How does the CCCA evaluate candidates for inclusion?

I must admit, I have never figured out why CCCA does not accept 80 series Buicks, but unless they have custom coachwork, they are not currently on the ?Accepted? list. Maybe your application could change this. I?m sure my friend, Jon Lee, who is Classifications Chairman will comment. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Full instructions can be found in your CCCA Member?s Handbook & Roster under ?Instructions For Applications Considered.? Assuming that you are a CCCA member, you can contact Toni at Headquarters and ask her to send you the proper forms to apply for your car. You must be a member in good standing to apply, and you must own the car in question.

You should fill the forms out; include any pertinent information, including copies of sales brochures, FOB price, engine and chassis numbers, period articles, or anything else that you feel is appropriate that helps make your case. Indications of custom coachwork are very important, and should be a large part of your presentation if applicable. You must also send good quality pictures of the car in question, which will not be returned. (They are kept on file for future reference).

This package should be returned to Headquarters, who will send copies to the various members of the Classifications Committee. The Committee meets several times per year at Club Headquarters to consider the various applications. This is not usually a quick process. They may even ask you for more information or documentation. I hope that information helps.

Hello Jim,

Chuck's reply on the Mechanics of Application is spot-on. I might add a couple more points to consider. The Classification Committee has stated its intention to review all properly submitted applications. The 80 Series Buicks from 1936 through 1939 were considered within the past couple of years, and there was enough interest in the Series that a comment on the declining of the application was published. Usually the declined applications are not noted in print. The 81F (I owned one some years ago for a short time, and can attest to its luxurious interior trim) is a catalogued production model. Club policy is "To accept only those production Series in which the entire line of body styles may qualify." No individual body styles from within a production series will be accepted. What this means is that your 81F would have to be considered as part of the entire Roadmaster model line.

The main reason that the 80 was not accepted was the manner in which GM merchandised its cars. The GM price structure was carefully planned as to be able to market the products to a specific market. Buick was priced intentionally below the comparable Cadillac model. Your 81F had a base price of $1759 while the 38-65 Cadillac Imperial Sedan was priced at $2360. This is a 30% price differential for a car that was very close to being the same design.

I guess the important point is that no matter where one draws a line, there will always be something right next to it.

Thanks for asking a well-thought out question about a most interesting car. I hope the answer is adequate.

Jon Lee, Chairman,

Classification Committee

Jon and Chuck,

Thank you for your quick and informative response to my question about the Buick 81F. I will do a bit more research along the lines you both have suggested. In your reference to the Cadillac Model 65 Imperial Sedan that was included by CCCA, did you mean that ALL Cadillac Model 65's are included? The 1938 Cadillac Model 6519 is a four door sedan and only the Model 6519F is called the Imperial Sedan because of its formal limousine interior, like the Buick Model 81F.

Perhaps it is unfortunate that Club policy is "To accept only those production Series in which the entire line of body styles may qualify." To my mind, it makes more sense to include the Cadillac Model 6519F Imperial Sedan and the Buick Model 81F Roadmaster Formal Sedan and exclude the other Cadillac Model 65's and Buick Model 80's.

If GM's marketing and positioning are important to the classification process, I would think that these two formal sedans deserve consideration for being targeted primarily to an exclusive class of private individuals. Marketing of the larger limousines included the livery trade, hotels and funeral homes, which to my mind does not make them as distinctive as the exclusive private individual niche that were the customers for these formal sedans from both Cadillac and Buick.

Perhaps with further research, I may be able to make a new application for the Buick Model 81F to the CCCA for their review and reconsideration.

Gentlemen, thank you again for your comments. Any further guidance you may have will also be sincerely appreciated.

Best regards,

Jim Flack

Jim,

Yes all the Cadillac 65 Series are listed as Full Classic, in line with the established Club policy. The principle of accepting by Chassis (Series) is fundamental in many cases where the manufacturer built only the Chassis. This would include such makes as Duesenberg, Stutz (some years) and Locomobile (Some years) in the U.S. and a great many foreign makes. Other companies offered their chassis to outside coachbuilders. The custom coachwork was sometimes not the most lovely, however the chassis was the actual product of the manufacturer. Conversely, there are some beautiful factory built styles on very plebian chassis that, in the catalogue, accompany the more plain-jane styles. Attempting to insert subjective preference into the determination of Full Classic status could make the entire process even more complicated than it already is. Consequently the Chassis (Series) has been the base-line for Full Classic acceptance.

