(first posted 4/7/2016) This generation Imperial has already been extensively covered here at CC (including a 1963 Crown four-door hardtop parked just a few yards away), but this 1962 Imperial Crown convertible has been sitting in my photo files since last summer, just begging to be shared. I thought its topless elegance would be some good inspiration for the warmer days that are just around the corner for those of us who live in the Northern hemisphere.
With its unapologetically bold sheet metal, free-standing head and taillights, dignified Imperial eagle hood ornament, and enough chrome to occupy a small principality, this appropriately-named “Embassy Red” over “Alabaster White” leather convertible is not one for those who like to blend in.
Although its basic body dated back to 1957, Imperial received its expected annual styling tweaks, complete with new front and rear sheetmetal most years. Its appearance had significantly evolved by 1962, but there was still no denying that the Imperial looked somewhat antiquated next to the crisp Cadillacs and understated Continentals.
The Imperial’s age was even more obvious with its interior. Despite revisions over the years, the dual pods on either side of the gauge cluster, one housing the push-button transmission, remained, as did the unusual square steering wheel.
Half a century later, however, little things like this matter a whole lot less. A classic car that’s survived this long can rest on its own laurels, considering they’re typically not used as daily drivers to get from Point A to Point B, being competitive with other cars of its time is impertinent. If they bring joy to their owners as well as admirers, that’s the important part.
1962 was also the first year Imperials saw their tail fins actually decrease in size. Gone were the outlandish tail fins from 1961, reduced to a horizontal continuation of the beltline, giving the car the appearance of a squared-off trunk when viewed from the direct side. “Gun-sight” taillights remained for one final season however, their first appearance as free-standing units since 1956.
Even in an age when big convertibles enjoyed a greater popularity than today, convertibles never represented a large percentage of Imperial’s already small sales. The brand produced just 554 ragtops for 1962, comprising only 3.8% of total Imperial production for that model year.
Next to more understated Cadillacs and Lincolns, the ostentatiously-styled Imperials of this era may not be everyone’s glass of whiskey. However, if I were to be motoring around in a big classic convertible on a nice summer day, this would be the car. The flashier, the better!
Related Reading:
1956 Imperial Southampton Two-Door Hardtop
1956 and 1960 Imperial Crown Convertibles
1960 Imperial Crown Southampton
1963 Imperial Crown Four-Door Hardtop
1964 Imperial Crown Four-Door Hardtop
I think your last paragraph sums things up best; if you’re going to be cruising topless then why not one of these? Though far from the best example of US styling, these succeed where the 64+ doesn’t so much. The 64 suffers from the deeply curved windscreen over the 61 Continental linearity – a jarring dissonance. Whereas these are just what they are. A relic from the age of gorp; not unattractive curves, a mesmerising headlight treatment and who cannot love those taillights? Quartic steering seems daunting to me, though. Nice piece Brendan.
I was stuck in a normal West LA traffic snarl this afternoon and let my eyes wander along a row of silver/black/white cars at the curb. Hard pressed to tell one make/model from another, especially among the Asian brands (and I drive an Infiniti so no special bias). Not a problem in 62 – just compare Imperial with Lincoln Continental and Cadillac.
I distinctly remember 12 year old me grabbing my copy of Motor Trend out of the mailbox and staring for hours at this cover photo preview of those taillights: sensational and a great improvement over the gigantic (and dated) fins of the previous year – but still over the top compared to the elegant Lincoln.
“I distinctly remember 12 year old me grabbing my copy of Motor Trend out of the mailbox and staring for hours at this cover photo preview of those taillights”
You and me both, CA Guy! We’re exactly the same age and I still remember the rush I’d get from every new Motor Trend magazine -and I knew the exact date the next issue would be in the mailbox…
-then I’d pore over those issues until the ink on the pages wore thin.
Pre “digital-info-age” this was all we car nuts had!
Anyway, of the tens of thousands of car drawings I did as a kid this Imperial with those “floating” head and tail lamps may have been my inspiration for half of them!
