The AACA uses Classic Car Club of America designations for pre-WWII
vehicles. When we talk about post -WWII the designation is Prestige Vehicles
and are shown in Class 29. The Crown Imperial is shown in that class. My
1956 doesn't qualify for class 29 but my 1965 convertible, when completed ,
does. I consider both to be classy vehicles.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hugh & Therese <hugtrees@xxxxxxxx>
To: Imperial Mailing List <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 1:56 AM
Subject: IML: Classics & Imperials
> Hmm, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then some folks need to
visit
> their optician. If 59's are soooo good why do there owners always want to
> "improve" them. Pinnacle of the breed, indeed.
>
> (The above is intended as a humorous retort. A joke, in other words.
> Sigh.)
>
> But, here's a thing. I don't think there are ANY Imperials on the Classic
> Car Club Of America's semi-official list of cars that can truly be
described
> as design classics. Maybe one or two or the coach built one off cars from
> the 30's, but nothing else. From my preferred era I think a 300 C or
maybe
> the D makes their cut. Can anyone confirm or refute this?
>
> I caught the back end of a show on the History channel the other day about
> the GM motorama car series, the so-called "Dream Cars" episode. What
caught
> my attention was the interview with some of the actual GM designers, now
> elderly, of course, who were thought of as the young Turks within GM's
> design ranks at that time. They thought Harley Earl was past his best
work
> and that the designs coming out from Chrysler Corp were leaving them in
the
> dust. They may have sold better but both the 58 Cadillac and the 58
> Lincoln - an abomination designed by one Elwood Engel, it should be
noted -
> were poor designs in comparison to what Chrysler Corp was putting out.
The
> GM designers were wowed at the time by the Forward Look, particularly the
> incredibly thin roof lines and the fully design integrated fins.
>
> Behind Mr. Earl's back they began to create their own versions of the
> forward look. What is funny is that this was well known and understood at
> the time. The fins on the '57 Chevy were simply added on to the '56s, and
> the car sold badly as it was regarded at the time as a poor cut and paste
> job rather than a fresh design.
>
> Dan Wing submitted a fun reminder of this from the December 1958 issue of
> Road & Track. The magazine asks why Cadillac's by now glorified '59 -
which
> the "Dream Car" TV shows describes as the pinnacle of late 50s excess - is
> simply a knock off of the 58 Imperial. The similarities are there to be
> seen. I had the chance to scope one very recently and was very stuck by
the
> heavy handed duplication of many of the 58 Imperial design elements. Here
> is a link to the Road and Track item:
>
> http://www.58imperial.com/IMPCADDY
>
> Hugh
>
> PS. I had the joy, today, of seeing a lovely, virtually original 1957
> Chrysler Saratoga. Less than 60K since new, original paint and looking
> very, very nice. The owner has just joined our local club and was keen to
> see our two cars together. Along with a 1958 Plymouth "Christine" clone,
> which appeared last year, I am happy to report a growing interest in Exner
> era Mopars.
>
> On a more contentious note, I was asked to contact a local man who is
> working on a 1961 Imperial and who needs help finding parts, especially
for
> the brake system.. He has some plans for the coupe that make me wince a
> little, including chopping the roof line and making a "Hot Rod" out of it
in
> terms of appearance, while keeping the mechanicals intact. I have not
> called him yet. As I understand it, the car is a basket case, abandoned a
> long time ago. So, which is better? A parts car or a running but no
longer
> original car?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network