I would not disagree with your assesment of the traditional buyer of the larger limousine vs. the smaller, owner-driver style such as yours. While institutional purchasers were a significant part of the Buick 90 and Cadillac 75 (and up) models, they were certainly not the market to which GM was marketting the cars. When you look at the ads for the Buick 80 and 90, the venue of the ads and the people in them are usually of markedly different age and perceived social standing, i.e. the 80 series customer is younger and the ad is likely to stress a more sporting attitude than the ad for the 90 Series cars. GM advertising and marketting was remarkable in its clarity and forethought. Alfred P Sloan had a very clear idea of covering the entire market from bottom to top.

Having said all that, I'd be delighted to see any new information that you might be able to put together on the Buick Roadmaster.

Jon Lee

I find the discussion regarding the Buick Roadmaster series most interesting. I have viewed the report on the 1936 thru 1939 Roadmasters done by the Classification Committee and their reasons why the Roadmaster was denied full classic status. Some points (mostly about cost)were well made, but I do not understand why the report did not include the 1940 and 1941 Roadmaster cars as well. The 1940 Limited 80 series in all respects was a 1939 Roadmaster with a facelift, even used the same series number. The "new" Roadmaster in 1940 became the series 70, these used the new 'torpedo' "c" body shell. As far as I know the chrome trim for the 1940 (41 too?) Buick is the same for all series (grilles,parking lights ,headlamp rims etc except the side pulls to open the hood which had the model name) the engine in the Roadmaster in 1940/41 was the same as the full classic 90 series (and 80 series) Limited, and as far as I know at least on the open Roadmasters the body is the same as the full classic Cadillac. More full classic "bits" then not. Despite the price, the 1936 thru 1941 Roadmasters need reconsideration even if this was only done a few years ago. I can well understand the caution the Classfication Committee wants to take in recognizing any series of cars as Full Classics, they have a great responsibility, and have done a WONDERFUL job so far. It is indeed not an easy one. There was a great flurry of comment when the model 62 Cadillacs were deemed full classic status, many thinking this should not have been done. I was not one of these, the addition of these cars has not diminished the CCCA's integrity in any way.

Friends:

I commented long ago that it made no sense to admit the 1940 series 80 "Limited" while not admitting the practically identical 1936-39 series 80 "Roadmaster".

How did this happen? Well the 1940 series 80 was admitted a long time ago, and it had the same series name (Limited) as the previously admitted 90 series Limited for earlier years. No one seemed to have any problem with it.

More recently, when application was made for the 36-39 80 series (called a Roadmaster) it was soundly rejected as being waaaay too cheap a car for full classic status. Why the difference? The more recent application was made after all the concerns raised by a few vocal club members about diluting the club with more "mid priced" cars like the Cad 62.

Running a classification committee is no easy job. But I still don't understand why the club does not admit all the 80 series Buicks. The CCCA is not going to see the huge dilution feared, there are simply not many 80 series Buicks out there, I am sure there are far less than there are 62 Cadillacs, though I do not have any figures before me. I know that I have been in the BCA for years and see very few 80 series at BCA shows and events -- the few that appear are usually the very rare and impressive convertible sedans and the subject formal sedan.

Bill

NM

There are a couple of abstracts that are pertinent to this discussion. First, is a quote from Henry David Thoreau: "Things don't change; we change." Secondly, and a bit more plebian, is the fact that no matter where one draws a line, there will be something next to it.

Now back to our program. The 1940 and newer Roadmaster 70 Series cars are an entirely different design from the earlier 80 series cars. Although there are great similarites between the 70 series Buick and the 62 series Cadillacs, do we not run the risk of "climbing down the ladder" with each succesive model that is "Nearly the same as..." or "Just as good as..."? If one were to follow a comparative method of classifying cars to its ultimate but ridiculous conclusion, the end result is the inclusion of the 2 cylinder Crosley; after all the hood ornament does say "a fine car". Certainly I'm being facetious, but you get the point, I'm sure.

