My absolute favorite Cadillac of all time are the 1962 models . Turning on the television, it seems I’m not the only one. These particular Cadillacs pop up in pop culture more often than others, save the 1959 models.
Whether it’s My Cousin Vinny,
Or Mad Men.
Pop Culture seems obsessed with the skeg finned Cadillacs of 1962. They stand in the middle of the transition period between the height of the fins in 1959, and the somewhat homely restraint of the 1965 Models. In modern Hollywood portrayals of the early 1960s, these particular Cadillacs still hold the status of having “Made It.” The concurrent Lincolns that had more design influence on American Automotive design don’t appear as often as equal status symbols. They may appear for historical accuracy, but they less often seem the object of desire.
Maybe the Camelot Continental inspired too many imitators? It started out as a Thunderbird proposal. By the time both reached production in 1961, the Continental and Thunderbird shared many design details. Maybe a consequence of sharing a factory and Robert McNamara’s cost saving ways. Then the theme became diluted when Elwood Engel went to Chrysler and made variations on the theme first with the 1964 Imperial, then with the 1965 Chryslers. Or, as the 1962 GT Hawk posted during Studebaker week shows, imitation began almost immediately.
Precious little about the 1961-62 Cadillacs seem to have trickled down to other General Motors cars (or any other 1960s production car). It is more a car of the Kennedy Era than the Lincoln Continental could ever hope to be. The 1961 Continental rode out the whole decade, for better or worse, in the same basic shape. It’s harder for a causal eye to know all the details that make , say, a 1963 Continental, a 1963.
And it turns out this is a 1964 Conti... kinda proves my point...Whoops.
Details on the Cadillac like the white covered tail lights that glow red when the brakes are applied replace and make it different from the two circular lenses on 1961 models. Or those Skeg fins running that Henkle Knife sharp visual line from the front wheel well all the way to the rear of the car, which would disappear for 1963.
Little planned obsolescence styling changes, along with engineering refinement kept Cadillac high in resale value and appeal during this time. Even in ads for their 1965 models show the previous seasons offerings as being a desirable way to step into the excellence that was the Standard of the World. That’s a far better option than settling for that Ninety Eight Luxury sedan or Electra 225, isn’t it?
Seeing one of these Cadillacs on the street today, they seem reminiscent of an era long gone. An era in which women donned white gloves, nylons and pearls for shopping trips to to I. Magnin department store for pillbox hats. Or to Kroger for the fixings of Steak Diane.
An era where men wore suits, ties and hats on a daily basis, even in the sweltering heat. The time that you actually went to the dry cleaners, and had clothing pressed in crisp creases, not unlike the sharp lines of this Cadillac.
When the creases in slacks started to relax, it also seemed that Cadillac also relaxed its design philosophy. By 1967, the standard line Cadillacs had embraced the hips that sprouted at Pontiac in 1963. Sexual liberation in car design? It might be a stretch, but I wouldn’t doubt it put off a number of stoic buyers. The more Caddies became rolling bordellos (ironically, playing catch up to cheaper cars), the more buyers looked overseas for import luxury from Mercedes, and to a lesser extent, Jaguar.
Now you might wonder why I latch onto the 1962 models more than others. When I was in Catholic School, my best friends grandparents had a 1962 Coupe DeVille.
Black with the most glove soft white leather I had ever seen. I had seen my fair share of Brougham-y pillow button loose cover “Regency” leather interiors in the Oldsmobiles I had grown up in. They were comfortable, but seemed to come with this ungodly slippery sheen that made me wonder if the interiors were sprayed with a lifetime supply of Lemon Pledge.
But the leather of this Cadillac was of this elegant sheen that seemed so subdued, refined. Close the heavy doors, an echo of a distant AC Delco Starter, and then silence. Not tomb like silence, but a white noise silence of serenity. And then silent, effortless motoring. The only noise really was the clicking of the Hydra Matic column shifter from all the way to the bottom “R” back up to drive. None of the jet like whine I associated with every Turbo Hydra Matic car I had encountered (and sometimes crave to hear) in “modern” GM products. You were coddled in a silky, swift, Paradise. It’s almost as this was the ultimate white space.
