What is a Classic Car?

Mark,

The wiki post you quoted is mistated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_car

Here is what it says:

<span style="color: #FF0000">Classic Car Club of America

The Classic Car Club of America (CCCA) claims to have invented the term classic car and thus it believes that the true definition of the term is its. According to the CCCA:

A CCCA Classic is a fine or distinctive automobile, either American or foreign built, produced between 1925 and 1948. Generally, a Classic was high-priced when new and was built in limited quantities. Other factors, including engine displacement, custom coachwork and luxury accessories, such as power brakes, power clutch, and "one-shot" or automatic lubrication systems, help determine whether a car is considered to be a Classic.[citation needed]

The Club keeps an exhaustive list of the vehicles it considers classics, and while any member may petition for a vehicle to join the list, such applications are carefully scrutinized and rarely is a new vehicle type admitted.[citation needed]

This rather exclusive definition of a classic car is not universally followed, however, and this is acknowledged by the CCCA: while it still maintains the true definition of "classic car" is its, it generally uses terms such as CCCA Classic or the trademarked Full Classic to avoid confusion.

[edit] United States legal definition

Legally, most states have time-based rules for the definition of "classic" for purposes such as antique vehicle registration; for example, Pennsylvania defines it as "A motor vehicle, but not a reproduction thereof, manufactured at least 15 years prior to the current year which has been maintained in or restored to a condition which is substantially in conformity with manufacturer specifications and appearance."

Antique Automobile Club of America

The Antique Automobile Club of America defines an antique car as 25 years old or older.

</span>

Unfortunately the line <span style="color: #FF0000">"A 1928 Ford Model A which may be considered a classic car by the CCCA."</span> is part of a image caption on the page you refer to. It's not accurate.

Peter

Nope, CCCA does not recognize Model A Fords as CCCA Classics. That doesn't mean we don't like and admire them. Over the years, I've owned three of them as well as a number of CCCA Classics. It’s just that they don’t fit the definition as expressed by the Club.

Model A’s were inexpensive cars built in large quantities. Ford did a great job of delivering a lot of style and design in a vehicle that most people could afford. Most CCCA Classics are quite the opposite. They were usually quite expensive, built in low numbers and frequently were delivered with custom coachwork.

Be careful with Wikipedia. It has its place, but there is a lot of incorrect information on it. If you ever want to rewrite history, Wikipedia is the place to do it...

Maybe. There are lots of popular definitions of a classic car. Keep in mind that you are on the CCCA Discussion Forum, and here we should discuss what the CCCA defines as "Full Classic."

Chuck,

Perhaps you should re-read the first paragraph in my last post. There is no arguement here...

I think I will just stick to the other forums and let you guys remain within the world of the CCCA.

Chuck,

I agree completely about Wikipedia, but I'd argue that are Classic Fords (at least from the chassis down) in the 1934-36 Heart-Front Brewster Town Cars & Convertible Sedans built on Henry's workaday V-8 chassis, lengthened.

1934 Brewster Town Car from Coachbuilt.com

They're not Model A's as Mark spoke of above, but deep-down are still Fords, and are recognized by the CCCA. For whatever reason, folks on both sides of the discussion get very touchy (understandably) about the whole Classic thing. Personally, I've never referred to any cars as Classics unless they're on the AACA list, but it's <span style="font-weight: bold">way</span> too late in the game to change other's minds. I know, I've tried and failed.

Guess we have to grin and bear it and, as much as it may distress those who know better, accept "classic car" as part of the lexicon, like kleenex and xerox. I'm sure those companies are none too happy about that, either.

It's as much a pity as it is a fact, but no one wants to run anybody off for some perceived haughtiness, deserved or not, right?

TG

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TG57Roadmaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guess we have to grin and bear it and, as much as it may distress those who know better, accept "classic car" as part of the lexicon, like kleenex and xerox. I'm sure those companies are none too happy about that, either.

TG </div></div>

Are you kidding? Any company would kill to become the default name of a generic product. You can't buy that kind of marketing.

