Who Do You Make a Case to?

I did a Buick/Cadillac comparison test two weeks ago, and I will most certainly agree with you in that the Buick outclassed the Cadillac, except in styling, where I would give it a coin toss.

I'm not sure who is in charge of the nominating committee. It was Bob Joynt, but he resigned recently. I think it may be David Schultz. I'll see if I can find out for you.

Earl

David Schultz is, indeed, the chairman of the classification committee, but you first need to contact CCCA HQ and obtain an application for Classic status.

847-390-0443

E-mail: classiccarclub@aol.com

1645 Des Plaines River Road, Suite 7

Des Plaines IL 60018

Thanks West. You always come through, no matter what the question is. We sure landed a winner when AACA got you as our Editor. However, West, beauty is in the eye of the beholder as my dear old Mother used to say, and they don't call me the "Buickman" for nothing. Best regards, Earl Beauchamp

I meant that the styling of both cars is very good, perhaps giving a plus to the Buick in terms of the 1941 Grille.

West, so far nobody has responded to my email to that address. Maybe it's too soon. EDB

They will probably send you an application in the mail, if you gave them your mailing address.

West,

Mr. Schultz did send me an email, and told me I could find an application on the Web.

I'm not sure this is a good time to pursue the idea.

Earl

Given what just happened with the Town & Country, and the dust still hasn't all settled on that yet, you might be better off waiting a couple years.

Some other guy had a response here the last time I looked. I guess he must have withdrawn it? Doesn't matter. I haven't changed my mind. I'm just going to "let the sleeping dog lie", as my dear old Mother used to say.

On the other hand, I feel like the Buick Roadmaster would be a more likely candidate for classic status than the 6 cyl T & C. But if you do it, do it right and really put together a case for the car itself, not just a comparision to other cars already classics. The comparison is fine, but can't be the whole argument. It has to be where the car fits in the market, where it was advertized and how, price points, production costs, production numbers, who bought them, the features that they had, chassis, trim, interior, etc that sets them apart from the average production car.

Thanks for the input Dave. Some of that I can easily do; having been the first to write a definitive history of the 1931-1942 Buick Straight 8 (Antique Automobile, 1971). At that time three of the four leaders of Buick Motor Division during the time (Chayne, Hufstader and Ragsdale) and Hermann Brunn were still living and I personally corresponded with them by letter.

Some of your other points, however, such as production costs, I would have no idea of how to obtain.

As to who bought them? I don't know that either, really, except to say that the verbal history of my car is that the Bandleader, Ted Weems, had this car from new, and was in this car as he wrote his million seller song, "Heartaches". Now if I could prove that, it might be significant, but again there is no way.

When I wrote the case for the 1931-42 Buick 90 Series Limited some of what you suggest was not provided, such as production costs because I didn't know. I just know that the 1941 Buick had significant innovations incorporated into what would normally be considered a production car that set it apart from all other pre-War years and models of GM products, except for the Cadillac V-12 and V-16 cars and the custom bodied cars; or at least that is how it looks to me.

I've been in the hobby since I was 15 and I'm 71 now. I've read Bob Gottleib's columns as a kid, served on the AACA National Board for 15 years and been National President of AACA. So, I do sort of know my way around the hobby. But, at my age, I'm not sure I want to go on anymore "crusades". It sounds like it would be difficult and I'd be making waves. If it's that big of a problem I think I'll pass for now.

I thought for the sake of interest or fact I'd print the 1941 Buick Roadmaster Series 70 production figures. They built 312 Roadmaster conv sedans, 1845 conv coupes, 2784 coupes, and 10,431 sedans.This count doesn't include exports. There were 14 conv sedans, 24 conv coupes, and 50 coupes, and 122 sedans exported. These cars had dual 2-barrell carburetors with progressive linkage that were the pre-cursor of the 4-barrell carburetor, and a an early version of positive crankcase ventilation and ram-air injection. The engine developed 165 horsepower, top in the industry that year, and the car had grand style that included beautiful engine-turned dash panels. The 1941 Series 70 and 90 Buick's were certainly at the high point of GM Buick styling and power in the pre-war years, and really for years to come after WWII. Although I'm a lifelong 1939 fan, I've found when I had the two Series 90 cars and now once again how the 1941 big Buick can make my hair stand up on the back of my neck when I put my foot into the accelerator. Thanks for listening.