From the sea of middling at best GM products I was familiar with, that 25 year old magic carpet ride made me understand why so many of my relatives talked, almost in rhapsody about how magnificent these particular cars were. There wasn’t the hoarse lumpiness of the HT4100 V8 disturbing anything. There wasn’t any sagging headliners or finicky electroluminescent gauges interrupting the white space. There wasn’t a repair bill waiting for the 440-T4 Hydra Matic waiting down the road. These Cadillacs were products of when GM was at the top of their game, and very close to the end of the era when Cadillacs could be considered standards of the world.
Their 390 V8s were smaller than both their C-Body brethren. By 1962, Oldsmobile checked in with the 394 Sky Rocket for Ninety Eights to make up for the doddering Roto-Hydramatic’s slow shifts. Buick was up to 401 cubic inches for the Deuce and a Quarter. Lincoln was still running a massive, detuned 430, Imperial a slightly less ridiculous 413. Through brilliant engineering, or more likely the aid of the 4 speed Fluid Coupling Hydra Matic, these Cadillacs were still capable of hustling to 60 in under 10 seconds and would top out at a genuine 125 mph, all the while returning gas mileage in the low teens. 11-15 miles to the gallon might not (ever) be anything to brag about, but one assumes at least the Lincoln did worse. And the high strung big inline sixes from a Heckflosse 300 SE weren’t all that much better.
It’s easy to see why most luxury car buyers voted with their pocketbooks in 1962 and purchased nearly 161,000 of these cars. There’s enough of the subtle balance between quiet elegance, brash style, exceptional performance and brand Cachet that would soon be squandered. Even today, if anyone gave me the choice of *any* Cadillac, I’d pick the 1962s over any model, just based on a few rides in that Black Coupe DeVille 20 years ago. I bought into the media propaganda. These were the Best Cadillacs ever.
Maybe someday, I\’ll have a Cadillac too!
Outstanding article. You really captured why a Cadillac was a Cadillac circa 1962, and why anything else just wouldn’t do.
Great article. Ironically, Ford in my opinion had really taken over a decade later when they seemed to have grasped the concept of “exclusive, status car” with the Mark IV, definitely with the V (oh the designer editions) and once more although never quite to the same extent with the VII. Ditto for the Town Car whose top trim levels still screamed “status” in the 80s. The 2nd gen was never that, and the 3rd gen was a dinosaur, albeit a great one (much like the closing years of the Mark VII and the entire run of the Mark VIII were dinosaurs). By then Cadillac had long become a joke. But in the 60s they definitely still did “get it.” As evidenced by this and the 4th gen Eldos. Wonderful write-up on a great car. Cue Springsteen, “Pink Cadillac.”
Now honey it ain’t your money
Cos baby I got plenty of that
I love you for your pink Cadillac, crushed velvet seats…
The pertinent question is what it was that stole first Cadillac’s and then Lincoln’s thunder, which they never quite recaptured (Lincoln definitely not, Cadillac is making some strides)? It’s not just the performance, although the Germans had it so that’s definitely a part of it. And it’s definitely not being “smarter” than luxury, lol (there is really nothing smart about an obnoxiously expensive automobile). So what is it?
I would say Paul’s series on the “Brougham” phenom, plus his previous posts about the decontenting and downward price march of Cadillacs (even though that had started faintly in the 1950s) explain far too well why Cadillac eventually faltered. When the basic concept of what was “luxurious” could be had by optioning out any full size car from any brand, why go for the Cadillac? Especially by the early 80s when a luxed out Caprice Classic or Gas Olds Ninety Eight was far less troublesome than a variety of Cadillac efforts like the V-8-6-4, the HT4100 V8, or well, those diesels.
