(first posted 8/5/2011) Once upon a time, there were few more desirable things on earth than a big, expensive, luxurious convertible. From the 1920s through the jet age, the luxury convertible was a nearly universal object of desire. But as the 1960s drew to a close, so too did the era of the open-air land yacht.
The same day that my CC on the ’68 Imperial convertible (here) hit cyberspace, my wife alerted me that there was a car in the office parking lot that I might want to check out. She was right. I immediately recognized this ’69 Cad from halfway across the lot, and trotted out to snap some pictures. All I could think of were the contrasts to the Imperial that was so fresh in my mind.
This car was, in many ways, the complete opposite of the CC Imperial. Although these cars are separated by but a single year, they seem to come from two different generations or traditions. The Imperial looked quite ordinary to the casual observer, but upon close inspection was teeming with costly little touches that reminded the driver why he spent so much money on his car. This Cadillac is that car’s opposite. From the outside, the ’69 Cadillac was every inch a Cadillac. The aggressive grille, the sharp creases, the vestigial fins on the rear fenders and just the overall size and bulk – you can tell that this is a gen-u-wine Cadillac from 100 yards!
But up close, this car loses some of the magic. It is clear that by 1969, the cost cutting scissors were in use at Cadillac (although they would really get warmed up in two more years). While the car boasted one of the best powertrains ever, the trimming of the body and interior was another matter. The seats? Very plain upholstery, even though in leather (this car appears to sport a vinyl reupholstery job). The dashboard? The bright metal and expensive textures are gone. All plastic (even if some of it was woodgrained). Not a lot of trim, either. Still, Cadillac sold over 16,000 of these DeVille convertibles in 1969. And we have always known that the blonde cheerleader with the great figure gets more dates than the plain girl with the great personality.
I am not so much building a case of Imperial vs. Cadillac, but maybe it was just the passing from one era into another. The ’69 Imperial was diminished in quality from its older brothers too, and this was simply not a great time in U.S. auto design if you were looking for those jewel-like details common on earlier models. The money for new safety and emissions regulations had to come from somewhere, and better to squeeze it out of the products than to take it from the stockholders or executives, right?
The larger picture here, though, is the demise of the big luxury convertible. You are looking at the last one standing (actually, the nearly identical 1970 model was the last one, but one of those did not park in my parking lot). Beginning in 1971, the smaller Eldorado would have a convertible to offer, but not the big DeVille. Imperial had given up after 1968 and Lincoln after 1967. So what happened? The usual explanations are widespread availability of air conditioning and interstate highways, and these are certainly factors. I would add, however, some demographic changes. The big DeVille was becoming the Cadillac for the older set, and convertibles are a younger person’s car. Also, by 1969-70, it was much more common among the affluent to have multiple, specialized cars than a decade earlier. So why not a big, comfortable, air conditioned Coupe DeVille for everyday AND a sportier convertible for when the weather was just right?
I always considered the 1969-70 Cadillac a very good looking car. Cadillac had one heckuva styling department in those years, and churned out design after design that looked just the way a Cadillac was supposed to look. However, please permit the author the privilege of a peeve: Driving around in a convertible with the top down and the windows up should be grounds for revocation of the owner’s convertible license. But before I throw the book at these unknown people, I should consider that this is a 40 year old car, and it is conceivable that some or all of the power windows are not working. So, I shall let the owner off with a stern warning. Next case.
There is one particular feature of this car that gives me a warm feeling. In 1969, my grandma bought her last new car – a 1969 Pontiac Catalina sedan in this exact color combination. This clean, clear silver paint was an unusual color during that era of earth tones. Did you know that in 1970, Chevrolet sold more gold Impalas than white ones? Silver did not become a common part of the automotive landscape until the mid 1970s (and it remains with us yet). Silver suits this car. Would there have been a better way in 1969 to obtain membership in Richard Nixon’s “silent majority” than to drive this silver Cadillac convertible? This car would have made its first owner a card-carrying member of The Establishment. “Hello, my name is Ralph, and I am The Man.”
It is hard to convey the sheer size of this car with pictures. This thing is just enormous. Did I mention the 472 cubic inches? So, I like it. The fact that the top goes down too makes me overlook its faults and love it all the more. So let’s all make a toast to the last of the huge luxury land yacht convertibles. A car like this will never come along again, so let’s just soak up some fun in the sun on a massive scale. Now, if I can just find a ’67 Lincoln with the top down.
Great byline Jim, and who could resist wanting such a machine?
Have to say that is a couple of sizes larger than I would ever own in a car, bearing in mind that it is a lot larger relative to standard car spaces here in Australia for example. But more particularly I can’t abide such a small rear seat space in such a large car!
I’m surprised JP didn’t mention the horribly plain door trims, could they be any plainer? The ‘jet age’ cars had much more interesting interior styling, regardless of chrome etc
I looked at those door trim panels. It looks like they either took some surface trim off to get to the basic vinyl panel, or someone had done a hack re-cover job on the panels. But even new, these door panels were nothing to brag about.
Black seats in a ragtop how stupid is that
The whole car is a hack job. Taxi grade vinyl seats, door panels probably consisting of vinyl glued over the rotting original material (notice the door handle bezel reattached at a jaunty angle), front bumper not quite put back together right, missing chrome at front edge of hood, missing trim over trunk lock, I’m sure there is more if I looked for it. I understand why; it can be a costly proposition to do a full correct restoration on a Cadillac interior with proper materials. But if you can’t afford to do it right, you shouldn’t mess up a car this way.