Ah, memories. When the postal service was that reliable.
I’d forgotten that extra detail but you are exactly right. We lived on a rural delivery route and on the day I knew Motor Trend was supposed to arrive I’d rush to the box the minute I heard the mailman slam it shut and drive off. Used the Imperial head and tail lights as models for drawing as well. And never missed a chance to see Mr. Drysdale’s car cruise up the Clampett driveway on Beverly Hillbillies.
I turned to Mechanix Illustrated to read Tom McCahill; he was the go-to guy for commentary on cars, and he really appreciated the big Chryslers and Imperials of that era.
I’m torn between this and the ’61 model. On the one hand, the ’62 just doesn’t quite look right without the fins, on the other hand, those are in my list of top 10 best taillights ever.
Fine shots of a great car, Brendan. Is that the show at the Endicott Estate in Dedham?
Thanks. Yes, I took them at Endicott at the Bay State Antique Auto Club’s annual antique auto show last summer. It was a great show I hopefully can attend again this year. My photo library is still full of cars I haven’t even had time to write about yet.
This year’s event is Sunday, July 10. It sounds like a good excuse for a Boston-area CC meetup.
That sounds like a great idea.
I’m game 🙂
How do we make that happen?
You can see it move here:
http://www.imperialclub.com/~imperialclub/Movies/Mad/index.htm
Better yet:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-cinema-imperial-day-continues-the-cars-of-its-a-mad-mad-mad-mad-world/
Nice car and not something Ive ever seen topless very cool but I’d prefer a roof we are the worlds capital for skin cancer already plenty of these cars would just make it worse.
Ah, but on a warm, starlit/moonlit summer evening there are few things nicer than cruising around in a convertible with the top down.
Those floating headlights & tail lights make this car so sweet for me! A true Jetsons-mobile!
I was amazed the first time I saw one of these up close and admired the attention to detail and the sculpting of the body. Had to be quite expensive, but what a splendid look!
I’ll take that car any day.
Special note to all classic car owners: KNOCK IT OFF WITH THOSE STUPID FUZZY DICE, PLEASE!
Back in the day, I might have seen only ONE car that actually had those hanging from the rear view mirror. I hate them, always have. Tired, tired, tired…
Ditto fender skirts on cars that didn’t come with them standard, necker knobs, fake spotlights, fake dual antennas, and especially continental kits. Almost nobody drive a car back then that looked like Hollywood’s ideas of a JD hot-rodder. Except the couple that really were. And they were loathed by everyone else.
+1
+2
+3.
And relatively few had the largest available engine.
Nobody would use a staged head-on crash with an Imperial of this era to make people feel safe in their new Malibu.
Exner gave Imperials an unmistakable styling theme that was unfortunately discarded when Engel took over. However attractive the 1964-66 Imperials are, their heavily-derivative slabside Lincoln styling simply made them a “me-too” effort. Why would luxury buyers attracted to the understated Lincoln elegance settle for a styling knock off?
The low annual production of Imperial convertibles makes them practically a factory semi-custom. They had to be a no profit vanity for the corporation. I’d opine they were only included in the product line to give executives a car they felt would be equal to the Cadillacs and Lincolns their industry counterparts drove to the DAC and country clubs. Plus, their wives had to have something stylish and beyond reproach to drive to their luncheons with other auto executive wives.
+1 to Syke and others sick of those affectations of pop culture! Ditch the stupid fuzzy dice and those cutesy pouting dolls leaning on the bumpers!
In the 64 model’s defense, it racked up the highest Imperial sales second only to the 1957 models.
I’ve always wondered why Chrysler didn’t simply spend the extra money to change the windshield on the 1964-66 Imperials. The semi-wrapped windshield and “Forward Look” outside rear-view mirrors looked like holdovers from the 1950s, and gave the car a dated air.
