cca classic or not?

Pandamarie:

There may be a firestorm on this but here's my explaination: The convertible coupe you cite is not considered a classic because the entire Zephyr series is not considered a classic. The Continental, which is clearly built on the Zephyr platform, is treated as a separate series, and the entire Continental series is on the full classics list.

I have expressed my views to this forum that the Zephyr series should also be included on the classics list, but much howling usually follows. Never mind that the Zephyr is the only production 12 cylinder car I know of that is not on the Classics list. The position of the club is that the Zephyr was a mass produced car aimed at a mid priced market, quite different from the Lincoln K and the Continental that are full classics. I understand that several attempts have been made to get the Zephyr on the list, all to no avail.

Enjoy your car, as you say they are very rare and quite attractive -- as long as you can keep that V-12 running!

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

I agrre with you that the zypher was a mass produced car, But the convertable coupe was not. if you look at the numbers it was produced in small amounts than any year or body type continential including thier convertable. I seems that some of the members of the ccca need to take a look at the #s produced for each body style rather than the zypher group. the continential convertable out numbers the coupe convertable 3 to 1, there for as far a rarity the coupe convertable is far rarer and should be on the list.

Just my opinion, but by the ccca criteria for a classic, the Lincoln convertable coupe is and should be a classic.

not to mention the boost in membership from the owners of these classic cars.

Pandamarie:

You may be able to make that argument to the classification committee, but I doubt if it will fly. But I believe there are a number of Zephrys with custom bodies (by Brunn, Durham, etc.) that have been approved on a single car basis.

Distinguishing a particular "production" body style as a classic within a non-classic series is not normally done, except for special cases like the Continental. This was handled by calling the Continental a series rather than just a model of the Zephyr. If I remember, though, the first Continental's had Zephyr logos on them. I suppose you might be able to argue that the convertible coupe is essentially a custom body car, because the production was low and maybe be done off the normal production line.

The Continental is on the list because the club in the 50's decided it wanted it there for a variety of reasons. This included, I have heard, a desire to increase membership. There is not much interest in club growth today, so arguing that admitting more or all Zephrys will improve membership is not a positive -- indeed, it is a reason for the CCCA to NOT include these cars on the Full Classics list.

Needless to say, I would love to see yours and all Zephyrs on the list. Mass produced or not, they are very fine and unusual cars -- with truly spectacular styling and performance. But it isn't going to happen any time soon.....

Good luck!

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

Bill...before you go running around claiming the'Zephyr" series platform was "fine and unusal"...may I suggest you talk to somone who is actually familiar with their innards..? For your info. the 12 cyl motor and drive line that is in these so called "Lincolns"..isn't even a SHADOW of the fine large, powerful, brutally reliable "real" Lincoln K series V-12's....of well over 400 cu in. The Zephyr / Continental series was your typical "ford" (lack of) quality. In fact, the dinky little 290 cu in "Zephyr/Connie" V-12's were designed to be built on the same tooling as the ordinary Ford cars....my recollection, is that some internals are interchangeable.

Let's be honest...the elements of "classicism"..these days...are what some guy has...and wants to sell....! I really dont think anyone these days gives a damn why the Classic Car Club was formed, or what cars you saw at our meets in the old days. It is irrelevant to the needs of today's car buff...which..is..quite simply...to SOUND IMPORTANT !

Pete Hartmann

PeterH,

Your first paragraph was SO INSIGHTFUL, but your second... was it really neccessary or relavent?

Peter

I have to agree with PH here . I really admire the Zephyrs (and, in fact, would love to pick up one of the 38-39 3-window coupes or convertibles some day), but they are no more suited to the CCCA than junior Packards.

I have an original copy of the Ford / Lincoln shop manual for the era, and it is revealing. Ford & Zephyr mechanics are oftened treated in the same pages, while the notes for the K-series Lincoln are typically separate and reveal quite different (and more sophisticated) engineering. A Zephyr expert might chime in, but the argument that the Zephyr is mechanically closer to a Deluxe Ford than the K-series certainly seems to be true.

But the most important reason Zephyrs shouldn't be in the CCCA is this: They, along with junior Packards and Cadillacs, redefined what buyers could expect to get for their money, thereby causing the demise of the over-engineered, over-priced, and overwrought Full Classics we admire so much today.

glad to get all of your opinions, and from what I have read from the posts the zypher powered continentials should be deleted from the list of full classics.

we do have a few full classics in the family, 39 V12 packards and packard 180 7 pass, touring. I just wanted to know why the continentials get on the list and not the convertable coupe. neither one would compare to the Lincoln K series. But if you are going to have the continential with zypher power the conv. coupe should rate also. with 28 antique and classic cars in the family it doesnt really matter. I love them all.

Gariepy - I suggest before we discuss whether my "2nd paragraph" is correct, you first go to a large book store, and look over modern car buff magazines and books. Heck..I even found a "CLASSIC CHEVROLET" magazine....and a "CLASSIC TRUCK" magazine. Perhaps you are not aware that the word "classic" is affixed to just about EVERYTHING someone wants to either brag about, and/or "unload".... !