The car looked to me like it was mid-project. The paint job was first class, as were the main pieces of chrome. I see a lot of 20 (or 50) footers around here with ok paint and badly weathered chrome. This car was not one of these. My guess is that the missing exterior trim was removed for painting then lost or broken or not good enough to put back on. The grille that is in funny? Good question.
As for the interior, the seats looked like they had been in the car a long time, and my research indicated that it came with leather (ostrich-grain leather, actually, whatever that was) from the factory. I didn’t look that closely at the door panels. I would hope that the owner eventually puts the same effort inside as went outside. But, my goal is to find cars being used, and this one plunked itself into my path.
Nor was the all-black steering wheels and columns found in all 1969-70 Cadillacs.
Great leg room in the ’69 Caddy. All of that space where consoles are today,make that a wonderful ride.
While reading your comments, I could not help but think that You got up on the wrong side of the back seat. A bit Grouchy, seems about right. I have a 69 Cadillac Callis hardtop,and Today I was looking at a 69 Cadillac DeVille that I will be bringing home soon. ( Yes, It is a project car, and if you are less than 6 Ft. Tall, there is plenty of leg room in the back seat, for a party, or even a long trip.) Lets assume that You were Just having a Bad Day, and realize that others may in fact really like the type of car that Your unable to understand. You are under no obligation to like it, or any other type of car, but You should re consider Pissing on some one else’s ride, Simply move on, and do not embarrass Your self so Publicly, in the printed word. Thanks for the forum, and Try to enjoy what life brings You. Chris Stames
Geez, lighten up Mr. Chris Stames a.k.a. “Mr. Must capitalize Every Other word and make amessof , his? punctuation So As to Make it frustrating to Understand, your Post. Until we Realized It was Drivel not worthour Time.”
The gentlemen above you have posted simple commentary and critique; the kind that can help newcomers to the hobby learn a bit more in what to look for in a good example when they choose to seek one. I don’t see anything above that’s terribly out of place in this discussion. Perhaps a bit if the owner of the car had shown up in this discussion, but otherwise civil.
This is a good example of why the comparison was later made in a magazine debating which was a better buy. A fully-loaded Caprice or a comparable Cadillac for $1500 more. The Caprice won.
I have never been a luxury car guy – it just never made sense when any Impala you could buy had everything I looked for in a car at the time. Pillarless hardtop styling? Check. A/C? Check. PS, PB? Check, check. AM radio? Yeah, that too.
Why buy any luxury car? I still feel the same way. Maybe I really am just cheap!
One thing I must say, though. Those cars certainly were beautiful, along with most other GM vehicles then. Everyone else was just plain second-class. Case closed.
BTW, I drive with the windows up when it’s cool pretty often with the top down. Heater on, too. When it’s real hot, I have the AC on, but windows are definitely down!
Here in FL, I have the opposite problem, in the summer its so deathly hot in the convertible, we sometimes put the top down with the windows up and the ac cranked so we can keep cooler. Mostly we dont bother though, the top stays up most of the summer unless we are going to the beach and dont care to get sweaty! The remaining seasons here are incredible perfect top down weather though. My wife will also put the windows up and the top down to cut the turbulence if she doesnt want her hair to blow out crazy.
Thanks for this write up… what a sweet sled! Love the silver color and it’s ‘i don’t give a rat’s ass’ attitude. These were Caddies!
As a convertible man of over 20+ years–albeit not in Florida I can chime in on this top down/windows up issue. You definitely bring up good points. I’d also like to add that the windows can be raised when you leave the car (say, a parking lot) for added security.
Sure, it’s not going to dissuade someone from getting in but the windows up certainly will present the quick obstacle to the passer by that just wants to quickly grab something inside on the fly.
Anyway, that’s why I always raise the windows when I park my convertible.
Um, raising the windows on a convertible while the top remains down offers “added security?”
There are so many comparisons I want to use here…crash helmets instead of condoms with prostitutes, windows shut on my house with the doors open while on vacation, only my name hidden on a picture of my social security card…but I’m Mr. Tactful and so forth, so…
Maybe if Mr. Tactful would read the comments before being so tactful, you would see that @fastback, me, and a couple other commentors explained the added security. No, its not keeping a real thief out, but then again neither is frameless windows and a raised softtop. It makes it a little more difficult for someone to reach in and pilfer my sunglasses or cell phone or whatever if I forget it accidentally in the center console while I run into Starbucks or whatever. If I leave the car where I cant see it, or for more than a cpl mins, I lock it up.
I understand exactly where you are coming from on the window thing. I roll my windows up when parked and lock the doors with the top down. If someone wants something out of it they have to climb over it and somebody will see them, because it’s a guarantee somebody is admiring the car. Makes it a little harder.
Anyone remember the cranberry juice scene in The Departed? https://youtu.be/_RR5sL1aiiw
Lots of cranberry juice drinking in the comments here.
I keep the windows up on my convertible so my combover doesn’t fly back and slap the rear seat passengers in the face.
When I had long hair, riding in convertibles was torture, so I think your wife has the right idea.
That comparison was done, I believe, in 1971 when the lines between the divisions of GM began blurring. I think in 1969, there was still a clearer distinction between Chevrolet up to Cadilllac.
The 1969 Cadillac does have a certain “crassness” that JPC alludes to in his write-up, especially in comparison to the staid ’68 Imperial. But in 1969 Cadillac meant glitz and glamour!
The luxury argument and perception thereof is something I am also interested in. Why buy an Italian suit when you can pick one up at Sears?
If it is an argument that if has to be made, you probably won’t be convinced.