It’s interesting that the Imperial never seemed to have any “holding power” from a sales standpoint. Sales spiked in 1957, 1964 and 1969, but always fell back to about 16,000 per year. The suicide-door Lincolns, meanwhile, slowly increased their sales after their debut, and hit a peak in 1966. Sales then receded for 1967-69, although, for 1968 and 1969, that was probably because the Continental Mark III stole more than few sales from the “regular” Continental.
Imperial was never able to build a sustainable sales momentum in spite of the major restyles they undertook for 1961, 1967 and 1974, as well as the moderate ones for 1960, 1962 and 1972. No matter how much they promoted them as a stand-alone ‘Imperial’ marque, the public only considered them as ‘Chrysler Imperial’ therefore the top-of-the-line Chrysler, not equivalent to Cadillac and Lincoln. This attitude was reflected in the consistently lowest trade-in and resale values year after year of the three luxury cars. Lincoln struggled with this throughout the 1950’s and it took most of the 1960’s to change public attitudes enough for elevate Lincoln resale value nearer Cadillac.
I suspect the entire cowl and door inners were a carryover. Retooling the cowl to change that semi-wrapped windshield would be pricey.
Yep, not just the cowl, but the inner body structure carried over – the key tell is the shape of the rear door opening.
That said, Chrysler did rework the B-Body cowl in 1964 to remove Exner’s “boat cowl” profile, but the economics were obviously better for those cars. Still, you’d think they could have done something for ’64, especially with the new ’65 C Body on the way. Not to mention they engineered a new sedan roof for the one year only ’63s…
Great find. I wonder how many are left today. There weren’t too many Imperials of any vintage on the road of our small town when I was growing up, but one of these always caught my eye. They seemed really “far out” by the early 1970s.
I’ve read that a few Chrysler dealers were literally sawing off the fins of the 1961 Imperial and installing a molding in their place – and selling the cars. This car was styled by Virgil Exner, so he was the one who ultimately lopped off most of the fins on the production Imperial.
I think these convertibles have had a fairly high survival rate. Their production figures were always so low (usually in the mid 3 figures in any given model year, and 1,000 in a blowout year like 1964) that values have been high. Even 25 years ago when you could get a primo Crown Coupe for under $4k, a convertible was $10-20K in the same condition.
The convertible sales figures don’t even average out to one per dealer for most years. I guess some dealers refused to order one, and Chrysler didn’t force the issue or stock Imperial convertibles in the notorious Sales Bank?
Could it be that the start of the Sales Bank coincided with the steady dilution of the Imperial brand (until it was nothing more than a fancy Chrysler) in an effort to up the volume?
Regardless, for anyone desiring to see a ’62 Crown convertible in action, one was featured prominently in “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World”, as well as other 1962 Mopars (and other CCs).
Maybe built to order only?
Nice car, Brendan. Other than the 1960 model for which I have never been able to summon much love, every single year of Imperial convertible has something to recommend it. The 62 with those taillights was a beauty.
The 1962 offerings from Cadillac, Lincoln and Imperial each offered a unique take on American luxury. I could make the case for owning any of them.
The outlandish “Imperial” script on the front fenders is one of the greatest nameplate designs of all time.
For me, the final 1963 version is the one I appreciate most – mostly because the tail lights were integrated into the fins. While the “Gun-Sight” tail lights are Imperial icons, I could never get past their tacked on look. On the other hand, I do like the stand-alone headlights, they seem integrated sitting in their nacelles.
The oddities of this Imperial were slight compared to other Mopars of the time. Still, I wonder to what degree that square steering wheel turned people off. Just thinking of my driving style, it would drive me crazy.
I’d have to agree with Brendan that the dash was still too much 1957, even if it did integrate a strip speedometer.
Only in recent years have I thought of how dated the Cadillac really was from 1962 – 1964. When you think about it, it was still a reflection of the GM response to the 1957 Chryslers. By ’63 most of the GM line had moved to slab sides and that distinctive ’60s Bill Mitchell look. The Caddy – as much as I love the ’62 – really was plodding along in the late ’50s, sans the troweled on chrome.