The 80 Series Buicks are not quite so easy to dismiss. In the case of the 1940 80 Limited, I have a very tough time justifying a model that I was not in favor of accepting, for the exact reasons I have noted in the previous paragraph. With the exception of the nose and the name, it's nearly a carbon copy of the 1938 80 Roadmaster. A good friend with a 40-80 Limited states that the interior trim on the 1940 models is the same as the 90 Series cars, however as noted by the originator of this thread, his 1938 81F uses 90 Series interior material. If we accept the '36-'39 Roadmaster on the basis of the acceptance of the '40 80 Limited, then are we not compounding an error of sorts? The Committee looks at each series or model on its own merits and while there are always comparisons to other models, the cars under consideration must be able to stand on their own. Now I'll jump right into the dreaded "comparisons".

Original cost and production figures play an important role in the acceptance of any series as Full Classic. Both aspects directly relate to how and to whom the car was marketed when it was new. In the case of the 1936-1939 80 Roadmaster, there were no currently accepted Full Classic priced lower than the Roadmaster with the single exception of the 1936 Auburn. The Auburn 8 cylinder cars were, until the acceptance of the 62 Series Cadillac, the tradional low-end "Whipping Boy" of the CCCA. The next higher priced Classics, depending on the year, were the 90 Series Buicks or 60S Cadillac. The prices were 25 to 40% higher than the Roadmaster. Production for the four year period was 46,929 Roadmasters. No classic model during this period even came close. The next in line is the "Volume Classic Producer", Packard 8 and Super 8 with 16,206 for the same time period. To help put the Roadmaster figure in perspective, consider this: The total production from 1925 through the respective end of production for Duesenberg, American built Rolls-Royce, Cord and Stutz was 24,498 units. In the four year period, 1936 - 1939, Buick built nearly double the number of one Series as did four well-known Classic makes in their entirity. This does not intimate that the Roadmaster was a poor car; in fact the opposite is the case. They were excellent cars that were well built and superior value to others within and without the GM group.

This is an interesting discussion and I hope to hear more of this sort of exchange.

Jon Lee

What about 1931 to 33 model 80? I have never seen a discussion about this model. As an example 32-87 and 32-97 differs as follows:

32-97 has rear corner lamps

32-97 has 8" longer wheelbase

32-97 has covered springs

32-97 cost $1805 and 32-87 $1570

7988 model 32-90 was produced and 5889 model 32-80

Both models had same interior and drivetrain

Not great differences but perhaps enough to not include the 32-80. Perhaps there are similar differences between the 36-39 model 80 and the Limited?

Jan

Jim Flack makes sound, long-overdue points regarding his Buick, especially since the 1938-39 80-Series Roadmaster became the 1940 80-Series Limited. This is a fine case where the spirit should trump the letter of the law. Regardless of original price, these Buicks had a certain cachet, and given their performance edge, often eclipsed their Clark Avenue stablemates with wealthy customers for the same reasons many English preferred a Bentley over a Rolls-Royce. Jim's comments on the original market for his car are correct. Most of the CCCA-approved Limiteds were in less august fleet and hire car service.

In 1938-39, a senior Buick was as fast as anything off a new car showroom, discounting the last 18 '38 Pierce-Arrows with standard R-1 Warner overdrive and a handful of 134" wb Packard Twelves with the rarely ordered 4.06:1 axle. The '38 Buick Harris polled as most beautiful US car that year, and Jim's "banker's hot rod," as such barouches were often called, shares the aforementioned interior, etc. with the Cadillac. So perhaps it's time for the CCCA to accept what was called then, a "fine car," regardless of Flint orgins.

Sadly, we've noticed the CCCA increasingly focusing on minutiae like "correct" hose clamps and fawning over Vietnamese and Mexican bias ply tires while overlooking the big picture: elan, performance, overall historical perspective.

Meanwhile, if [color:\\"black\\"] you look in the Fisher Body Manual, you'll see that the CCCA-beloved yet down-market ($1,645 FOB, well below Jim's Buick) '41 Cadillac Series 62 convertible coupe shares every piece of sheet metal with the Pontiac, so a little historical perspective comes in handy.

According to the Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1805-1942, the 1938 Buick Series 81F was $1,759. The 1938 Cadillac Series 60 5-p sedan (model 38-6119) was $1,775. The latter is not considered a Full Classic by the CCCA. If we assume that cars of a given price were about the same level of quality, and the aforementioned Cadillac is not accepted by the CCCA, then is would seem reasonable the Series 80 Buick isn't either.

Jim Raymond

Ft. Worth, TX