If you’re reading this, you are someone who enjoys cars and the variety that is offered, “luxury” is just another facet.
And yes, nothing better than cruising on cool night with the top down, windows up with the heater and tunes blowing…
That comparison was done, I believe, in 1971…
That comparison is referenced often on sites such as this one, and I finally tracked it down to the May, 1971 issue of Motor Trend.
And it was a whopping $3,500 difference, not $1,500! The Caprice was just over $5,500 when fully loaded versus just over $9,000 for the Sedan de Ville. However, my dad used to tell me that the markup on luxury cars was higher in those days, so the difference “out the door” may have been narrower.
And for not much more money than that loaded ’71 Caprice, one could have bought an Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight LS or Buick Electra 225 Limited – which were actually much better buys than both the plushed-up Impala (Caprice) and the Caddy. Both the Olds and Buck used the same GM C-body as the Cadillac and offered just as much interior space, including legroom, along with much better quality than the Caprice, which had the same plain rubber pedals, vinyl headliner, black steering wheels and columns regardless of interior color (like the 69-70 Caddys) and even the hard plastic (lower) door panels as an Impala. And none of the 1971 versions of these cars could really hold a candle to their 1966 counterparts – except for the fact the ’71s did have front disc brakes and 15-inch wheels across the board.
The ’71 Caprice dash pad also more often than not, featured the infamous “GM Mark of Excellence” – that is the crack in the pad, itself made of cheap materials.
I know that this is an old article and comments thread. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but sometimes a person just wants the real thing, the authentic, exclusive, or high quality object. The comment about the Italian designer suit or a Sears special, they both fill the same need, right? Yes and no, the man in the Sears suit might be properly dressed for the occasion, while the man in the well tailored Italian design will be properly attired and will project an image of class, and comfortable affluence.
I had a co worker who had several high end watches, a Rolex and Brietling, and he liked to kid me about my Casio. He told me that I could buy used watches like his, at a reasonable price. I told him that if I had an extra 5 to 10 grand lying around, I’d be buying another old car! Watches don’t matter to me.
Riders of Honda motorcycles used to tell me, “With a Harley, you’re just paying for the name.” No, with a Harley you are buying the authentic thing, that has a history and a mystique. It offers a different experience from a V twin Honda Shadow. Whether or not it’s a better machine can be debated, and whether or not it’s worth it, is up to the buyer.
Sometimes a person just wants a Cadillac, (or a Mercedes, Porsche, or a BMW, or a Tesla ) and nothing else will do. It doesn’t matter that you can get almost equivalent function from another make of car, at a lower price.
I’ve had lots of old Cadillacs, and they were still Cadillacs no matter how old they were. It didn’t become a Hyundai Excel as it aged.
I’ve bought two different, three year old Cadillacs,(I cannot afford a new one), a ’77 Coupe de Ville and a ’94 Seville STS. I bought them because I wanted those specific Cadillacs. It was very satisfying to drive both of those cars. It all depends on what you want and can afford. There is a difference.
For 1969-70, the Cadillac did offer better build quality than a Chevrolet. The margin between the two divisions had been shrinking since about 1965, but it still existed when this car was made. It was in 1971 that everything really hit the fan. All 1971 GM full-size cars felt tinny and flimsy compared to the previous generation, and interiors felt cheap. It hurt the Cadillac the most.
And remember that 1969 Chevrolet V-8s were still plagued with defective motor mounts, while 1969 Cadillacs and other GM cars from that year were not.
I do believe that, when comparing this car to the Imperial from 1967-68, we have to take into account the Chrysler’s inferior workmanship and build quality. The Chrysler may have had more nice features, but the effect was spoiled by poor quality control. Cadillacs were still better built than Imperials, and the Caddy drivetrains were every bit the equal of the Imperial’s drivetrain. And GM’s air conditioning was the best in the business. Those features where what mattered to customers. I like the Imperials, but I can see why Cadillac whipped the Chrysler in sales every year.
And regarding the lack of brightwork in the interior – Ralph Nader and other safety advocates had criticized the auto makers for using bright chrome on the dashboard and other interior parts that reflected sunlight into the driver’s eyes. There was also a concern about people being thrown into hard, chrome knobs and decorations in the event of an accident – remember, in those days, there were no air bags, and virtually no one wore safety belts. People didn’t even use child seats in those days – infants sat on someone’s lap, and smaller children were simply ordered into the back seat! I remember that it was a big deal when my parents bought a cheap, chrome seat that simply hooked over the front seat back for my 1-year-old brother in 1968!
There was a movement to remove as much chrome from the dashboard as possible, and pad everything in sight. Now, I’m sure that the bean counters didn’t weep when those expensive chrome knobs and fixtures went away, but it wasn’t entirely their doing.
Windows up acts as as buffer to wind noise at speed. If you want to carry on a conversation with a passenger or listen to tunes, the windows up helps immensely. For just puttering around town, not so much, but if you are going down the highway in one, windows up makes sense to those in the car.
Other than my father’s 67 Mustang convertible I’ve never been able to get worked up over a convertible – for me the drawbacks have always outweighed the benefits. (OTOH I do enjoy motorcycles, go figure.)
Having said that, give me a Coupe De Ville any day! Every time I wander around eBay Motors or Auto Trader Classic I find myself pining for these land barges. Give me anything big block motivated from the era of shoulder belts (1968 -they just make me feel safer, lol) to the death of big block (however strangled) power in the late 1970s. I someday MUST own one.
A guy around here has a 69 or 70 coupe deville done up sort of rat rod style, with matte black paint, scrape the ground air suspension and some sweet rims, sounds tough too… really incredible looking car.
