Around Scottsdale, far from the indoor Glamour Tents at Barrett-Jackson, sat many mostly original, unrestored Cadillacs hoping to find loving new homes. None of these were the low-production, high-profile, magazine cover cars exchanged between the super rich, some of which I profiled in my last article. A couple of the cars reached the 30’s, but for the most part these are cars obtainable by average hobbyists. The question is: do you like them enough to buy one? Most people probably don’t, but us Curbside Classic readers are an odd bunch and many of us are quick to embrace the unloved. 
First up is one of my favorites, a 1964 Coupe de Ville. If I was in the market, I would have bought this car in a heartbeat at the Barrett-Jackson sale price of $16,500. This one is not completely original, as at the very least it has been repainted. Apart from that, it has the look of an un-restored, original car. The owner claims the interior is original and the flawless cloth upholstery certainly looks authentic.
The roof is painted white. From what I can research, I don’t think the second color on the roof was an option originally. A padded roof was listed as a Coupe de Ville option, though those are not seen commonly. I could be wrong about the separate color, if someone knows, please let me know.
The 1976 Eldorado convertible has certainly been an item of discussion on these pages before. You either love them or hate them and someone loved this Bicentennial Edition one enough to pay $34,100 for it at Barrett-Jackson. That’s a pretty typical price for a nice, original example. Super low mile, perfect ones can go about 25% more. They are not uncommon at all, since they made about 14,000 ’76 drop-tops and were considered an instant “collectible” when GM announced at the beginning of the model year that 1976 would be the last one. Many people sealed them away and waited for their inevitable pay day, which never came as U.S. makers started selling convertibles again in the early ’80’s.
They may not have been the “last convertibles”, but they are still the last of their kind. The full sized, uncompromising, factory-built convertible was a popular choice for decades until air-conditioning, air pollution, social changes and the threat of government regulations made them a very small niche market. The ’84-’85 Eldorado Biarritz soft-top is a nice car, but it was an aftermarket conversion and it’s only available with the *%#@! HT4100 engine. The 1976 model stickered for $500 more than the coupe, while the 1984 convertible demanded an $7,600 premium over the base coupe with the Biarritz package.
I know lots of folks can’t stand these cars, however, I am on the other side of the divide. I’d really like to own one someday. To me, they are a throwback to at least the mid-60’s. Obviously, their big, open topped nature suggests an earlier period when this type of car was popular. In other ways as well, they are out of step with their broughamy times. The seats were nicely trimmed leather, with no crazy velours or pillow tops to be found. The hubcaps are sharp, painted discs, with no fake wire caps available. Cadillac made very nice bumpers, well-integrated with the styling despite regulations that other brands interpreted as requiring a railroad tie be grafted onto the ends. The only bumper concession was the vinyl fender endcaps that don’t hold up well. The full width dash has an open feel to it that was a nice alternative to the closed in, cockpit style popular in the ’70’s. Cadillac dropped the rear fender skirts after 1974, which I think made it look less like a pimpmobile. Styling taste is personal, but I like the extreme bladed fender look and runway-length hood. Power output was at malaise levels, but with 500c.i. of displacement (and fuel injection optional), it’s hard to say you don’t have adequate torque. Let’s just not talk about gas mileage.
So you like the styling of the Eldorado convertible, but would like something with a bit more brougham flair and affordability? Barrett-Jackson had you covered this year with not one, but four very lightly used Eldorado coupes. There was a white 1978 model which went for $5,170 and a similar looking ,but even cleaner, 500 c.i.d. 1975 model which you could have had for $8,250. The 1977 model shown at the top of the article was very sharp looking and has an Astroroof, which is a big deal with Cadillac collectors. It brought a getting-close-to-real-money $14,850. Sitting in the sumptuous, pillowy interior shown above just might make one feel it’s money well spent.