Also, Paul’s post on the 1971 Cadillacs brings up the point that by that point a basic Cadillac Calais was only 25-30% more expensive than a Loaded out Caprice, and with more expanded financing (if I’m quoting his piece correctly) put Cadillac within the reach of more buyers, buyers that back in 1960 would have stretched to be in an Olds Eighty Eight. And that’s how Cadillac (if I remember correctly) was able to move 350K cars in 1973 before the Gas Crunch came along). Add that in that they weren’t all that better built than a host of other GM cars, when 10 years before they were so well crafted for a mass production car…. and…
I’d also add in the Social factors: Cadillac was the first Luxury brand that did openly sell and cater to African American Buyers. For African Americans wanting to flaunt their financial success nothing would do (and for some, nothing still does) like a Cadillac (for those less showy there was the Buick Deuce and a Quarter, oddly my great grandmother preferred a succession of New Yorkers and Imperials starting with a 1956). But I’ll be blunt to say to more moneyed, Caucasian buyers having Cadillac become a minority status symbol, rolled into it’s attainability to middle class buyers (or even working class if they saved) made them hunt for something more “exclusive,” even if that meant putting up with no power seats, automatic climate control (Cadillac introduced that in 1964 if I remember correctly), and a rather stiff 4 speed automatic in W108/109 Mercedes for those who perhaps bought Fleetwoods, and W114/115 cars for people that bought ordinary Calais/Series 62/DeVilles. They might have been light on options but at least they were Built as solid as Packards used to be 20 years prior
And once the winds changed, in popular taste it never really shifts back, only moves forward. It’s remarkable that Cadillac and Buick survived all of that. Out of Buick and Oldsmobile in the last 20 years, I always though Oldsmobile had a more distinct from traditional Cadillac image than Buick…Oh well.
You really nailed the era with this, as the 1962 Caddys (as well as the Impalas) had that long, linear design form that speaks well of that time before things started going crazy in America. It was still the land of “American Graffiti”, turquoise color schemes, space, classy air and passenger train travel and well-dressed people!
One word: CLASS! Something sadly lacking today.
But CLASS is the reason why the 6- and 7-series exist in BMW’s lineup. I find it sad that what was traditionally a US forte is now done to perfection by the Germans while the most Detroit seems to be able do is put out pimped up Fusions and Tauri, and that one luxohatchback. Sad.
A friend owns a 3-series, and recently received in the mail a personalized hand signed letter advertizing the new 6-series, beautifully, almost poetically written. That’s… class.
I mean, I look at those cars and I see what used to be Detroit’s bread and butter in the glory years. It’s not like it’s not selling anymore, those cars do sell. What’s more, in BMW’s case they’ve propelled the Bavarians’ entire lineup to the “status” high end of the market, including the 3-series which was never intended as a status automobile (but it is now!!!). And all that the 6- and 7-series (and the respective Mercedes, and Audis) are is what Detroit used to be, only done in a modern way. They’re beautiful boats, for lack of a better term. They refuse to compromise comfort and expensive materials and beautiful lines realized in the framework of imposing, uncompromising, in-your-face dimensions. And people of status love it, just as they always have. Because alphas, those who “have arrived” that is, love to impose, and they love to rub it in. And that’s what those cars are for, and there will always be a market for it. So why can’t they make them like that here?
One other thing that stands out to me with Detroit today is that both Ford and GM are trying to build their lineups from the bottom up. GM less so, because somebody there is smart enough to learn a few things from Audi and BMW. Both of those German companies have spent so much time advertizing their high end cars (and continuously stressing that their competition was Mercedes) that buying a 3-series became almost a Buick-like experiense of yesterday, where you couldn’t afford a Caddy but you wanted some degree of status so then you bought a Buick which basically basked in Cadillac’s glory, and this way you had sorta arrived, even though you didn’t have the Ultimate Toy. As I see it, both Audi and BMW are built from the top down, the emphasis is on the status of their high end automobiles, and then it’s only a matter of time and styling until the lesser entry level models get to bask in that same glory (and sell in record numbers, because people want status).
Ford is doing the opposite by making Lincoln a tarted-up Ford. That’s not the way to do it, IMO. Ford should be a smaller Lincoln. GM seems to get this part, but then the Cadillacs are still not bold enough and the Chevys are too mundane and poorly styled, so then that drags them down.
Funnily, these German luxury cars now feature nearly as much chrome as those old Cadillacs!