For the Interiors alone, I don’t think I’d be interested in one of these convertibles at all. There’s nothing spectacular about these interiors, actually a 1968-72 Cutlass Supreme Convertible looks like it has more convincing fake wood. Plus I also think the 1969-70 Cadillacs are dull looking compared to the 1965-68 cars, and (don’t throw a book at me) the 1971-73 cars that followed it.
But as noted above, as the 1960s wore on what was the incentive for ponying up all that money for a luxury convertible? I might have not cheapened out and got an Impala Convertible, but it doesn’t seem that the decontenting in Buick and Oldsmobile interiors was as drastic in these years. And you got all the superior drivetrain details by picking one of the 3 middle market brands. And the dashboard looks like it could be out of a 1969 Ford…..
Laurence, I agree with you completely. This car was a real letdown for me when I walked up to it. I always thought that the whole GM line really started to cheap out in 1969-70. In the Cadillacs, compare this dash to the 61-64 line – no comparison. I might argue that the 69 LTD had a nicer dash than this car.
It was the same thing when grandma traded a 64 Catalina in on the new 69. The 69 was so dull and plain inside compared to the 64 that just oozed with character.
These 69-70 models have always been kind of a tipping point for me. They still had the solid feel of the 65-68 models (they were still the same platform) and were still good looking if a bit more conservative. On the other hand, the nice little touches started going away. No vent windows, no chrome inside, and that cheap 70s steering wheel. The fact that this one is a convertible would tip it into the keeper category for me, but I would much rather have a 61-64 or 65-68.
The 1968 models were the onset of all sorts of bad omens of the near future: Beginning with 1968, vent windows began to disappear, all bright interior trim around the headliner edges and the A pillars – went to plastic. Compare a 1967 Impala with a 1968 model and the difference hurts.
After the 1968 models, my interest in new cars turned to Chevelles, Cutlasses, GTO’s, Gran Sports, Camaros/Firebirds, Novas, Javelins, AMX’s, Darts and such. Pillarless hardtop coupes, of course, until they too, disappeared.
I almost forgot: The Cadillac shown already had what came to be called the “GM Mark of Excellence” with the big crack in the dash, which only got worse in the next few years!
Not to defend the cheapening of materials in Cadillacs, but similar dashboard cracks seem to have been issued standard to every ’70s Mercedes (or at least W123s). I can’t recall the last time I saw a W123 without at least one, usually two more or less framing the center vents.
I have often pondered this , but think that I have found the answer. My wife is a chemical engineer and she explained that the lack of modern plasticizers in those earlier dashes caused the unsightly cracking. She spent 15 years at a company that made plasticizers and said that the chemical composition between then and now is astonishing. Our better understanding and application of those advances have made (I think) for much better dashboards. It is rare that you see any car made after about 92 or so with a cracked dash. I , for one am glad. This will preserve the keepers for our kids.
That’s what I always thought, that the newer dashes were made of something different–my 2003 Subaru has generally been parked outdoors and I have yet to see any cracking or other deterioration, even after time in the California sun.
@Jeff Nelson
Uh, maybe cars after ’02 or so it’s rare. My ’97 Ram has a Grand Canyon between the driver’s and passenger’s side, my ’98 Intrigue had hairline cracks and the ’95 Corsica had more fault lines than California! 🙂
The advent of airbags brought about an end to padded dashes in favor of hard plastic until the buff books started harping on “soft-feel” materials or the lack thereof. Time will tell whether the new cars’ soft-feel stuff holds up.
Interior quality really did take a dive in 1969. The dash was devoid of any chrome trim pieces. 1967 began a conservative, yet refined, approach for interior design. However 1967 sported a very handsome dashboard and door panels; scratch the door panels for 1968, they were one piece injection molded. 1969 also marked the beginning of the plastic movement. Even the vents in that convertible are black plastic. Steel vents were last seen on the 1968 models. They even had a little brushed aluminum tip for adjusting the direction of air flow. Granted, the sedate interiors were not all Cadillac’s fault, the government played a huge roll in reducing the amount of bright work present in the interior. Note the original black door panel in 1969 the Cadillac Deville was vacuum molded and probably contained a wood insert. Compare that door panel to the light blue one pictured below, of a 1967 Cadillac Calais. Even the Calais door panel is nicer than the 1969 Deville’s. Note how the 1967 contains separate parts and trim pieces. Granted, the Calais is a rather drab looking panel, but all the 1967 models contained the same armrest and trim pieces located above the arm rest.
Actually it was the 1971-72 Ford that had the 69-70 Cadillac-like dash. 1969-70 Fords had a Pontiac-style wrap-around cockpit dash which looked great upon initial appearance but was flawed in function due to the use of a horizontal sweep speedometer, and the location of the radio on the far left hand side of the dash (reachable by only the driver) – the same place where the transmission pushbuttons were located on 1956-64 Chrysler products. Chairman Henry Ford II (whose name was on the building) and President Lee Iacocca received boatloads of letters of complaints about the dashboard design so the 1971 redesign moved the radio back to the center of the dash.
I loved my 70 Ford dashboard for that reason! That way nobody could mess with the radio but me.