The ’77 Eldorado was sold as a companion to this 1978 Fleetwood Brougham. They were owned by a husband and wife. The Fleetwood is in my favorite color for ’70’s and ’80’s Caddys: yellow inside and out. It also has an Astroroof. It’s not quite as flawless as some of the others, but it still sold for $9,900.
The true star among the Lesser Cadillacs featured here is undoubtedly this 1978 Eldorado Biarritz. It has a special sunroof and paint package and all of 131 original miles. That’s 00131.x miles. Or 3.275 miles per year. Just driving onto the field and back and forth from the auction block added significantly to the mileage! If you doubt that these late 70’s brougham-mobiles are becoming collectible, the winning bid of $38,500 might change your mind. Wow.
This car has some appeal as the last year and model of Cadillac that was pre-downsizing and truly ostentatious. The phrase “they don’t make ’em like this any more” could have been invented for this car and was true even in 1980.
Cadillac sold 46,816 Eldorados for 1978, which made it the highest production for coupes during the ’71-’78 generation. However, they sold 117,750 Coupe de Villes. The CdV cost $2,000 less, weighed 800lb. less and had the same engine. It was more modern, handled better and had more interior space (albeit with a tranny hump). It’s amazing to me that they sold as many Eldorados as they did.
I apologize that this photo didn’t focus well, but I think it’s still worth showing. Brand new 1978 Uniroyal tires, not even dry rotted. I wouldn’t trust them on a road trip, but if you’re driving this car much more than 3.275 miles a year, you’re ruining it.
Back at Silver, they offered a 1985 Eldorado Biarritz, if that’s more your style. The ’79-’85 generation were big cars, but still weighed 1,100lb less than the ’78 model. As with the other Silver cars, I don’t know if this one sold.
There should be a law against putting blackwall tires on a Cadillac with wire wheel covers. Apart from that marring its appearance, it was actually a very nice car. I don’t remember the owner touting the mileage, but the paint looked original and you can assume most everything else cosmetic is as well, since these are not generally considered restoration-worthy. The interior is pretty pristine, with very nicely preserved leather. They sure maxed out the woodgrain square footage on these, which suits me fine. If you’re going with fake wood, go all in! Cadillac de-chromed the dashboard for 1984, which I’m not a fan of.
Most observers agree that Cadillac did a good job downsizing the Eldorado for this generation. They kept the essence of the car while trimming a lot of the fat. Like all Caddys of this era, the car was a victim of Cadillac’s wayward powertrain decisions in this era. 1979-81 are the years to have, with 1980 being the best because it is the only year with the old Cadillac engine before the undercooked cylinder deactivation system. And the engine that dare not speak its name is best left that way.
Most of the Eldorados that you see from this generation have vinyl tops and wire wheel covers. You should reserve your judgement of this car until you’ve seen one in a “clean” version.
I have a copy of this ad framed in my garage (along with a bunch of other makes and eras, don’t think I’m that crazy!). It is such a nice design in its essence, one of the best iterations of Bill Mitchell’s sheer look.
If you love the Eldorado, you will not necessarily love this: a 1985 Seville. The 1980-85 design is polarizing, not too many people are on the fence about it. I’m actually one of them. I don’t hate it. Cadillac has to get points for boldness. They could have gone with a safer design and probably should, but they still felt the need to make styling statements. Even as controversial as it is, remember it was copied by both Lincoln and Chrysler. They didn’t skimp on engineering either, as it shared its fuel injection, 4-wheel disc brakes and load leveling independent rear suspension with the Eldorado. Engines were the same as the Eldorado, so one would do best to find an ’80-81. Would you want one? Though I respect this car, I would rather have any of the other vehicles in this article.
This particular Seville is brougham’d to the teeth with Full Cabriolet Roof (fake convertible top), real wire wheels and a fake continental spare grafted onto its bustleback. It just needs Vogue tires to complete the look. I didn’t get a photo of the rear because I had to avert my gaze too much to allow for taking a picture. Apparently Russo and Steele felt the same way because there is no rear shot on its the website either.