I agree than while the CTS is great, Cadillac sorely needed something that would compete in the top tier, as a ‘halo’ vehicle that would help raise the brand’s prestige as a whole. Too bad the next big caddy will merely be an also-ran (just like the current DTS/STS), from the mouth of the boss himself.
I think that part of the difference is that the Cadillac, Lincoln, and Imperial, while luxurious and high-priced, were not obnoxiously high priced as are luxury cars today.
We were looking at a new silver CTS sedan in Costco last night, and were surprised at how it looks to be about the same general size as our silver current-generation Accord. It’s hard to imagine what about the CTS makes it worth 44 grand as opposed to high 20′s for the Accord. Panel fit isn’t any better, the side windows are actually smaller, the grille and front clip has the weird Z-lines. I’m not saying that the Accord’s that great-looking, just that the Caddy doesn’t beat it.
Anyway, back to the ’62…these were indeed great looking cars, part of the transition from the wild 59-60′s to the relatively restrained 65 and 66 models. Incidentally the Lincoln shown with its flat side glass is a 64-or-later car.
Ha. I guess that proves my point. It is a 1964 Continental. Oops. I’ll update the piece with a slice of humble pie shortly.
Now days a Caddy is built on a Holden platform using a Holden engine V6 so it holds little alure GM NA seems to have lost the ability to build cars especially performance orientated RWD cars luckily one of it subsidiaries knows how. Back in 62 when this Cad was cmade it was the best effort GM had and all its other offerings aspired to be as good as a Cadillac and took styling cues from it. The new CTS while very different looking is not a good looking car to me for some odd reason it was a big seller in NZ, GM decided to release its CTS in the OZ/NZ market and prepared 180 cars for release slotting them into the local Holden lineup at the very top above the Statesman $90k+ but then got cold feet fearing that in a recession it wouldnt sell GM then put the shipment up for tender, one NZ dealer bid and got them on the condition no cars were to be sold outside New Zealand a tiny market they sold out in 2 weeks and have since bought another shipment of UK spec cars and sold them too Kiwis do like yankee cars when they are sold at real prices there is no way in hell that a CTS is a better car than a Holden or worth more these sold at Holden money and were well recieved another marketing disaster for GM The Ozzies would buy Caddys too but not for a premium price any more. I got given a book as a child cars cars cars this was the model Cadillac featured I looked as wonderful then as it does now
What everyone seems to forget is how can you build and design anything worth mega-buck luxo-cruser cash and cachet when the whole board of directors are carving out a multi-million dollar bonus for themselves every year good or bad.
I totally agree, these are quintessentially Kennedy-era cars. It’s ironic, given that, that they were designed in the Eisenhower era…if I’m recalling correctly, I think the ’62 designs would have been locked by spring ’59, and they were a later outgrowth of a movement within GM that began when someone saw a lot full of ’57 Chryslers in the summer of 1956.
The ’62s owe a lot to the rare, Pinin Farina-built 1960 Eldorado Brougham, which introduced the skegs and the revamped taillight shapes. I don’t know how aware the average buyer was of the final Brougham, but it wouldn’t have hurt, since the Brougham was a $13,000 car, more than twice the asking of a basic Series 62.
I think part the problem with the ’61-’63 Continental was that it doesn’t have a lot of continuity with anything else. It doesn’t look like previous Lincolns (given the oddities of the ’58-’60 cars, probably just as well), and it generally doesn’t have a lot of connection to other designs (although several subsequent designs, notably the ’64 Imperial, lunched off it). Also, while it’s eminently tasteful, it’s always struck me as a little bland. I honestly don’t know how well it would have gone over as a Thunderbird, because T-bird buyers of that era really seemed to relish gimmicks. The Continental was very clean, but also almost antiseptic.
Were there even enough of either the 1959 or 1960 Eldorado Brougham produced for a show model to be in every metropolitan area of the United States? I feel like it would have been marketed as a Special Order model to the really discriminating Cadillac Buyer that had to have the absolute best of the best, even if that meant buying it sight unseen.