My ’69 Deville is beautiful, gets the attention of anyone within a hundred yards, rides like a dream has no cracks i the original dash, as with no tears in the original leather and to your jealous misrepresentation it;s not plastic trim it is wood. Lol Your beloved Olds and Buick’s only compare because you cannot afford the real deal. I’ve owned right near 150 cars from A/C Cobra, fastback ’67 Mustang to ’81 Bandit Trans Am, 7 series BMW’s,Road runner, Challenger and several other dream cars. And the DeVille is an amazing auto. Just cracks me up when people criticize what they can’t have. Lol And yes drive it and park it with the top down and the glass up, because it’s mine and I can. Lmao
In the Caddy owners defense, he was PARKED with the windows up. When I park my convertible with the top down, I always put the windows up; makes it much harder for a casual thief to lean in and pop open the glovebox or grab something off the floor or from behind the seats.
My apologies mm — i didn’t read the comments all the way thru and I didn’t see your entry. Sorry to step on your toes even if you make the point much better than I did !
I thought omitting vent windows(while also cost cutting) was part of the whole flow thru ventilation thing. You just bought a Caddy why cheap out on the climate control system? I always liked the bladed fenders on these 69-70 cars, but I also liked the way a 71 looks like a modernized 59. I saw one of these at a cruise night in 2009 and you are absolutely right- photos do not do this justice as far as communicating the shear size of this car, it is enormous in person. I wonder how much of it was cheapness and how much of it was a design theme the way cars transitioned from the juke box motifs of the early 60’s to the molded black vinyl of the late 60’s and 70’s, somebody pointed out all of the safety concerns too. Plastics were just starting to be thought of as cheap in those days but some still thought of it as durable and luxurious- “fake wood wont rot out like real wood!”, the whole “better living through chemistry” mentality hadnt quite been replaced by the man is evil/Earth day attitudes. My Mom’s 84 DeVille used the fake wood like wallpaper the dashboard looked like it was trimmed in contact paper. This dashboard looks elegant in contrast. Has any one seen the 50’s Cadillac dashes where the year is actually written out in script “Nineteen Fifty seven” wow, imagine that. I can apreciate the arguement that this was the beginning of the come down.
There was a great future in plastics, including its use in automobiles, as noted in this famous scene in “The Graduate”, which was showing at theatres less than a year before the 1969 models came out:
Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Plastics.
Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?
Mr. McGuire: There’s a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?
Actually, plastics replaced metal in automobile interiors not only because it was less expensive but also to meet Federal safety regulations concerning instrument panel and interior design. Plastics were also much lighter than metals, a factor that would become increasing important in automotive design inside and out as another form of government regulation took effect in later years – Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) mandates.
As a youth, I worked mowing lawns and shoveling snow and whatever else I could do on my own time, I wasn’t too crazy about having a ‘regular’ job. One of the jobs I got (through my mother) was to wash and wax (actually detail, we didn’t call it that then) this older gentleman’s Cadillac. It was a 1969 Sedan deVille, in dark blue.
The owner’s company was a supplier to the Big Three, and was especially proud of the grille of these Caddys, as his company supplied the cadmium-plated, extruded aluminum pieces for the grille. (I later worked for his company, in the advertising department) He went into great lengths about how the extrusion process worked and how the plating was applied, and so on. I guess he recognized my attention to detail, but never (ever) once failed to remind me to polish all 240 or so pieces within the grille. When properly cleaned and polished, it really sparkled!
But for a 14-year old boy, that dark blue de Ville was about as close to a funeral coach as I wanted to get. Several years later, the man retired from his own company and spent a great deal of time traveling the world, and he needed someone reliable to pick him up at various airports. Since I knew my way around pretty well, I got the job.
When I was younger, I refused to drive the tank, because it was so much larger than anything else I’d driven. But with this new side job I had to drive the boat, as he refused to travel in anything less than his Chevy Caprice (another story for another time), but he preferred (which meant ‘demanded’) the Caddy. Much to my surprise, I found it to be not too bad. Many times I would find myself driving 80-90-100 MPH on my way to Cleveland-Hopkins, not even realizing how fast I was going.
The tough part was going back to my own wheels. Depending upon which point in time we’re referring, I had everything from a big block Torino to a Trans Am. Those were all pretty good, but nothing accelerated like that Caddy motor! When cruising, it just muttered along, but when you opened up the Quadrajet – orgasmic! Then, you realized you were aiming 5,000 lbs. of car down the road (with drum brakes) – frightening!
The owner eventually quit taking all of those trips due to age, but every so often I would stop in and say hello. He would always remind me about the 240 + pieces of the grille of his old de Ville. And then show me his new Honda Accord…
Really nice story geozinger.
Love the story. It reminds me about what Jack Baruth said about the Talisman limo he drove across half the country. IIRC he mentioned that the big block Caddy “never went past 3/4 throttle.” And that is from a man who some refer to as TTAC’s “Tame Race Driver.” 😛
Cool Story , Thanx 4 sharing it Geozinger. Kind of sad about the Accord though. These 69-70 Cadillacs were a drive I can remember being driven by me in 1978…. A Beautiful steering squared off land yaht… you could see all 4 corners & Rulle the road. I Liked The 70 Emerald Sedan DeVille I got to drive better than my 67 Firebird at the time too.
@ He would always remind me about the 240 + pieces of the grille of his old de Ville. And then show me his new Honda Accord…
A sad but true commentary on the U.S. auto industry. I also knew a guy who wanted a Cadillac his whole life. He finally bought one – an ’81 Sedan DeVille with the V8-6-4. Once he had that Cadillac, he never went back for another. Instead, he drove a series of Honda Accords for the rest of his days. Paid cash for every one of them.
Wow, thanks for the positive comments! I typed that out during my break at work yesterday, and neglected to put a proper era to this accounting. The first time I polished the Caddy would have been 1977, and the last drive would have been in 1984.
