratis, Lambos, etc. How about a 53 Packard Durham Limo, I just ran across one of them the other day. Maybe those original Cobras, if you could find one that was really original.<P>There are no shortage of candidates, but we all know that. There is a shortage of energy to take the steps needed to make this jump. Certain notions will need to be cast aside and some antiques who have petrified the CCCA may have get off their high Full Classics! Only then can we "stream-line" this process! Hey, don't forget my '64 Ford Pickup. I'm getting ready to sell it....Can't you see it at Pebble, worth millions I hope. Then I can make up for those stock market losses!<P>BTW, I plan to enjoy the CCCA as long as I can, no matter where it goes. I am convinced that it's going to change eventually, time has a way of marching on, CCCA or not.

I tried (really hard) not to read Peters most recent diatribe, but just couldnt resist. so peter here is my response...I hope you take it in the good nature it is put forward.<P>The definition you just put forward for "antique" (t heads and the like)is in keeping with your general viewpoint, which seems to be forever stuck in the 50's, prior to the development of many cars that are considered "antique" TODAY by any reasonable standard. (Generally agreed upon as being 25 years old or older). <P>Wake up Peter!(or should we call you Rip?) 50 years have just gotten past you! HA!<P>To Buicksplus...If adding the cars you have mentioned is so vital to the ongoing success of our club, why did the Milestone Car Society fail?<P>If you 2 really want to hash this out why not start some threads yourselves with this as the subject?<P>This poor annonomous soul was simply trying to find out what cars we would consider to be the cream of the crop of todays models (I think, although he hasnt been heard from since he started this thread)<P>There are several that will be significant or collectable cars. Maybe this should be on the AACA forum versus ours, but then again they recognise anything older than 25 years if i am not mistaken, while we are obviously more selective.<P>Cant we just HAVE FUN discussing things instead of always coming back to the same tired arguements which have little to do with the questions posed? <P>Shawn Miller<BR>Obnoxious Youngun<BR>Indiana Region

Shawn...EXCELLENT choice of words..."collectable car"...I salute you...like that...now...we are talking...! Unfortunately, I, as I noted above, believe you are "whistling in the dark". Of COURSE the CORRECT terminolgy, if anyone CARED any more about technical accuracy...would be "COLLECTABLE CAR". But..be serious...look at the response to my posts...who CARES....!<P>People like to call their cars "classics"...and "antiques"...and they have a good point...if you 25 year old cars are to be called "antique classics"...why just limit the word "antique" or "classic" to them..? <P>After all....just LOOK at a 25 year old car today. Isn't a 23 year old car just as good a "classic" or an "antique" as a 24 year old car that will be 25 next week..?<P>Of course the 20 or 30 or even 40 year old car is typically a short stroke mono-block over head valve V-8 with a hydraulic automatic transmission, independent suspension, four wheel brakes, and a robat-welded sheet metal bodynice and stream-lined...with electric motors powering the seat, the windows...maybe even a AM-FM radio and cassette deck....<P>Of course a REAL "antique" car of the pre 1918 period is a whole different kettle of fish. But..who CARES. People today KNOW what they want, and the LAST thing they want to hear is some purist like you telling them their 18...or 23 year old car isn't just as good an "antique" as a 25 year old car.<P>Personally...I think my '98 Sears Riding Mower SHOULD be admitted to the Grand Classic. Heck...if all else fails...I could even cut the grass with it...!<P>Pete Hartmann<P>P.S.. Shawn...c'mon..man..lighten up...be honest...you are certainly better informed than the average modern car buff...do you REALLY disagree with ANY of my posts..?