The fact that wealthy and famous people owned the cars does have some impact, so I would include that as far as you have it. I always wonder where people come up with the information when they say what the production costs were of cars like Packard 12s or Cad 16s, Pierce or Franklin 12s, or newer cars like Mark IIs or Eldorados. I suppose that it exists somewhere, but I haven't seen it, only heard it repeated. It would be interesting to see if it does exist. I suppose that even in the day it was buried deep in the automaker's interal accounting records and only the unit managers really knew for sure. Your age and experience with the cars would give you an edge with those reading the application. I am no longer on the committee, so what I say is just what I know from the 12 years that I was on it, but those applications that talked about the real merits of the series rather than just saying that they were better than other cars already classics usually carried more weight. For me, performance is certainly a factor and I appreciate my 41 Packards with 160 hp, and 165 with the high compression heads, so the Buicks should impress too.

Dave, When I did the 1971 Buick article, I do not remember coming up with the Packard high compression head information in my research. I am pretty sure, without going back and reading, that I wrote that the 1941 Buick had the highest horsepower in the industry that year. I bow to your better knowledge that there was a tie.

Well, it's off to California very early tomorrow morning for the AACA National Meet in LaQuinta, California. As this is my last year on the AACA National Board, having served 15 straight years through five elections, my wife and I decided to do ALL of the AACA National Meets this year. We also did the Founders Tour out of Midland, TX. It's been a great ride. Doing this was also part of our 50th Wedding Anniversary year.

The man who was supposed to bring me a CCCA membership application on Monday hasn't been heard from, so I've done nothing yet about that. Here in south central Florida there is very little old car activity, other than street rods which I detest. So, I have joined a couple of more clubs, hoping to have more reason to get out and go with my old cars like I did when I lived in Maryland and Virginia.

To Dave Mitchell and K8096, thanks for your inputs. They are very much appreciated.

Wow, you are really having a busy year, but it sounds like fun. That is a long time to commit to being on a volunteer board - it is great to have guys like you who do that. If you come to Moline someday stop by and see me and we will get out some Packards, a Cad and maybe even a Buick. If you send me your address at packard12s@hotmail.com, I will make sure you get a CCCA application in the mail. It would be great to have you back in the club.

Thanks Dave. I sent you an email letter to your email address.

The CCCA Classification committee can always change its direction, but if it is like it has been for the last few years, you are wasting your time trying to classify the model 71 Roadmaster Phaeton.

Some time back an application was made to add all the Series 80 Buicks, 1932-1939-- based partly on the fact that the 1940 Series 80 Limited is so classified. It was rejected.

CCCA doesn't classify individual models, such as a Phaeton, within a series for a production car. Which means if they admit the 41 Roadmaster Phaeton, they would also admit all 41 Roadmasters -- including more mundane sedans and coupes. This is very unlikely to happen.

Saying that a particular model is better than the Cad 62 doesn't fly because CCCA generally believes that classifying the Cad 62 was an error that will not be repeated.

But times and leadership changes, who knows. The TorC was a surprise to me. Maybe a Buick Roadmaster might fly this time.

Bill, NM

Buickplus, I haven't made up my mind if or how I'd like to approach the subject, with the emphasis on "if". I did go ahead and rejoin CCCA after many years of inactivity with that Club. Since I am 71 years old, I go back to the days of the late Motor Trend columnist Robert Gottlieb, when he said no Buick was a Classic. Nonetheless, he and I became corresponding friends in the 1970s. As a matter of fact, I called his home when I became President of AACA; but sadly he had rcently passed away. Yes, they said "it can't be done", but thirty years ago I was successful in getting the Buick Series 90 to Full Classic status in both Clubs. By the way, I didn't try to go for too much at the time, and therefore did not include the Series 80 in my thesis. To this date, the 1940 Buick Series 80 is still not included in the AACA Class 19, nor shouild it be without all of the Series 80 being included as well. There was no difference in the 1940 car except the nameplate.