It takes a special person to want to be the caretaker for this well preserved, smoothly rolling monument to questionable taste. Unsurprisingly, that person was not a bidder at Russo and Steele, where unlike at Barrett-Jackson, they allow reserves. A similar one at Barrett-Jackson, but with a steel roof (!) and without the gingerbread, sold for $6,600.
Say what you will about the outside, but a white interior with red dash and carpet is sharp. What ever happened to color?
If you like your Cadillacs small and blue, this 1988 Eldorado might interest you. It is super clean, with 58,000 mi. and no cosmetic flaws, selling for $5,170. It’s not literally clean with its nice coat of Scottsdale dust. Owners, or more often paid detailers, are constantly dusting cars off during the auction week. It’s pretty obvious after a day what sellers aren’t attending to this.
Here’s a few photos off the Barrett-Jackson’s website.
The last generation of downsized Eldorado sold very well, and even the Seville had solid sales. When GM decided in the dark days of the early ’80’s that it needed to drastically downsize its E/K bodies again, it probably seemed like a wise course. By the 1986 model year, gas was cheap, the economy was good, and Cadillac was selling 70% fewer Eldorados (52% fewer Sevilles). The hurt was on at Cadillac.
The ’86 Eldorado/Seville had a diminutive, generic front wheel drive look to it that was not well differentiated from some of the other GM lines. For 1988, Cadillac gave the Eldorado a mild facelift where it sprouted tiny front fender blades and cute little tail fins and slightly longer length. It actually seems to have helped, as sales almost doubled, though still less than half what they were moving in ’84 and ’85.
When these cars came out, I hated them. I’m sure I was not a typical teenager, but I loved the old style Caddy’s: tailfins, big engines and bold style, which these new age Cadillacs had none of. They were like nameless compact sedans with a few Cadillac cliches glued on.
Time has softened my opinion on these. As a functional car, they were vastly superior (reliability issues aside) and I kind of like the light, compact premium car vibe. I wouldn’t buy one as a collector car, but if I needed a used commuter car, I could dig it. My choice would be a Seville in two-tone.
The interior may not be a paragon of workmanship and superior materials, but it has a trim, welcoming look to it and they actually used real wood veneer.
For 1988, the V8 was enlarged to 4.5L and power increased to 155 hp. With only 3400lb to haul around, it could almost shake off the malaise. I understand Cadillac had worked out most of the issues with the engine by then.
Last but far, far from least is a 1992 Brougham. This is a particularly fine car with only 12,680 miles and looking brand new. It has the D’Elegance package, 5.7L V8/trailering package, real wire wheels and Astroroof. The $15,400 it took to buy it doesn’t seem unreasonable at all to me, as this appears to be one of the nicer examples of the last year boxy Brougham out there.
It should not be surprising at this point to hear that I really like this car. I’ve owned several B bodies, but never a C/D body. I’ve always wanted a ’90-’92 Brougham and maybe someday I will. If I had bought this car, I would replace the tacky add-on grille. I am not crazy about the vinyl lower body moldings or the composite headlights, but these are the only years after 1980, probably actually 1979, that this car had decent power at all.
One last luscious Brougham interior. This one has cloth seats, which is one thing that has certainly changed since 1992. How many luxury cars are available with cloth today? I don’t know, but it’s got to be really rare if there are any at all. It’s wild that Cadillac sold this generation for 16 model years without ever significantly changing the dash. I also like the 93-96 generation, but their interior doesn’t compare to these. The little details are cool, like the big, chrome-trimmed pedals and the trash can on the passenger kick panel. It’s time was up, though, and it would not have been very feasible to integrate airbags into this dash.