During the early ’60s, Cadillac sales generally grew stronger each year – sometimes the annual sales gain was approaching the Continental’s total annual production. Cadillac was proving that a conservative and dated look could sell high priced cars. This probably gave the product planners at Chrysler the impression that their 1957 Imperial was still the right car through the early ’60s. And, some cover for their lack of budget to really rework the car.
Beautiful, but not exactly light years ahead in 1962………….
As Paul has previously noted, Cadillac’s prices weren’t keeping pace with income gains in the 1960s, so more people could afford one. That was great for sales in the short term, but it seriously hurt Cadillac’s prestige over the long term.
Plus, by the early 1960s, the competition was really weak. Packard was long gone, and however much we love to see one today, the early 1960s Imperials were simply too wacky for most customers. Lincoln didn’t offer a hardtop coupe until 1966 (the most popular Cadillac body style during this era was the hardtop coupe), and the post-1960 Continentals were initially priced in Fleetwood Sixty Special territory.
Interesting point on the coupe, but the Lincoln look didn’t seem to sell well as a coupe. When they finally offered one in ’66, it only sold about 15k units, under half of Lincoln sedan sales, and definitely no threat to the Cadillac coupe. Cadillac sold about 55K coupes in ’65, and 61K in ’66, even with the new Lincoln competition. Pricing of the ’66 Continental coupe was about $150 higher than the bestselling Cadillac coupe, roughly the price of an optional vinyl top and tinted glass on the Lincoln.
Lincoln two door hardtop coupe sales tracked strongly relative to the four door sedans and hardtops in the 1950’s until the unibody 1958-60 models. What may have put off potential buyers was the two door shared the same roof shell with the four door, lacked the expected sporty verve the typical two door buyers sought.
The Coupe de Ville always had unique sportier proportions versus any four door Cadillac, which certainly contributed to its annual high new car sales volumes and the consistently strong resale values it commanded.
Once the sales momentum for the Lincoln two door hardtop was lost, the public would only accept the body style if it was Continental Mark proportioned, styled and promoted as such.
Beautiful car and a gorgeous deep red colour. Would be great for cruising on those hot summer nights, although I find the styling a little odd and I’ve never really liked the freestanding headlights. I prefer the styling of the ’64 models more. But what I’m really drawn to is that ’78-’79 blue Lincoln sitting right next to it, now that’s more my kind of car!
Ostentatious, yes. But compared to what else Chrysler was offering in 1962 (in its larger cars, thus excluding the Valiant and Lancer), it wore its look better. The slant-eyed Chrysler, the tunnel-headlight Plymouth and the just-plain-weird Dodge looked more extreme, and they were supposed to appeal to the mass market, unlike the Imperial which was SUPPOSED to be something unique.
I’d take that out for a spin right now (it was 94° F here yesterday).
The styling of the 1962 Valiant and Lancer wasn’t exactly restrained, either. In fact, it could easily be said that the styling of just about all Chrysler products during the Valiant’s first generation from 1960-62 was over-the-top and outlandish across the board while Ford and GM were toning it down. The best looking of the three year period were the 1960 Chryslers (although I have a perverse affinity for the 1961 Plymouth Fury convertible).
When it comes to Imperial convertibles, I’d take a 1958 – probably because I did own a 1958 4-door hardtop for a while. The Imperial had so many little styling and trim touches that didn’t appear on any other Chrysler Corporation vehicle…it was truly set apart from the lesser makes. That is a great-looking 1962 car though, and I wouldn’t turn down a ride in it, or especially a chance to drive it.
Beautiful car , gorgeous wheel covers the way they offset inwards.
One year too early to have the Pentastar on the fender ?
How could you NOT love this? Exener had some wacko designs but some really hit the mark. This definitely does for me. The floating headlights, that eye catching grille, and the gunsight tail lights…just awesome! This looks like it could have been a show car with all kinds of design features no one in their right mind would actually produce. But Imperial did it! That’s a lot of why I love Mopars so much. When no one else has the cajones to even think of something, Ma Mopar builds it.