I do NOT under-estimate the intelligence or information level of most modern car buffs....invariably, when pressed, they will admit they know what REAL classics and antiques are, but typically....become VERY irate...they KNOW what they are doing...!

And I do not really find fault with it. Car buffs are human..with all the virtues and vices of humanity, to some degree. The human desire to "sound important"...to "pound one's chest"...is quite normal, especially amongst young males. I think you are being a little silly to deny the obvious !

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, AZ

Peter, my comment still stands... was your second paragraph really neccessary or relavent? It sounds to me youre the one trying to sound important... but thats my opinion.

Peter

The Classification Committee has always approved <span style="font-weight: bold">all</span> the cars in a series or none of them, except in the case of custom coachwork. In other-words, if they approve the convertible coupe, then the four-door sedan gets approved along with it since it is in the same series.

It is an interesting question if this is an idea that still merits keeping, but it is the way things have been done in the past and continue to be done. There are some notable examples of an automobile series where the convertible coupe or phaeton has many of the requirements of being considered as a CCCA Classic, but the ordinary looking sedan does not. The 1934 LaSalle comes to mind. The Zephyr might be another.

If nothing else, it makes for interesting conversation and good food for thought.

Another very interesting discussion. Chuck made mention of the fact that the Club has always accepted production cars in total. One reason for this goes to the time when many manufacturers built just the Chassis. During the Classic era this included such makes as Duesenberg, duPont, and many foreign cars such as Rolls-Royce, Bentley and Hispano-Suiza. A "Reaffirmation of CCCA Policy", October 1, 1985, is published in our Club Handbook, page 15, stating this policy.

Personally, I think it would be a shame to admit only one selected body style from a series. For instance, if the "desireable" convertible style is included and the "mundane" sedan is not, the Club sets a more exclusionary tone, not less. If you have looked inside some of the closed cars from some of these proposed Series, you might notice that the interior trim on the closed car is often much better appointed than the open body style.

Some of the pragmatic reasons for accepting or not accepting a specific series have much less to do with attractive appearance than with how and to whom the car was sold. Generally speaking, and there are obvious exceptions, Classic Cars were merchandised and sold to the most affluent part of the car buying public. To use the Zephyr/Continental group as an example, even though the Zephyr convertible coupe was based on the same running gear as the Continental, its price, in 1948 was $3,142 to the Continental at $4,746. This is roughly a 50% premium for the Continental. It may not have been any better an automobile, but the difference in style and the market to which it was aimed has made such a difference over the past 50+ years that a great number of Zephyrs were sacrificed to maintain or restore Continentals.

Should the Continental be listed as a Classic while the Zephyr is not? I can't answer that easily. I would assure you that the Continental will not be un-approved, and that the discussion about the inclusion of the Zephyr will most likely continue.

As an aside, I have owned several Continentals and a couple of Zephyrs. While it may be primarily due to the lower body line and corresponding lower center of gravity, the Continental is a much beter handling car on the twisty winding parts. Contrary to some of the mis-information recently posted, a Continental with a healthy engine is a good performer, providing one does stir the shifter and keeps the engine spinning. And, as you probably already know, even though the designs are of similar premise, there are very, very few pieces that will interchange from Ford V-8 to Lincoln H-V-12.

Well, there are both my cent's worth.

Jon Lee

Gariepy - I am not important. I am irrelevant. There is no reason for me to want to sound important. Wouldn't matter WHAT I said, to MOST car buffs...they KNOW what they like..and what they want.

While their numbers decrease thru the years, there are still legitimate old car buffs, who are interested in learning about the various eras of automotive technology, and how they evolved, blended, and keep evolving. Sometimes, one or more of these shows up in the chat rooms, and then we can have some fun exchaning info.

In your case, I invited you to review current auto buff magazines, such as CLASSIC CHEVROLET...and CLASSIC TRUCK, look at the cars...and the advertisers, and tell me what your impressions are. My suspicion is that althought you are much younger then me, and thus have no FIRST hand knowledge of what it was like to be a car buff in the 1950's, you do know enough about cars and people in general....to know EXACTLY what I am getting at....dont you....!

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, AZ

Thus it is interesting to exchange

At the risk of belaboring an insignificant point to death, I'll gently slip in some comments relative to Mr Hartmann's posts. First, and likely most contentious to Mr H, the policies and procedures of the Club do not necessarily coincide with the opinions espoused by Mr Hartmann.

While I am not as old as Mr Hartmann, I have been involved in the hobby since the fifties. I can recall showing up at a meet with a 33 Buick and being asked to park at the rear as I was driving a "Modern" car!

The word "Classic" has, as Mr Hartmann states, become almost generic. The Classic Chevrolet Club International (1955-1957) has over 50,000 members. The Classic Thunderbird Club has slightly fewer. In England, a classic car is sepcifically a post WWII car. The newstands abound with "Classic" magazine titles. Chevrolet, GMC, AMC have all built many thousands of vehicles labelled as "Classic". There are many other non-automotive products also using "Classic". How about "Classic Coke?"