The man was worth a lot of money, but he didn’t show it. I’d bet that his house was less than 3,000 sq ft., and his daily driver really was a Chevy Caprice. Remember the story about Sam Walton driving a beat up F150?
The Caddy was really his wife’s car, but I suspect he took a lot of pride in the fact he could provide a such a nice conveyance for his wife, or just keeping up with the Joneses, I don’t know.
It was 1986 when he bought the first Accord, trading in the last B-body Caprice he’d bought. He was absolutely enamored with it, and why not? It had the “Tokyo by night” dashboard, the seating position was low and big greenhouse appealed to him as he aged. Even though he didn’t need to worry about money, I’m sure the economy of the car was a plus…
I guess the most amazing thing about the Honda was that his company wasn’t a supplier to them at that time. But I think he was really fascinated with the Accord more so than having any issues with de Ville or his previous Caprice. He bought another one after that, but by 1991 had to stop driving. He died in 1996.
JP, well written article. My dad owned a 53 Caddy convertible, and he succumbed to the trend you mentioned: a separate car for every occasion. After he sold the Caddy, he bought an E-type coupe, an Austin Healey Sprite convertible, and a Pontiac station wagon… in other words, a fast car, a fun topless car, and a family car. Ironically, after dad divorced mom, he ended up driving numerous nondescript, late model sedans… it was never the same, after he left mom.
Things like .vent window delete was seen as modern in the late 60s and padded everything was a safety feature not a cheap delete. I have a 50s car solid steel dash etc I had to explain how the vent windows work to my 10 yr old she hasnt been in an old car since as a baby in our 63 EH Holden got sold. Ive no use for a huge land barge apart from not being able to park it in one space I cant afford $10 gallon gas for a Caddy they are kinda thirsty.
VW menaged to keep them for the Rabbit/Golf Mk1 and first-gen Jetta. And Ford offered them as an option in the early 1980s to the Fairmont, Zephyr, Fox-body Granada, Cougar, LTD and Escort/Lynx and I think there was even in option for the Fox-body Mustang. Check this 1982 commercial showing front vent windows in a 5-door Escort hatchback at 0:36 in this clip.
And I also mentionned these Escorts with front-vent windows in a comment about the Ford LTD with screenshots coming from a Youtube clip.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/cohort-sighting-1986-ford-crown-ltd-victoria-two-door-two-more-years/
They were an option. My dad’s 83 Escort had them.
I do the top down windows up thing frequently. Living in the pacific northWEsT I take the opportunities I get to drop the top so some times that means going topless in 40 or even 30 degree temps. With the window up the heater on high on the def/floor setting and it’s quite comfortable in the front seat. I also prefer windows up for long distance freeway driving.
I currently own two big convertibles. A 1972 Olds Delta 88 Royale with a straight body, a bad repaint done long ago, and a totally trashed top. It also has the 455 Rocket under the hood 🙂 . It was a consistent weekend driver until the timing chain broke a few months back. I’ll fix it one day.
The other is a ’65 Buick Skylark. Picked it up for $800 because it has no powertrain or top fabric.
The Olds is in my apartment garage and the Buick is in storage.
I’ve always loved cars — certainly not as knowledgeable about the inner-workings of the machines as most, if not all, others around here. But nothing has evoked my true passion for the automobile like the convertible. But, I freely admit, there’s very little practicality about that type of vehicle. Emotion, aesthetics and intangibles like driving under the open sky are what keep me coming back. There’s something timeless about a convertible, while other cars continually evolve into rolling eggs.
These Caddy convertibles are forever linked in my mind with the Dukes of Hazzard. Boss Hogg had one of these, and it seemed to go well sideways through the dirt too.
The late-60s represented the height of Detroit’s design group think. That goes a long way toward explaining why the Big Four were so slow and ineffective at responding to imports like the VW Beetle and Mercedes, which gleefully violated virtually every American design rule in the book.
In those days GM was usually the design leader, and the Cadillac represented high orthodoxy (at least for big cars). The pictured convertible displays all of the fads current in 1969, such as enclosed instrument-cluster area, “razor” fenders, coffin-nosed hood and hidden wipers.
This was hardly Cadillac’s finest hour, but the 1969 DeVille looked a lot fresher than the Lincoln Continental, whose platform was in its ninth and final year. Meanwhile, the Imperial may have had a brand-new “fuselage” body, but its overly plain front and awkwardly tall beltline just didn’t look “luxurious” like a Cadillac.
It’s more than a bit unfair to compare the 1969 Cadillac with the 1968 Imperial. In fact, comparing any new model car built in 1969 with on outgoing 1968 model is unfair. A more apt comparison would have been a 1969 Cadillac with a 1968 or, better still, compare a 1969 Cadillac with a 1969 Chrysler. All of the small quality touches mentioned on the 1968 Imperial vanished with the 1969.
The sad fact is that, with the exception of the late fifties, one of the quickest cheapening and decline in domestic auto build quality was the period of the late sixties – early seventies, culiminating with some truly horrendous vehicles in the late seventies.
If I can’t put the top down,and the windows, my convertible doesn’t leave the garage.
Our convertible is my wife’s primary car, we don’t have the luxury of a 3rd car as of yet.
I had to weigh in on this one, as I have a ’70 DeVille. The ’69-’70’s were fairly well engineered and put together. This example of a ’69 looks good on the outside, but I wonder what hides beneath the skin. The door panel inserts on a ’69 (as well as the dash insert on the passenger side) were still real wood venier. The leather on the ’69 was an ostrich skin (or at least looked like it). The carpet was much heavier than that found on other GM products (and darned well impossible to find in the aftermarket now).