This car is like me – it proves 1962 was a great year! Thanks Brendan!
I had a chance to buy one in the early 2000s. A brown `62 ragtop. The asking price was a negotiatable$3700.00. The car needed paint, a new top and a water pump. The interior was in white, and the front and rear seats with folding armrests was impressive. The car had power everything and a/c which did not work. I was just about ready to pull the trigger until I noticed the body rot inside the trunk, under the door sills, and in the engine compartment. There was also rot on both sides of the lower front chassis, and it was spreading fast .I took the car for a ride with the owner, but it was limited due to the faulty water pump,
I figured the selling price was just the initial investment. For whatever money I had to throw at, it just wasn`t. worth it. Afraid I`d be buying a 5,000 pound “planter”, I just said no to it. I really didn`t like the styling that seemed dated by `62, but it was unique. In retrospect, no regrets.
The freestanding headlights have never sat well with me, and the tails call to mind some wag’s description of them as “two Eveready flashlights bolted to the rear fender”. (If this doesn’t make sense to anyone under 35, google image search “chrome eveready flashlight”. I’m 35 and they were before my time, but I saw them here and there.)
Nonetheless, I do like the car as a whole, and would not complain one bit if offered a summer night’s cruise in one!
I love the small print in the ad, describing the leather as “the same quality…used for fine footwear, custom luggage, and the costliest handbags”.
I wish we could get interiors in that kind of leather today – sometimes you can’t tell whether an interior is (poor) leather or (good) vinyl!
Here’s a ’62 Imperial promotional film aimed at Chrysler dealers. The highlight comes at the 5:45 mark as Frank Bird, plant manager at Jefferson Ave. tells a smoke-filled room full of Mopar pushers that he’s going to build the “best damn Imperials you’ve ever sold”, followed by some of the changes that came with moving Imperial production back to the mother ship in Detroit.
The ’59-’61 Imperials were built on an Imperial-only line at the former DeSoto plant on Warren Ave in Dearborn. They must have built some really expensive junk at Warren Ave since Mr. Bird makes a point of addressing “this business of quality”….
Restrained good taste?
Compared to the ’61 which still had huge fins after everyone else ditched them, it WAS restrained!
You know, I’m really on the fence with a car like this. Some Exner styling really does it for me; others not quite as much. On one hand, I admire the outrageous styling that was meant to get looks, and certainly, presenting this type of design to the bean counters must have been more and more difficult past 1959-1960 or so. And I like its jet aircraft inspired flair, when most other automakers were getting very tired of the mid-late 50’s styling.
The front end of the car is nice–I have no issue with the floating headlights. And the sides of the car are beautiful, especially the swooping fenders.
On the other hand, the rear end of the car pretty much ruins it for me. The gunsight taillights look very slapdash and don’t blend in with the car’s lines at all, IMHO. And the square steering wheel looks like Exner smoked a joint while looking at a lot of Savador Dali’s work. Aesthetically, I just can’t ever like a square steering wheel, but moreso, driving with a square wheel would be outright weird and unnatural, when you’re needing to turn and especially when having to gauge a hard, sharp turn when you’re about to get in an accident and need to steer properly to safety. Even by the loose standards of the day, a square steering wheel is just an outright terrible idea in terms of safety.
Here’s one I rescued in 2008. Sat for years under some pine trees on someone’s property. It was covered in pine needles and dirt, but the engine turned! Paid $800 for it + $100 to tow it out of there. Needed a coolant flush, a differential rebuild, new brakes, tires, and other details, but after about a year I had a decent looking, excellent driving car. Sold it to a resident of Brooklyn, NY who bought it from me SIGHT UNSEEN. I think he got a great car!
Rear view:
Poindexter, your buyer DID get a great car.
If one wants to blend in and not be noticed, get a grey BMW or Toyota!
In 1966, my cousin bought an Imperial Le Baron two-door hardtop in white, with white vinyl roof and white leather interior. I drove it.. I will never forget the elegance of that vehicle.