I don't have any problems with defining specific cars as Classics. It's their club, they can do what they want. We don't expect our Buicks to be defined as Fords in the Ford Club of America, right?

Imprecision in the language really bugs me, though. I'm so sick of modified, hot-rodded old cars advertised as having "frame off restorations." I don't think that word means what they think it means...

Matt,

I wasn't inferring that people are calling Buicks Fords, and I disagree that not all companies are eager to have their trademarks infringed upon.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Two famous examples are Kleenex® and Xerox®. Although these two trademarks started out as very distinctive (because they were arbitrarily chosen and fanciful names), over the years many people would refer to just any paper tissue as a Kleenex or call every copying machine a Xeroxing machine (in English, many people still say "I'm gonna xerox this document" when they mean "I'm going to make a photocopy of this document"). To prevent the loss of their trademark rights, the respective trademark holders now actively approach people and ask them to use the generic names "paper tissue" and "copying"/"copying machine" instead.

</div></div>

The above is quoted from http://www.iusmentis.com/trademarks/crashcourse/limitations/

I read somewhere that lawsuits have been brought by Kleenex & Xerox thru the years to protect their rights.

I think the CCCA has every right to protect theirs and to educate the public as to what it means, but my point is that it's a noble but fairly fruitless task.

Reminds me of a friend who started a collector car lot in Orlando back in the '80's. He spoke of the tire-kicker who came in one day to ogle the merchandise. Looking at a nice example he said, "Yeah, my Daddy used to have one just like that, but it was yellow and it was a Ford."

Sadly, my friend's dream dealership didn't make it, and about nine months later he went back to his day job.

I agree with your ire for mis-stated "frame-off restorations." My personal faves are all the "unmolested, original survivor" cars out there with new paint, chrome, upholstery (invariably incorrect), headliners, carpet, etc.

What the <span style="font-style: italic">bloody heck</span> are they thinking?

TG

Wow, that's exactly the opposite of what I would have thought. I guess companies have to protect their copyright and trademark rights, but to have your name become a common term for products like yours, I'd think that would be gold. Strange how the legal world works, eh?

I doubt that Kleenex or Xerox filed suits. Who did they sue??? I caannot recall any manufacurer using those terms for their product. It is the general public that has made many of these terms generic. You can't sue me because I choose to call all tissues, "Kleenex."

It's not generally a good thing for your trademark to be generic - knock-off competitors hitch onto (and maybe mess up) your advertising and reputation. If you do not contest infringement, you lose the trademark. Companies try to get the consumers to not understand the generic name but only their trademark.

So when you go to the hardware store and ask for something like Nylon, Plexiglas, Lexan, Teflon you are asking for trademarked brands. (I think Nylon may have been allowed to go common domain by now)

There a number of old auto ones - Buick was sent a letter from Packard's lawyers when they copied the radiator shape. Names like Seville and Javelin were in use by multiple companies before it was straightened out.

Here we go round again and.This is what happens when someone tries to make a one rule cover every situation.Remember some cars are Full Classics because of their Chassis and Body,McFarland,Cunningham,and Locomobile for example provided almost all their own Coachwork and it was a good as any Custom Builder.Some Cars are Full Classsics because of their Chassis,for Example the Duesenberg J,Cadillac V-16,or the Rolls-Royce Phantom II whether in factory or Custom Coachwork.And Some cars are Full Classics because of the Custom Coachwork they carry.A 1936 Ford with Brewster or Cunningham Town Car body.A1936 LaSalle with an open Boatail Speedster body by Bohman and schwarz for "Doodles "Weaver.How a 1932 Plymuoth PB Chassis with a Custom Town Car Body By Brewster made especially for Mrs. Walter P. Chrysler. who wanted a petite Town Car in the European Style.And you cannot use American Standards for Judging what a Full Classic on European Cars,as their some small very expensives cars like the Alfa-Romeo,Bugatti, and Squires that would have to be left out.And by the Way a Model A Ford with Custom Coacwork by Glaser or other Meritorious Coach Builder does have the option to apply for membership on speial application.