Other articles in my Scottsdale 2018 series:
Cadillacs-part 1 restored cars
Wagons, Independents and Freaks
I too love fleetwood broughams and cadillacs are my favorite luxury car. i have hit what i like to call my cadillac years, which means my BMW is a bit too harsh for daily driving(but exciting as all get out)i’m ready for a car that i can steer with one finger and no one does that better than a traditional cadillac.
Funny you should say that, Eddie. I have been a BMW guy forever and still love them, but about a year ago changed my daily driver from a 330i to a CTS4. I love the fun of rowing gears in the Bimmer but the Caddy is just more comfortable everyday. The Chief of Staff now drives the 330i so I am not totally signed off. 🙂
Now, about that last Brougham… Just weak at the knees. When I was a kid (I’m nearly 39) the old man across the street always had a new caddy, always a fleetwood and always white. As i recall his had blue interiors. But i always loved them and still do. I’d love to have one someday.
Look at that Cadillac, look at that
Look at that Cadillac, look at that
I’m gonna get me a Cadillac too
If it’s the last thing I do!
My choice would be the yellow ’78.
+1, even though I’m a Lincoln-Mercury man. To me, these were just great cars, and the only one that would cause me to ever purchase a non-FoMoCo product.
I wouldn’t think twice on that 1964.
The 92 Brougham is so close to my “dream” Caddy it’s not funny. The interior is the only thing I’d change. Give it the White over Blue interior and it’d be perfect!
Some great cars. However these days the usage of the term “tranny hump” conjures up something else entirely ?
Best laugh of the day – thanks!
Oops.
A couple of years ago my wife and I, since we were both retired, decided that it was time to purchase another convertible. We had owned a couple of convertible Mustangs and a Chrysler Sebring in the past and really enjoyed driving with the top down. What we hadn’t enjoyed was having to take a convertible out in all sorts of weather and then worry about when the top will start leaking again, etc.
My late father in law had owned numerous Cadillacs over the years and my wife and I had talked about finding one from the sixties to serve as a hobby car. A little looking on the List of Craig turned up a 1966 Convertible de Ville, in good but not show quality condition. A quick inspection revealed some rust at the bottom of the rear fenders but no rust on the frame and the car seemed to be in good mechanical condition, considering that it was 50 years old. It did need some minor work, some of which I could do (points/plugs/condenser/rebuild carb), some of which I could do but wouldn’t do (new brake shoes, I still have a scar on my palm from the last time I worked on drum brakes), and some of which needed a professional (new shocks & possibly new exhaust). I forgot how much the owner wanted but it seemed reasonable for the car and the condition. The deciding factor in our not purchasing the Cadillac was that it would not fit in our garage and I refuse to park any vehicle outside.
We did look at some other “collectable” convertibles before making our decision. After several months of looking and discussing we came to the conclusion that we could buy a new, or nearly new, Mustang for what one dealer wanted for a restored 1966 Mustang. There were various pros and cons but the bottom line was that any car we purchased was going to be my daily driver, even if I didn’t necessarily have to drive it every day. Call me a wuss but I decided that things like air conditioning, disc brakes, a good sound system and modern safety equipment were more important than a car from my youth. We purchased a (used) 2014 Mustang convertible from a local dealer and have been happy with the decision.
Interesting reasoning and decision you made. I have two convertibles in FL (I’m a snowbird and winter here), and a 2011 GMC Denali diesel truck. My truck is 240″ long, plus the hitch so it is bigger than any of these cars. It did fit in my garage, but barely and I have since added 8′ to my garage in a renovation. My only prerequisite for a convertible classic down here was A/C, and that can narrow the choices down. Disc brakes are preferable but generally not originally available on most cars until the late ’60’s. There are safety equipment compromises to be sure, but depending on how, where and how much you drive, these can be manageable. Remember, many of us lived through all these cars in the first place, somehow, and are here today so it wasn’t all bad.