There is little doubt in my mind that the Series 70 and 80 Buicks built from 1931 through 1942 were among the finest automobiles built in America, or elsewhere at the time. The names did not become part of the Buick nomenclature until 1936, so the Roadmaster name does not apply to all of the cars in question. And the Series 70 Buick did not appear until 1940 when the company wanted to produce a more "modern" looking car. Because there were no Series 90 open cars from 1936 forward, except for possibly some custom body such as a 1941 Limited by Brunn, then the Series 80, and later the Series 70 were the top dogs for those who found the need for an open car, and who agreed that "when better cars were built, Buick would build them." Yes, and advertising man's cliche, but a lot of people thought it was correct. These cars were purchased by wealthy people by choice, people who could have purchased more acclaimed, more costly vehicles; often famous people. Of those Buicks, the 1941 Series 70 and 90 were the top of the Class because of engineering that was advanced to the industry if nothing else. It's not important whether or not the engineering was perfect at the time; what is important in the history of the automobile is the fact that this engineering pre-dated and was the forerunner of more refined versions of the engineering that did not appear until the 1950's or 1960's.

What is and what will be are not ever necessarily the same, and past is not always prolog. Nothing beats a trial but a failure. These are old tried and true cliches for sure. Does that mean it is so important to me that I will write another thesis on the subject for an application? No, not necessarily, and probably not at all; certainly if I had to do it today. I've been out front in the hobby in the areas of car classification and acceptance in various areas of acclaim for over 40 years. In the vast majority of areas that recognize the greatness of the cars of the 1930s and 1940s, the hobby is finally where I think it needs to be, and where it needed to be 40 years ago. I go off of the AACA National Board in less than three months, after 15 years of service. I'm really not looking to fight for anything anymore at my age, and that includes another area of acclaim for these Buicks.

It appears obvious to me that an effort for additional acclaim for the Series 70 and 80 Buick would be difficult, and as you said, and I believe also, to do so here for 1941 only would be impossible. Nothing is forever, but for now I lean toward just "letting the sleeping dog lie." If I detected some wave of support, I could always prepare the case. The way I see things, the case is easy to make, but I might add, that doesn't necessarily mean others would agree with me. At this moment I do not anticipate that wave of supporters is going to come. After all these years, I need a rest.

here's the "bottom line". Times are changing. Language changes. The folks who ran the Classic Car Club Of America in its earlier days are dying off or becoming inactive.

In the 1960's, when the Club put out its "Club Policy Surveys", yes - 99.9% of the membership were very clear they didn't want "dillution". But that was when the membership numbered about 2,000.

The answer to those who wanted more cars called "classics" was obvious - get more members. That has been done. The Club membership is, and has been for some years, approaching 6,000. Most of these newer members couldn't care less what is left of the "old gang" wants or believes.

In the meantime, people in the used car business, and car buffs with cars that did not conform to the Club's membership original understanding of what a "classic" is, have worked VERY hard down thru the years to change the public's perception of what a "classic" car is.

Those of you who still dont know what today's "classics" are, really owe it to yourselves to get up-to-date. There are so many auto-related publications out there that will explain it to you. I have on my desk three current-issue publicatons - HEMMINGS MOTOR NEWS, OLD CARS WEEKLY & Auto Trader Classic's publication CLASSIC CARS.

It is getting harder and harder to find ANY car, pick-up truck, farm tractor, food, service, or product that is not a "classic". Everybody LIKES the word "classic-antique". People feel VERY strongly about this. You go try and tell someone their boat, camper, pick-up truck, plumbing supply house, or any other device, is NOT a "classic", and you are not going to make friends.

My recommendation is you should enjoy the old car movement, join all the clubs you can, participate, and have fun. The "old gang" in the Classic Car Club Of America is suffering the fate of time.

At a recent Classic Car Club regiional event I attended, there were about 18 cars showing up. 17 of them were 1941 Cadillacs, NONE of which would have been "accepted" 30 years ago. Relax, and be patient.

Dynaflash:

I was in the CCCA for 25 years or so, mainly because I had a Buick 90. Thank you for your efforts classifying the 90 30 years ago.

I went to a few CCCA events and never detected much sentiment that the Buick 90's were not "Classic" enough for the CCCA. There was not much reason for anyone to complain. The 90's are very rare and shared many components with long wheelbase Cadillac Classics and they fit right in. I never saw too many at CCCA events, but there were quite a few 90's listed in the club roster.

There have also been custom bodied Buicks of all series classified too, I have seen some of them at events here and there.

Those big Buick Phaetons of the late 30's are fabulous cars, they are really more impressive and as rare as the 90 series limos and sedans. But they will never be classified. I don't think CCCA has classified a single production car since the Model 62 Cadillac, save a few obscure makes with very limited production -- and the recent classification of the T or C.

If the Buick Roadmaster phaeton had a special name (like Continental or T or C) it might have been classified, but Buick didn't do that. Such are the oddities of the CCCA classification system