What I find amazing about these cars is how durable they are (in general…there were a few weak points, like melting convertible top switches). My ’70 is a rusty, mid-atlantic car that still spends most of it’s life outdoors (for the past 19 years!). The 472 V-8 suposedly has a high nickel content block and heads. All I know is that when I rebuilt the heads a few years ago, there was virtually no wear in the cylinder bores. The transmission is a THM-400…bulletproof. I was even able to get the automatic climate control in my ratty old car working. I’ve had to replace a few tops, but the mechanism has been trouble free. Since I’ve had the car, I’ve only had to replace one power window motor, and no regulators (try to get that sort of life out of a BMW window motor and regulator). The old beast still puts a smile on my face when I drive it. It is just getting more and more expensive to put gas in it (10 mpg, and premium please), it takes a country mile to stop, and in an increasingly urban area, is getting tougher to park. I may have to let it go soon for something a bit more practical on a day-to-day basis (anyone know of a nice E-30 5-speed convertible w/ heated seats?).
Wow! Love big Caddies, but this one, regretably, is a half-assed attempt at some knd of a “restoration”.
True, Caddies beginning in ’69 (but more so with the ’71’s) started to have some serious de-contenting, but the door panels are clearly missing their pull straps and the faux-wood panel/applique, not to mention, exterior trim pieces (hood, trunk lid crest) are clearly missing.
Vinyl re-upholster job is a half-ass effort too – in the day, a buddy of mine had a red ’69 DeVille ragtop with the ‘real McCoy’ leather seats – pattern conservative, but sumptous and plush. I agree with Mad Hungarian in his assessment – either do it right or don’t do it at all (I know . . . we’re ALL short of time and money).
And yes, the top up/windows down thing makes sense to curb wind buffeting, and for a quick park, does, at least, deter some individuals from doing a “snatch n’ grab” off of the seat.
Nothing says “get out of the way” like the big torque rush of the Caddy 472 pre-’71 V-8 engine. Feel bad for our friends in Oz and Kiwi-land who may have never experienced the locomotive torque of GM’s finest and best big-blocks. (When GM hand’t lost its’ way).
Being an owner of the same car, I can only hope and appreciate that we all, as owners of classic vehicles, respect the stewardship and privilege that we have been given.
As the very brand-new owner of a 69 Caddie convertible, I can tell you that the door panels do indeed have real wood veneer…. unfortunately, the veneer in my panels are just shy of falling away completely, but they are real wood!
Windows are up for safety so no thief enters.
My dad has a ’70 Deville ragtop that he bought about 20 yrs ago…It was in good condition at the time and he has had it repainted and the top replaced.
It is a beautiful car, but you’re right…..GM’s quality was starting to slide, and never really recovered…
The car in the photo looks like a poor restoration or a resto in progress. I feel if you dont know how or cant afford to do it correctly dont do it. I also hate when I see these cars with rolls royce grills shoved in the front and god awful wheels and a stereo hacked into place. I have a 69 hardtop sedan deville, it was my great uncles car which he bought used in the 80’s, it was originally from kuni cadillac purchased buy an older woman,and was sold by her son and currently has 80k original on it. It has nicks in the paint,clock doesnt work,and it has the usual rust problems (though not as bad because it was kept in a semi enclosed garage for the past 27 years). And it is built better than any of the bmw,mercedes,infinty crap they make today! New cars just dont hold up as well as old american cars, and after a switch to electronic igniton older cars start everytime.
I have a 1970 DeVille convertible and yes the interior is kind of bland compared to my 1966 Lincoln Continental. That Continental interior was like jewelry. Absolutely wonderful! The Caddi on the other hand is a way better daily driver. Everything works and it has plenty of power. That 472 scoots. I get some people who try to blow by me on the inside as I’m heading to a bridge or intersection and I just step on the gas and they are lost behind me. The best part is it handles very well if you ever need to push it around a tight corner. I’m always surprise by how, with new tires, it never gets flustered and it tracks smooth and clean through very tight corners. I’ve owed 1969, 1968 and 1970 GTO’s as well as a 1970 Chevelle and this Caddi can turn with any of them. By the way I also owned a 1969 Satellite Sport and it was a rattle trap and handled poorly. (all convertibles)
I bought a cadillac De Ville 1969 in South Africa and shipped to Italy in 1990. Great car that I sold it after 5 years. I would love to have it again !!! I drive now a Chevy Caprice Classic Estate Wagon 1987, great car but diferent charm!!
Nice write-up. But I for one was never wild about convertibles.
First, there’s the challenge to manhood – a convertible, for the last seventy years, has been a “chick car.” It’s there that she can let her long tresses fly in the wind.
Okay, I got past that with my Jeep CJ. But I found that, although I’d have the doors off in all but the worst weather…the TOP stayed UP.
Why? The rays from Old Sol just zero in on my schnozzole. I burn horribly; and hot upholstry doesn’t do it for me either. I’m one of the few who fully understands the sun-umbrella over the operator’s chair on a paving machine on a construction site.
So…I love the wind; I love the tactile sensations of the road whizzing by (not only in a car, BTW…I generally run my locomotive with the window open, the better to see, hear and better feel what’s happening)…
…but not the sun. I’m a shade-tree kinda guy…
Those were Cadillac’s Golden Years, no question.
Just found this. Great write-up, JP. I have very strong memories of these ’69-70 convertibles. The local mobster across the street from me had one, as did our doctor who was a family friend. Both were navy blue – the doctor’s with blue leather and a Princess phone on the transmission hump, the mobster’s with white leather.