There was another element that seriously hurt the Continental for years: Lack of body styles. There was no Hardtop Coupe til what? 1966-67? and then there was no 4 Door Hardtop ever. Even Imperial gave you a full cross section of then popular body styles. Although the Convertible was somewhat glamorous, there’s something always sober and a bit too stoic about the Sedans, especially since I’ve only seen them in rather basic colors (Black, Navy, Silver, White).
There was a grand total of 200 Broughams in 1959-1960, so most Cadillac fanciers probably never saw one, much less got to sit in one at a dealer. But it was in the catalog, although with the standard Eldorado (which wasn’t cheap, either — something like $7,800), and it was a nice talking point for salesmen. Cadillac almost certainly lost money on all the Broughams, but they generated buzz and floor traffic at auto shows, and added a certain “glamma” (to quote a Cadillac vanity plate I used to see around town) to the line. Probably more than Chrysler or Ford got from their not-very-successful attempts to establish Imperial and Continental as separate brands, but I digress.
The lack of a two-door hardtop probably didn’t help the Continental, it’s true. That appears to have been a cost-saving measure. When the ’61 Continental was developed, Lincoln’s future was very much in doubt, and if Robert McNamara hadn’t liked the alternate Thunderbird design, Lincoln probably wouldn’t have survived to the Kennedy inauguration. McNamara asked if they could make the design into a practical four-door, which they did, but M-E-L management was apparently afraid that if they ran up the tooling costs any higher, McNamara might change his mind — that’s why the convertible ended up being a four-door. (The sedan had the suicide doors because even with a wheelbase stretch, it was the only way to provide decent entry/exit without making major packaging changes, and it had B-posts for structural reasons.)
According to Tom Bonsall, Lincoln continued to lose money until the mid-sixties, which is why they didn’t add the two-door hardtop until MY1966. As much as the critics liked it, I don’t think the public was terribly moved by the 1961 design…as you say, too sober for its own good.
This has always been my favorite Cadillac as well. I think the contemporary Continental has become an icon in the decades since (see “Entourage”, for example), but at the time, driving a Cadillac was a sign, if not the sign, for having made it–which is why with Don Draper’s choice of a car, “Mad Men” was pitch-perfect as usual. (Even with Jon Hamm currently serving as the voice of Mercedes-Benz advertising, I don’t think you’ll see Don driving a Mercedes anytime soon–well, if the series goes into the early ’70s, a W107 for the new wife.) The ’59′s were too over-the-top and subject to caricature (I’m sure more pink ’59s exist now than rolled off the line), and the later cars had started to lose their identity. A ’62 Cadillac just looks clean and spare and…just like 1962, in my mind.
When I was a kid in 1962, our family doctor had a charcoal-blue ’62 Sedan DeVille and he used to make house calls.
Whenever he made a house call for my brother or one of my parents, I was out in the driveway scrutinizing every inch of it and reveling in it’s glory as long as he was in the house.
The 1960 is my favorite, but the ’62 is a close second. I didn’t like Cadillacs again until the gorgeous ’67 Eldorado. The 1965-1968 Calais, DeVille, and Fleetwood looked so old-fashioned compared to Olds and Buick. Hated them.
Thanks for the memories.
The 1962 was subtle in it’s premium status. I liked the 1970 as a perfect Cadillac year, very bold Styling. In 1971, The styling looked Cheaper, More like a Chevrolet, While at the same time, the 1971 Chevrolet looked Like a 70 Cadillac. More serious, less like a Funeral car in the front. The Next Cheapening blunder came with the piggish 1974,5,6 Model years… So much so, that the restyled downsized 77s were a big improvement.
But to my knowledge Cadillac has never regained it’s status as Standard of the World, in Automotive Stying, nor anything else. Or am I wrong?
1962… is very Subtle in it’s status level. The skeg sides look cheaply crisp to me. What is a Skeg anyway?
Laurence, I applaud your choice of Cadillac. The 62 has always been my favorite too, although I have a soft spot for the 63-64 as well.
I think that my love of the 62 is partly because my grandfather had one of these when I was a kid. It was a virtual twin to your feature car, except that Granddad’s had black and white interior. He bought it new and drove it well into the 70s, and was the last new car he ever bought.
