It’s an article of faith among Lincoln fans that what the early 1960s Continental lacked in sales volume against Cadillac, it made up in prestige. However, even Lincoln-Mercury management didn’t think so at the time, and one of the clearest indicators of that was lower resale value. Let’s take a look at how Cadillac and Lincoln compared in this era — data that challenges some conventional wisdom while revealing something surprising.
1959 Cadillac Sedan de Ville / Mecum Auctions
Throughout Cadillac’s ’50s and ’60s heyday, one of its strongest attributes was resale value. A new Cadillac was expensive, but its depreciation rate was among the lowest if not the lowest in the U.S. You might think well-heeled customers wouldn’t care about such things, but it was a point of pride among Cadillac owners that if you could afford the price of entry, overall ownership costs were surprisingly low. Excellent resale values also encouraged affluent buyers to trade in often. In the ’50s, a Cadillac owner could potentially have a new Cadillac every year for an annual cost of less than $1,000.
1960 Lincoln Continental Mark V four-door hardtop / Mecum Auctions
Lincoln hadn’t fared nearly so well in this respect. Not only had the big 1958–1960 Lincolns sold poorly to begin with, they shed value with concerning alacrity. Lincoln-Mercury determined that the wholesale value of those cars after one year had averaged only $3,110 — a painful drop for cars that had originally listed for $5,000 or more, and $743 less than a same-year Cadillac.
1961 Cadillac Sedan de Ville (6-window) / La Salle Classic Cars
That fact came from Chapter 9 of Paul R. Woudenberg’s book Lincoln & Continental 1946–1980: The Classic Postwar Years, which discusses some of the findings of a 1966 merchandising group study Lincoln-Mercury conducted to assess the position of the Lincoln brand. (I unfortunately don’t have a copy of the complete study, and Ford Archives have told me that they no longer allow outside researchers to access internal records like these.)
1961 Lincoln Continental sedan / Bring a Trailer
By the mid-1960s, Lincoln wasn’t doing badly — the brand was once again turning a healthy profit, both overall and on a unit basis — but its sales were still a fraction of Cadillac’s, and it wasn’t making great headway in poaching sales from its GM rival. One of the conclusions of that study was that from 1961 through the 1965 model year, “Lincoln Continental had not achieved prestige parity with Cadillac in the eyes of the general public and, specifically, luxury car buyers.”
1961 Lincoln Continental sedan / Bring a Trailer
There were a number of ways to quantify that shortfall in prestige, but resale values were perhaps the most troubling. A Lincoln Continental was an expensive purchase — more expensive than a Cadillac Sedan de Ville — and its residual values directly affected owners’ willingness to trade in. Unlike Cadillac owners, Lincoln buyers tended to hold onto their cars for longer, which spoke well of their loyalty to the product, but made things tougher on Lincoln-Mercury dealers, especially in the long months leading up to new model introduction season.
1961 Lincoln Continental sedan / Bring a Trailer
Below is the residual data Woudenberg cites from that study. The resale figures, shown in purple and green, reflect each make’s average wholesale (trade-in) value as of May of the following calendar year. Since I don’t have the actual study, I don’t know which models they used to calculate the averages. (While Lincoln had only one two models during this period, Cadillac had 10 to 12, even discounting the Series 75 formal cars, and there was significant variation in their resale values.) As a point of comparison, I’ve added the base prices for the Cadillac Sedan de Ville and Lincoln Continental sedan, represented by the red and yellow columns.
Cadillac vs. Lincoln, New Sedan Prices and Used Wholesale Values After One Year, 1961–1964 Models
(“FOB” means “freight on board”: manufacturer’s suggested retail price at the factory, not including destination charges.)
Here’s the actual wholesale value data in tabular form:
| Model Years | Lincoln | Cadillac | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1958–1960, average | $ 3,110 | $ 3,853 | -$ 743 |
| 1961 | $ 3,888 | $ 3,895 | -$ 7 |
| 1962 | $ 3,631 | $ 3,784 | -$ 153 |
| 1963 | $ 3,647 | $ 3,809 | -$ 162 |
| 1964 | $ 3,571 | $ 3,874 | -$ 303 |
As you can see, the 1961 Continental came very close to matching the trade-in value of the 1961 Cadillac, but the gap began to widen after that, which made Lincoln-Mercury management quite uneasy. Most concerning were the numbers for 1964, which had seen the Continental get its most substantial updated since 1961. Despite (or because of) that update, the ’64 Continental’s trade-in value now lagged $303 behind Cadillac.
1964 Lincoln Continental sedan / Mecum Auctions
1964 Cadillac Sedan de Ville (4-window) / Mecum Auctions
I assume the study’s resale value data only goes through 1964 because it was completed too early in the year to incorporate one-year residuals for 1965 models. However, I recently bought a copy of the 1966 Kelley Blue Book (KBB) Auto Market Report for March–April 1966:
KBB lists the wholesale value of a 1965 Lincoln Continental sedan as $3,700, $275 less than a year-old Cadillac Sedan de Ville. Because the Lincoln cost $461 more than the Cadillac when new, this meant that after one year, the Continental sedan retained only 72.2 percent of its value, while the Cadillac retained 83.3 percent.