Realize the interior here is gutted, but fully agree with your point vs. not only the ’68 Imperial, but also earlier Cadillacs. There was definitely a slide beginning in the late ’60s, and the only differences in pace across the Big 3 seemed to be determined by refresh cycles – i.e.the ’67 Fleetwood Brougham lost the fold-down rear seat trays from the ’66, while the ’69 did away with the front and rear vent windows. As you noted, Imperial took a big dive in ’69. and Lincoln, as Paul noted, followed a year later.
The reason I looked this up today was that I was wondering what a ’71 C-body convertible would have looked like – not just the DeVille, but the Electra 225 and Olds 98 as well. That would have been Broughamtastic.
I love these un abashedly American Land Yachts .
Way too big for me to want one but I smile whenever I see one going by .
-Nate
A 1970 DeVille convertible lives near me — it’s in Original, unrestored condition and appears to be driven regularly. Whenever I see it, I think about how majestic the car looks, even in its less-than-pristine condition. Most other 1970-era cars in that condition would just look like an old, ratty car, but the DeVille manages to keep its aura of majesty.
You’re right that this car is recognizable as a Cadillac from 100 yards away, and whatever the unquantifiable qualities are that make it such — it just works.
The interior is a definitely a let-down. But I suppose that once a customer was seduced by the exterior styling, the interior could have been made of reused cardboard, and people still would have bought it.
In an era when many were smokers, Cadillacs from the 60s were notorious for locating an A/C vent right above the ash tray. Haven’t seen one of these in years, but it looks like that tradition continued right up through the ’69s.
Just for the record, here’s what the interior looked like when new.
Injection molded door panels can only be properly repaired one way-by injection molding again.
A place like Just Dashes would charge a fortune for this.
If this were mine I might try to sourced good used replacements online. Maybe this guy did try that and failed, who knows.
I meant to say vacuum formed.
Hopefully not only available with a black interior .
I wish it included the Mandolin =8-) .
-Nate
There is something curious about every regular 1969 Cadillac that I’ve seen. Maybe it’s just me, but when I look at the front end, it appears that the top and bottom of the grille have been pinched a little in the vertical direction – almost as if the leading edge of the hood has been bent down a bit. Maybe it’s an illusion caused by the eggcrate grille because I don’t see it on the 1970 models. Has anyone else notice this or are my eyes deceiving me?
Yes. Absolutely yes. I’ve noticed the same thing since I was a kid. It’s not 100% of the time, but very often I see the same thing. At one time I thought it was due to “Parking by feel”, causing the bumper tip and/or pointed leading edge of the hood to be pushed slightly, thus “pinching” into the open area at the center of the grille. But after many years of this phenomenon I’m not convinced that 95% of ’69 Cadillacs have been damaged in the same way without any visible evidence other than the “pinch”.
Your eyes may be deceiving you, but if they are then mine are too, and I suspect many others are noticing the same thing. I think it’s a weird optical illusion that slipped past the design team.
It’s an optical illusion caused by looking down on the grille, which is recessed behind the hood point and bumper. The ’67-70 Eldorado has it even worse, since the grille isn’t as tall. As in the Parthenon, they needed to make it imperfect to look correct.
But the front bumpers aren’t strong.
An interesting detail in some photos showing clay models for the proposed 1969 Cadillac in an article of Collectible Automobile, there was still toying with the idea of continuing with the stacked headlights.
My dad had a gorgeous ’69 Coupe DeVille, red, white vinyl top, white seats, red dash and carpet. I was very young, but as a car kid I loved that car. So although I may be wrong, I think those front fenders may belong to a 1970, those little emblems above the single lights at the very front to be are a give away, I believe they were for 1970 only. The signal light themselves are correct for a ’69. Nice car, they may not have been the flashiest of Caddy’s, but I’ll forever love the design. My favorite would be the 1969 Coupe DeVille, I like the window lines, the side-line which goes under the rear side window. It has a masculine overall appearance.
Windows up, top down works in winter. You stay warm ( in the front anyway).
And its great when the car coming the other way drives through a puddle.
Ask me how I discovered that…………
Regarding the windows up with the top down…had you grown up in New England, what with its winters that refuse to let go at a proper time, you’d know the experience! First sunny days over 40°, the owner had the top down after five months of bone-chilling, damp cold weather. Windows were up to channel the heat around the interior.
“Those were the days, my friend, we thought they’d never end….”
But, they did and I’m glad I lived through it.
For Cadillacs with presence and impressive quality, a ’66 Eldorado convertible it hard to best. For the sedan, a ’66 Fleetwood Brougham hasn’t been surpassed yet.
Bet you never thought somebody could do a four-wheel drift in a ’69 DeVille convertible:
I cringe a little at this beautiful car’s ultimate fate, but it does to out in a blaze of glory with a blast of Cadillac’s trumpet horn:
Had one of these for a long-term rental while my car was in the body shop. It was five years old at the time, but still in great shape.
No question, though—the magic was evaporating.
1970. South Attleboro Massachusetts. Holiday Inn. Sitting at the bar after a day’s work in the field as a representative for Blaupunkt Auto Radios. I got to talking to a man in his late fifties who owned one of these tanks that he bought new in 1969. NO AIR CONDITIONING! He ordered it that way because, “It’s a convertible. I’ll just put the top down.” He admitted that the dealer offered to give him the A/C at no charge just not to have such a car eventually wind up on the used car lot sans A/C. Maybe it did not? Maybe the man willed it to someone. I will never know. After his explanation, I ordered another Bourbon Old Fashioned. I needed it after listening to this man’s logic.