chime in!

I'll vote yea, as long as we don't let it get out of hand. Don't want to see anybody leave over this tho.

Mike

I vote yea. It's worth a try.

I vote YEA

Yes.....

Yea

I vote yea, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

I vote NO cause everyone else is voting yea!

Just make the right decision, Shawn, you can be replaced you know.....

Gee I thought I was irreplacable! LOL!

Yes, tho' obviously other cars'll be mentioned in context, for historical purposes. I sent my comments last week, 39th of your "Classic Cars Only, Please" thread, tho' i inadvertently hit send before finishing the last line. If a newcomer can expand on this subject once and for all, many of us live in places where overpopulation makes it a royal drag to drive our survivors, other than 4:30 am Sundays. US population was but o n e t h i r d today's 300+ million at the dawn of the CCCA Classic era, h a l f today's in the '40s when the last Classic cars were built, and a higher percentage of our populace lived on family farms and small towns. Understandably, many of us autoholics enjoy perusing the CCCA's chat room for our weekly auto fix, rather than grinding the life out of our wheeled alter egos on a bumper-to-bumper concrete conveyor belt.

I never saw anything wrong with Monsignor Hartmann's epistles. He was usually right. His only sin was lacking diplomacy at times. Most of us enjoyed his musings. He was even right about the definition of "classic," whether applied to music, architecture, literature, or automobiles. Those who took umbrage are perhaps a mite thin-skinned, with a bit too much time on their hands?

Louis Armstrong; great music that'll survive forever. But it's not classical music. So it goes with cars, too. How complicated is that?

By the way, did you notice that we didn't hear from anyone with a really glorious chariot, like a '39 Alfa [color:\\"black\\"] Romeo 2900B, whining about St. Peter? There's a message there.

Thank you, Shawn, Chuck & Co., for all your unsung work enabling this forum.

Best, Mike Scott, Walnut Creek, CA

I think to fix "Classic" art, architecture, music, automobiles, anything to one point in time is shortsighted and shows an intellectual snobbery that denies any possibility of further developments in those fields. Remember, to the Ancient Greeks the only "Classic" architecture was Egyptian. Reminds me of my days as a budding archaeologist digging at the Philistine city of Ashdod in Israel (ca.1500 B.C.). If you took a piece of Roman Era pottery to the Staff Archaeologist he would take one look at it, identify it as Roman and, usually with the comment " That's modern, it's Roman", toss it over his shoulder onto the pile which was then sold as road fill. No, I'm not looking to have more cars included in the "List" necessarily but to say that "what was once could never be again" is in my humble opinion ridiculous and shortsighted. I wonder if there were any founding members of the CCCA whose particular cars were not included in the definition ?

Restorer 32's comments are off the original thread, but I must say I agree with him completely. The idea that the full classics list and the era is fixed and should never be changed is absurd in its arrogance and not reasonable or for the good of the club in the long run.

Recent actions of the classification committee suggest that no "production" cars between 1925-1948 need apply for classic status, they will be rejected catagorically. Indeed, I can hardly think of a production car that has been added since the Cad 62.

To me, times change and clubs need to change with it. While it may have made sense to exclude the Lincoln Zephyr (for example) 50 years ago, I don't think it is appropriate today. While many Zephyrs were built initially, few are left today and the idea that their acceptance today will dilute the club seems absurd. Yes, I know the Zephyr is in no way comparable to the Lincoln K's or many other classics that you care to list, but it is still a very fine and unusual automobile with historically significant styling and engineering. And there are very, very few of them around today.

By the way, if it is true that the CCCA will not elevate any production cars to full classic status, they should so state, so that those preparing applications may be spared the effort.

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

Post deleted by Shawn Miller

Pete:

I have read Jon Lee's thesis very carefully and I disagree with it. He makes a very thorough production quantity analysis to conclude that the number of "borderline Classics" initially produced is enormously large compared to the classics that are now on the list, and therefore the borderline classics would overwhelm the club with eligible cars. I don't dispute his numbers, but initial production has little to do with the numbers surviving today. For the borderline classics I am usually talking about, like Zephrys, Graham Hollywoods, Buick model 80's, Auburn 6's, etc, there are not very many around.

Yes, admission of some borderline cars (like the Cad 62) did significantly increase the numbers of cars and members eligible and it was probably good for the club. But most of the cars I have heard proposed will have less effect that the Cad 62 and will not dominate the club and dilute the major senior Packard, Pierce Arrow and Duesenberg marques we all enjoy.

Hey, I thought you were banned!

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

Buicksplus: The Lincoln Zephr should be admitted by the CCCA as a classic. Please be serious. While a nice looking car they had all thesame mechanicle grudeness that the came with the rest of the Fords back then. I think the same can be said for the Lincoln Continentals of the same period.

Pete has been banned but refuses to go away. I therefore have to constantly monitor the forum for his anonymous posts. If you respond to his post your responses will end up getting deleted as well, due to the way the system is set up. please just ignore them. I will get to it fairly soon as i monitor the forum regularly.

Thanks

Shawn

Packard 53:

Yes, I am serious. The idea that the Zephyr is just a Ford is simply not true. The early ones cost a lot more than a Ford, a bit more than an Auburn 8, and they only produced about 20K (or less) Zephyrs per year.

Now I will hear the the Auburn was too cheap and shouldn't be in the CCCA. Please give me a break, the criteria is fine and unusual, not expensive and gargantuan!

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

With regard to the vote, I vote yea as a dues-paying AACA & LZOC member.

With regard to the Zephyr (and notice I'm a LZOC member), the fact is FOMOCO deliberately positioned it between the Ford and the senior Lincolns. And in the last LZOC newsletter, even the editor referred to the Zephyr's engine as the "last and the least" of the V12+ engines of the era. But all that aside, the Zephyr is a terrific example of how desirability (and prices)don't always *have* to line up with inclusion in the CCCA. If keeping Zephyrs out of the CCCA keeps a 3-window coupe within my budget, I'm all for it

Should Auburns be in? Continentals? Geez, if you think the CCCA has it rough, take a look at the Mustang Club of America which has to accept Mustang IIs!

Any car that had 20 thousand examples built in a single year in the 1920's or 30's is considered "mass produced" in my book. Mass produced cars are not what the CCCA is about. Do you think 20 thousand cars in one year is limited production? I don't.

Stutznutz:

According to my books, Packard produced 28,000 cars in 1930, everyone of them today is a full classic. Cadillac also produced over 20,000 classics in 1930. Production fell off considerably after that due to the depression, but it was generally more than 10,000 cars per year.

A production quantity of 20,000 cars in a year spread around this country is still a very low production quantity. The high production cars (Fords and Chevies) usually produced from 500 to 750 thousand units each, Buicks and Oldsmobiles ran around 250,000 units each per year.

I agree that many classics are from series with very limited production, but not all of them!

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

OK Mondays over and seems nearly unanimous that we will loosen things up a bit here on the general forum. So doing things like discussing the Lincoln Zepher is no longer taboo. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

I don't know much about Zephers and cant comment on whether they should or shouldnt be full classics. I think they may have been nominated before and for whatever reason were rejected. Personally I think our list of approved cars is fine. There are some european marques that may have been glossed over, but I think most of them are listed as please apply, which opens the door for them. I would think that the founding fathers were pretty well versed on american iron, and chose for some reason(s) not to include the Zepher.

It is good for the club to have these little discussions.

Shawn