Between the ’76 Eldorado convertible, the ’77 Mercedes 450SL and my truck, I suppose that the truck is used about 25% of the time, and the convertibles split the rest. I like driving these old things and the compromises in comparison to new cars don’t bother me much, though many of the conveniences of newer cars are hard to give up. While I don’t know what the future holds as to values of these cars, I can state that the future value of any new or late model car will be much lower than the purchase price, and it will stay that way for about 25 years, so there is a very explicit cost in that decision, whereas a significant loss on a reasonably purchased classic is unlikely.
It comes down to subjective preferences, and your decision makes perfect sense to me, given the reasons you assert. I’ve had numerous convertibles over many points through my life and they can be great fun. I also appreciate new cars and that is what I drive at home, and one of them is a new convertible. No classics there, yet. (well I sold my ’54 Travelall and ’54 International R-130) but no plans to add a classic back there. I’m sticking to newer vehicles at home.
The sale prices on these seem quite reasonable. Wonder why you never see these on the televised parts of the auction? Getting tired of seeing all of the six figure Road Runners and other muscle cars at Barrett-Jackson and Mecum. I think this market is due for a crash and the fools who overpaid will have a rude awakening.
These are used cars, basically. They aren’t a lot of fun to own. There aren’t very many people who would want to go to the trouble and expense of keeping them in good condition. There are a lot of people who would like to have a nice muscle car.
I still wonder if the E/Ks would’ve done better if they had appeared BEFORE the N-bodies they looked so much like.
The only new luxocar with cloth seats I can think of is the Tesla. It’s too bad their vegan kick didn’t lead to expanded color choices of cloth, even if they didn’t extend to so-maroon-its’-almost-purple.
The E/Ks were just ridiculously small looking IMO. There was no incentive to pay 50 percent more for a lookalike car that was barely bigger.. The Eldorado especially suffered from bland styling more than lookalike styling. It’s probably okay for an Olds or Buick to look like an Olds or Buick, but not a Cadillac.
Those prices are not that insane for the folks that BJ seems to attract. Those are like Craigslist prices!
My dad had a ’87 Sedan De Ville with the 4.1 and later a ’91 Seville with the 4.9 as I was growing up. The 4.9 would really motor.
The ’64 could well be a factory two tone, although it isn’t listed as an option in the brochure. On page 143 of the 1964 Cadillac information kit, it lists the available vinyl top, two-tone, and convertible top combinations. (Caution- it’s a big download). The car pictured looks like Palomino with a Aspen White Roof. Cadillac offered quite a bit of equipment by special order back then.
https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/docs/gm-heritage-archive/vehicle-information-kits/Cadillac/1964_Cadillac_VVI.pdf
I knew someone who drove a white over black two tone 64 Coupe deVille back when it was just a slightly used car. It looked stock.
The thing I don’t like about the Barret-Jackson auction is the greed. Someone sells a 1,000 hour restoration better-than-new muscle car for more than a nice house costs today and suddenly every idiot with cable thinks their 60s era beater surrounded by grass three feet high that hasn’t run since the Reagan era (Ran When Parked) is now worth five figures. It’s killing the affordable part of the hobby for guys like us.
So very, very true. I despise B-J precisely because of what it has done to the affordable market via the B-J syndrome.
It’s free market capitalism.
I bought a 37k original mile ’76 Eldo convertible a month ago at the Mecum auction in Kissimmee, Florida. It is red (Firethorn they call it) over white leather and in super condition, was in long term storage as part of a collection. I paid $23,000, which in the opinion of very learned folks with me was a good price for the car, though by no means a steal. I attended the auction with my eyes on a couple of mid ’60’s Imperial convertibles, but these went for far more than I or many others expected.