That car felt like a bank vault when you got in and pulled that solid metal door-pull to shut the door. Everything about that car felt tight and solid and real compared to the increasingly plasticky cars we saw as the 60s turned into the 70s. I loved the fender mounted turn signal lights and the white taillight lenses that lit up red. Wow, Laurence. You are a magician, because all of a sudden I am about 8 years old again. Great piece.
Actually, the post was inspired by the 1966 DeVille that’s in the cohort that I found a few days before this 1962 model. My Uncle had a 1966 Coupe DeVille (powder blue with a white vinyl top and white leather) that he bought brand new as a “Sunday” car that due to life, after 1984, got garaged (although driven up and down the block and the oil changed regularly).
When he retired in 1997, I was nearing drivers permit age. Guess which car I wanted? But my Aunt Ethel gave him an ultimatum: either buy a retirement gift car to himself, or restore the Cadillac, not both. Seeing the ease (and discount) of getting a fully loaded Yukon SLT versus having too many memories of being a grease monkey (He’d spent 35 years as the parts manager for an Oldsmobile Dealership) he sold the Caddy, and took the Yukon.
And, relative to my best friends Grandparents, they also have a 1941 Buick Century (and for the “fun” of it, their daily drivers are a 1982 Volkswagen Jetta and a 1987 Cadillac Cimarron). But, they sold the 1962 Coupe DeVille to a nephew who promised to nuture and care for it in a way they, on limited social security incomes couldn’t afford with the 3 other cars (and the Buick holds more sentimental value for them). I got one last ride in it for a family wedding about 4 years ago. Oh the magic.
Like the owner of the 1966 I found a month ago “A Cadillac will pass anything, but a Gas Station.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeg You could say the Skeg fin had snob appeal to Cadillac buyers that were also yacht club members. Make all the boat jokes you like.
I guess if you compare the 1962 Cadillac to some of it’s rivals it’s still a little bit more flamboyant than anything save an Imperial from that year, which really looked like a pruned Dinosaur ( then you could also say that a 1962 Chrysler New Yorker, which was within price/prestige reach of the cheapest Series 62 Cadillac looked like a crosseyed pruned Dinosaur).
Other rather expensive full sized cars fro 1962 were less interesting to look at. I’ve always found the 1962 Electra 225 positively dull compared to the 1961 model that preceded it, yet needlessly fussy compared to the 1963 model that followed it. I feel similar, but less firm about the Oldsmobile Ninety Eights of that year (I’ve been always conflicted about the their tail lamps: I like the detail/shape of the lens, but I thought the hierarchy between the One lens Eighty Eight and the two lens Ninety Eights and Starfires). Actually the Buick had perhaps the biggest drop off of flamboyance to dullness in the same time period, even more so than our subject Cadillac.
I guess I didn’t add this to the article, but especially by 1964 a lot of Continental Details showed up in Mercury cars (not the absolute shape, but if you look at any 1964 Comet grille next to a 1964 Conti Grille you see the influence). But I don’t think you see any Cadillac influence on any other GM cars (save the Olds Ninety Eight) until the 1970s.
Loved this article! Call me a girl but thanks for taking me back to the world in which I.Magnin and their blissful stocking (and other) departments still existed. Sigh……
The 62 ranks up that as one of my favorite Caddys of all time too. Some of it is certainly due to the fact that my Uncle owned one and I have fond memories of me and my cousins setting 4 across in that back seat covered in the oh so popular, back in the day, clear vinyl embossed seat covers.
I wonder if the Lincoln Continentals of the 1960s are simply too timeless to be associated with that particular era. Critics have long loved the design, and it was extremely influential, but I would imagine that, if you showed people a photo of 1962 Lincoln and a 1962 Cadillac and asked them when each was built, they would be more likely to correctly “place” the Cadillac.
It’s probably the same with the 1953-54 Studebaker Starliner and Starlight coupes versus 1950s Cadillacs or 1955-57 Chevrolets. The first is a timeless design, while the other two are clearly from the 1950s. Therefore, everyone strongly associates the Chevrolets and the Cadillacs with that time period. This is reinforced as directors of movies and television shows seek them out to easily suggest that time period in various productions.