Several years ago, the CCCA applied for Trademark status for a couple of terms in the attempt to differentiate what the Club has deemed to be Classic from all the rest. These terms, "Full Classic" and "Modified Classic" have been used very conscientiously by National and Regional editors. (although they have never been noted by Mr Hartmann). This effort has not been particularly succesful, as the term "Modified Classic" has been denied by the Patent Office and the "Full Classic" term is currently under re-review after being declined a couple of times. The National Board has determined that the terms "CCCA Classic" and "Classic" may be used synonymously with "Full Classic".

There are two points illustrated here. First, the National Board has been very cognizant of the difficulty that the general public may have with the difference between what the Club calls "Classic" and all the other very interesting cars in the collector car hobby. Secondly, the real issue is the cars and not semantics. The cars are directly related to an era, 1925 through 1948, and less so to a specific school of design. The study of style on CCCA Classics is a major issue unto itself, and deserves more than I can give here.

The conclusions that might be drawn is that the Club does not have exclusive rights to the word "Classic" in any form, but we can use it in any way we wish. In addition, the discussion about what is and is not a CCCA Classic has been going on since the Club's inception and will continue after we are all gone. Let the discussions continue with disparate opinions, without vitriol or non-sensical responses.

Jon Lee

Dear Jon

I'm not sure that I agree that the interior finish on open classics was less elegant that on closed ones...

I agree with PH (as do most people in this forum) that the word "classic" is a much overused and abused word relative to our shared passion - old cars. The anonymous poster above did an eloquent job of stating how car magazines, other old car clubs, and even products and manufacturers have misused the word in a way that is contrary to the CCCA. He illustrated that the term ?classic? has a more broad definition to the overall public than the constricted definition of the CCCA.

The point I attempted to make above is that PH had a germane response to the original poster?s question: ?why (are) 48 Lincoln convertible coupes are not considered classics?. Unfortunately he followed it up with condescending diatribe about the misuse of the term ?Classic?.

<span style="font-weight: bold">In my opinion we better serve this hobby by answering legitimate questions, and by refraining from browbeating those who are ignorant to our hobby?s narrow definitions and traditions.</span>

Lets take the time to explain to people the subtleties of our hobby ? like the term ?classic?, instead of getting defensive or sarcastic when a term is misused or abused. We want to pull people INTO our hobby, not push them away.

That?s my point PH, and I do believe you know what I am getting at.

Peter

PH,

One more thing, do you ever make it down to Tucson or is there a car show in Phoenix you plan to attend anytime soon? I'd love continue this conversation over a pizza and a beer or two. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Peter G:

Unfortunately, PH is not interested in drawing anyone into "his" CCCA -- Unless they agree with his narrow standards on what should or should not be recognized by the CCCA. Anyone who suggests changes is just trying to take over the club, sell a car, or climb some sort of automotive social ladder. I regret that PH is not alone with this attitude.

I received my application for renewal to the CCCA yesterday. My initial thoughts were that it is time for me to move on...I probably won't, but only because I still have a few friends in the CCCA who do not view the club as a fortress constantly under attack by '57 Chevies and Toyotas.

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

Peter G, I'm not sure why my post showed up as "Anonymous", but 'twas I.

J445, I would certainly agree that the interior of your Duesenberg is fabulous. The difference I allude to might be apparent if Tom Derro's Kirchoff Town Car were sitting next to yours. The exterior style of your car is far, far more attractive, in my eye, than his Town Car, yet the interior, with the incredible needle point upholstery fabric and the beautiful cabinetry is really over the top. Most of my own cars are open bodies, and I like the simple style used in many open bodies. The closed cars, often because of the extra protection afforded by the enclosed bodies sometimes used very fancy upholstery and fittings.

Jon Lee

I really like all the thoughts on this subject. I have 9 cars of my own. none concidered full classics(48 lincoln coupe conv) the rest are muscle cars. mostly modified mopars with EFI. I do allot of work on the Family cars, from 1914 mitchell speedsters to V12 Packards. I could care less about looking or being important as I take all the cars in the family out and drive them and use them the way they were designed. show cars are for people that think they will live for ever.

My favorite saying to old car people is,

IF YOU GOT IT TAKE IT OUT AND PLAY WITH IT!

I have more fun driving my cars once they are restored than looking at them in the garage, or just take them out for others to enjoy, hell I could care less what others think.

All I wanted to know was why the lincoln convertable coupe isnt on the list. that has been answered even though it seems some of you constue the rule of your club to meet your needs. because if you really read your rules for qualifacation, the lincoln ZYPHER convertable coupe meets these standards.

just for your information, I have added dual exhaust and an elderbrock 2x2 intake with a pair of 97s. I like to have fun with my cars because I know I will die someday. lighten up and enjoy the time you have.

Thanks JDLee. Your comments are always interesting, and in this case show that reading a manual is no substitute for owning and driving the cars! But here is a question, don't know if you can answer it. I'm 6'5" and realy wonder if I could even fit into an early Continental. How much room is there in these cars?