We spied the Eldo and my wife became instantly attracted to it. I had in mind a big Caddy (or other large American convertible) from the early to mid-60’s and the ’76 Caddy seemed a bit new to me. I had considered this series of Eldo’s before but dismissed buying one, though I always liked the basic style, if not the lower power output than earlier cars (the ’76 has an embarrassing specific power output but I will say the torque remains adequate). However, this particular car was just so solid and unmolested that i decided to take a run at it, and the red-over-white ticked the right box. I much prefer original, un-restored survivor cars to restorations or restomods, and this was rock solid. While these cars are indeed plentiful, the prices do seem to be creeping up. I did not want one with no or very low miles, but rather one like this, where I could drive it and not really have much impact on it;s value. This example fit the bill perfectly.
I bought it because I really am going to drive it, and my wife actually wants to do some long road trips – like cross country long. Four wheel disc brakes are a bonus under such use. The ’60’sversions almost all had 4 wheel drum, even the expensive Cadillac’s- this failure to adopt disc brakes is one of the most embarrassing examples of Detroit’s supplication to the bean counters during the 60’s and it was largely inexcusable.
Many of the Caddies featured here have style (not to everyone’s liking but style none the less) and they are still reasonably affordable- not the cheapest things out there, but generally attainable. They can easily be driven in effortlessly under any traffic condition likely to be encountered and they are very comfortable cars.
I’ve had my ’76 for a month and it is what I hoped – supremely smooth, quiet and comfortable. It handles like an intoxicated sea lion on the beach, is not fast and the steering is at times only a theoretical capability. I am used to driving new cars, and have been for about 25 years. It really does take a bit of time to get re acclimated to the driving experience provided by cars of this ilk, but once that is done, the experience is far from unpleasant – it is just vastly different. I am considering an April road trip from Florida to Vegas, and this is the kind of thing I bought the car for.
I have never got the comments and attention from people that this classic Eldo gets, it is unbelievable and I did not in any way expect it. I’ve had many nice cars and some truly wonderful vintage mahogany boats, and nothing approaches the interest that this thing generates. Every day, in all kinds of places, people start talking to me, commenting and recalling their experiences with them. Once guy rolled up his sleeve to show me a tattoo of one of these cars on his forearm.
The cars featured above and my Eldo are all driveable, enjoyable classics. For me the return on investment is in the use of the car and the experience that driving it brings, it is not the $$ value of it. I don’t care about the spectacle of buying at televised auctions, and I have little concern as to the future value of the car. I’ve driven it around my local town in Florida for almost a month now and I am very happy to own it.
Kind of thinking about a CDV, SDV or Fleetwood hardtop now, to add to the fleet.
Congrats, I’m envious! Sounds like a great car.
Thanks! Here’s a link to it, Had it checked out after buying it – needed wiper blades, throttle return spring and a/c needed to be converted to R134 – that was it. Drove it home an hour after buying it and drive it every day.
https://www.mecum.com/lots/FL0118-320551/1976-cadillac-eldorado-convertible/
Be careful if/when you do the R134 conversion – all of the old mineral oil needs to be removed from the system as it is incompatible with the newer oil. I think there is one type of oil that will work with R134 and plays nice with the mineral oil (it’s hard to get every last bit of old oil out of the compressor) – find a local shop that really knows A/C systems and ask a lot of questions.
I drove a 1969 Cadillac M+M Ambulance for ten years, so I know well the vintage Cadillac driving experience and I’d love to do it again if I had the indoor storage space to keep one.
To me that is the Caddy to have.
I’d say you did pretty good on price.
Take care of it definitely a keeper.
That is a truly beautiful cadillac.
The 64 Coupe de Ville is a winner for me. That or a 1991 Fleetwood Brougham which is close to the 92. Rare cars around here and the last one I saw three years ago was late at night at an In-n-Out burger along US 5 in the Central Valley. Gorgeous blue and I was so enamored that I talked with the owner for half an hour. I was truly impressed by the massive chrome bumper. I do love chrome.
This guy in New Zealand has a great idea for remedying the lacklustre performance of Cadillac Brougham (yeah, his is actually Fleetwood, but it’s same body, though). He fitted the 500-cid V8 motor…
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1981-cadillac-fleetwood-brougham-delegance-exceptional-what-with-rhd-and-500-cubic-inches/
Tempting, yes?