Cadillac hit a peak in the 1961-64 era, after the excess of the late 1950s. The cars were greatly cleaned up in the styling department compared to 1958-60, and, if you believe various road tests and the results of the Popular Mechanics Owners’ Reports, quality was improved, too.
In 1965, GM began cutting corners, while the garden-variety Chevrolets, Fords and Pontiacs could be optioned to the point where they were cut-rate Cadillacs.
I have similar feelings about the Caddy and Conti. The Caddy was the epitome of popular design; it was a much more accessible and familiar design. The Conti was clearly out of the mainstream in 1961, almost startlingly so. Eventually, its design language became more familiar, and its influence was much more lasting: I see the recent Chrysler 300 as an example of the Conti’s influence. The Caddy’s are long gone.
Anybody fortunate enough can be rich, however, it requires an education to have class and taste. According to the theory of superstimulus, those that are more fortunate than others wants to show off their richness to prospective mates, simply to gain an advantage. If you got it, flaunt it. However, there’s a dilemma concerning the superrich and truly influental. How do they differentiate? With knowledge that are only obtained in their circles.
Therefore, bling-bling will always appeal to the noveau riche, while the people with appeciation for lifes finer things will always prefer understated elegance. I’m sure those in the know during the kennedy era knew what went where, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the population of Continental owners where the wealthiest and most educated of any car buying population. An equivalent of today would be the difference between an Escalade and a Lexus LS600h. Which one of those two owners would you think had the highest education?
Those “that got it” in the late 60′s made the transition from Caddillacs to Mercedes, like those that are in the know these days are all driving Lexi. Simply because it spreads in those circles what particular kind of car is the car to have for the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstimulus
I think even by the early 1960s the super wealthy/Old Money in the United States had already moved on to the exclusivity of Bentley, Rolls Royce and the Adenauer 300 Mercedes Benz (There’s a reason that one appears in Butterfield 8 from 1960). Lincolns, and to a lesser extent Imperials appealed to the more conservative luxury buyer, but not necessarily the Super Rich, I think a lot of traditional luxury buyers were confused and jolted out of Lincolns by the 1958-60 models and slowly adjusted back into the brand. The biggest question is where did all the Packard buyers go after 1956? Part of me thinks since Studebaker-Packard held the dealer franchise deal for Mercedes Benz at the time a lot of disappointed Packard owners looked across the showroom at the quirky, well executed German cars and didn’t look back. At least those in areas that wouldn’t face backlash for owning a German car only 10+ years after WWII ended.
I think Cadillacs still, in the early 60s were aspirational for loads of buyers, but still retained enough of their brand cachet that they didn’t exclusively appeal to the Noveau Riche. But it’s remarkable how quickly that changed by the late 1960s. Ironically I think a lot of Super Rich GM customers during these years also would have put the first Gen Buick Riviera on their shopping list, given it’s excellent craftmanship (for a mass market car) pretty stellar reviews, and remarkably well executed interior and exterior design. It was also more exclusive than any Cadillac, since (at least for 1963) the artificially stimulated demand by limiting production to 40K units.
Last of the Standard Of The World. These cars were as good, or better, than any car on the planet.
Power, Space, Ride, Amenities, Reliability. Nobody could touch these cars.
By the ’65 models, GM had started their slow slide into mediocrity.
Thanks for a beautiful car.
I’d have to argue that the downhill slide didn’t start until around 69 or 70.
I had a 66 Coupe DeVille that was an excellent car. My friend “Bubba” and I bought it to do an Illinois Rt66 Rally. We may have been the 5th owners for that car and we put her through her paces. This was back in the late 90s and that thing didn’t have a squeak or rattle anywhere. And that car moved, for such a monstrous beast it was suprising as it actually handled too!
I think Don is driving a new Coupe de Ville in season 5:Episode 1 when he drops off his 3 kids at their mother’s house (the house of “Morticia and Lurch” as he says). It was a quick shot, and I don’t know my interiors that well, but I think I saw it as a 1966 model (no true separate fin, vertical chrome divider on each rear light … the 1965 didn’t divide the rear lights). Anyone else get a better look or know better ?