A good selection of Cadillacs seem to be the one constant at classic car auctions across the decades. I lose interest in the 70s so that 64 would be my choice for a weekend driver. Several folks have lamented the lack of discs on those older Cads but I remember the drums in those cars as pretty competent, way better than the 9 inchers in my 71 Scamp.
The 64 is very close to a 63 that I have seen in my area, a car that I have never caught for pictures.
I prefer the mid-60’s to the 70’s, no doubt. I could live with drum brakes, and if not convert it to front discs. The day before Mecum, I was at another classic car auction in Fort Lauderdale, drawn there by several interesting ’60’s Cadillac convertibles. I very nearly bought a ’64 Deville, red over white, but something held me back. It was clearly a “fluff” job, overly prepped for the auction lights and just not the solid example I wanted. I talked to the owner, an elderly man who had several similar cars in the sale and he was very clearly a veteran flipper who new just how to clean them up for a glitzy presentation. It sold in the low $20’s but after that, several people told me I had done well to pass, as it was just not a good or honest car. I moved onto Mecum the next day and I bought the Eldo because it was honest in its’ presentation, unlike the car the previous day.
I also realize that I can go an buy a ’60’s Caddy anytime I decide to as they are also plentiful, and my Eldorado will be easy to sell if I decide to change it, so overall I don’t take the purchase decision itself too seriously. One can always sell and buy something different, though that is not what I often do.
That’s interesting. What specific things did you see on the car that turned you off about the 64 and made you feel the fluff was covering some problems?
Well, it was more just an “aura” of lipstick about it, you know?
It’s hard to describe but I have been around cars long enough to recognize it. It’s kind of like the SCOTUS when trying to describe pornography (paraphrase) “I don’t know how but I know it when I see it”. It was resale red which was fine, but the claimed restoration was playing license with the truth, it was just too bright and I was concerned that the paint was hiding a multitude of sins. The owner was not able to provide remotely detailed answers to basic questions, and that was an alarm bell. He was deliberately vague and I’ve come to know that tactic in the past. The paint was far better than many other elements of the car, which themselves could have been improved with a modicum of effort and expense. This created in me the idea that he exerted himself solely on the paint as the prime attention getting attribute in order to shout-down other, less obvious needs. He ignored other, simple elements of the car in favor of the first-impression the bright red paint was creating. The paint was inconsistent with the rest of the car, I suppose is the best way to put it. I would have preferred less vibrant paint and viewing a car which was consistent and had aged gracefully. It was a hastily done lipstick job to some extent.
However, it worked for him as he lifted the reserve and sold it once it got to $20k.
Sounds wise. Hopefully the buyer won’t have too many surprises and can just refurb whatever needs it.
Regarding the 1964 two tone paint – GM Heritage center’s 1964 Cadillac information kit shows that a painted white top was available with any other color. Other recommended colors are limited, but there is a section on color that indicated that any combination could be ordered, but some thought should be given to how the final result will look. So Cadillac did not think every combination would look good.
Thanks. Those were the days! I doubt Cadillac is so accommodating today.
After looking at GM Heritage some more, 1964 seems to be the last year for a different color painted roof. Beginning with 1965 the only option for a contrasting color roof is a vinyl roof. The reason given is that the roof flows into the lower body without a good place to separate the colors (my interpretation).
The ’64 Caddy is gorgeous. With the exception of the bustleback Seville they are all handsome cars, but if I were offered keys to any of them I wouldn’t think twice about saying “thank you kindly” as I snatched the ’64 set. That car has a styling elegance, as did many early to mid 60’s cars, that was lost in later iterations.
The ’64 is not a Coupe deVille. It’s the entry-level Series 62 Coupe (as noted on the windshield sticker). The deVille had a fancier interior and different door panels with massive one-piece armrests.