1965 Lincoln Continental sedan / Mecum Auctions
Those figures are generally consistent with the trend the Lincoln-Mercury study had identified, and support the conclusion that the Lincoln brand still wasn’t considered quite as prestigious as the Cadillac. Owner loyalty and critical acclaim were all well and good, but the retail trade was not sentimental about those things, and a late-model Continental just didn’t command the same prices as a Cadillac of the same age, mileage, and condition.
1965 Cadillac Sedan de Ville four-door hardtop / PCarMarket
However, looking at the KBB data, I noticed something very interesting. While pre-1961 Lincolns had shed most of their value by 1966 — even a 1960 Continental Mark V was worth only around $500 in trade — that was NOT true of the 1961–1963 cars. In fact, 1961 and 1962 Continentals were now worth substantially more than a Cadillac Sedan de Ville of the same age, both wholesale and at retail. The retail value of a 1961 Continental sedan, the price you could expect to pay for a used car on a dealer lot, was $1,830, compared to only $1,535 for the Cadillac.
1961 Lincoln Continental sedan / Bring a Trailer
1961 Cadillac Sedan de Ville (6-window) / La Salle Classic Cars
A tangential point I noted along the way was that while all of Cadillac’s four-door DeVille models generally cost the same when new, the trade had clear preferences when it came to used examples. From 1962 to 1964, the four-window Sedan de Ville consistently commanded $100 more in trade-in value than the six-window model, which in turn was worth $50 to $75 more than the bob-tailed Park Avenue cars. For 1962 models, the Lincoln Continental sedan was worth more in 1966 than any of the three DeVille variants. For 1963, the Lincoln sedan was worth more than either the Park Avenue or six-window Sedan de Ville, but it lagged $185 behind the popular four-window DeVille.
1962 Cadillac Sedan de Ville (4-window) / SMclassiccars.com
1962 Lincoln Continental sedan / Bring a Trailer
For the following chart, I averaged the values of the four- and six-window Sedans de Ville. (I omitted the short-tail Park Avenue models, since Lincoln didn’t offer anything comparable.)
1961–1966 Cadillac Sedan de Ville vs. Lincoln Continental Sedan, Wholesale and Retail Values as of March 1966
Here’s the data as a table:
| New, FOB | Used, Wholesale, As of 3/66 | Used, Retail, As of 3/66 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1961 | |||
| Cadillac Sedan de Ville | $ 5,792 | $ 1,175 | $ 1,535 |
| Lincoln Continental sedan | $ 6,066 | $ 1,425 | $ 1,830 |
| 1962 | |||
| Cadillac Sedan de Ville 6W | $ 5,795 | $ 1,500 | $ 1,915 |
| Cadillac Sedan de Ville 4W | $ 5,795 | $ 1,600 | $ 2,035 |
| Lincoln Continental sedan | $ 6,074 | $ 1,750 | $ 2,210 |
| 1963 | |||
| Cadillac Sedan de Ville 6W | $ 5,798 | $ 2,225 | $ 2,775 |
| Cadillac Sedan de Ville 4W | $ 5,798 | $ 2,325 | $ 2,990 |
| Lincoln Continental sedan | $ 6,270 | $ 2,250 | $ 2,805 |
| 1964 | |||
| Cadillac Sedan de Ville 6W | $ 5,820 | $ 2,825 | $ 3,525 |
| Cadillac Sedan de Ville 4W | $ 5,820 | $ 2,925 | $ 3,645 |
| Lincoln Continental sedan | $ 6,270 | $ 2,775 | $ 3,465 |
| 1965 | |||
| Cadillac Sedan de Ville | $ 5,831 | $ 3,975 | $ 4,860 |
| Lincoln Continental sedan | $ 6,292 | $ 3,700 | $ 4,545 |
| 1966 | |||
| Cadillac Sedan de Ville | $ 5,743 | $ 4,700 | $ 5,745 |
| Lincoln Continental sedan | $ 5,912 | $ 4,700 | $ 5,745 |
| Lincoln Continental coupe | $ 5,647 | $ 4,700 | $ 5,745 |
I read this as the early stirrings of interest in the 1961–1963 Lincolns as collector’s cars rather than simply used cars. I’d need more data to determine if the 1961 and 1962 Continentals were actually appreciating in value by this time, but it does appear that their depreciation had at least leveled out. The KBB wholesale value of a 1961 Lincoln was about twice that of a 1961 Ford Galaxie hardtop and $375 more than a 1961 Thunderbird hardtop.
1961 Lincoln Continental sedan / Bring a Trailer
It makes sense: The early ’60s Continental was a high-quality product that generally held up well, and in 1966, a well-kept ’61 Lincoln was a five-year-old car that didn’t really look five years old. Its relative scarcity may have begun to work in its favor as well. According to R.L. Polk & Co., as of July 1, 1966, there were still 125,249 1961 Cadillacs registered in the United States, but only 22,848 1961 Lincolns.
1961 Lincoln Continental sedan / Bring a Trailer
In other words, while the Continental wasn’t yet a leader in sales or prestige, it was well on its way to becoming a classic, and there’s some consolation in that.
Related Reading
CC Design Comparison: 1958 vs. 1961 Lincoln – A Study in Pure Forms (by Stephen Pellegrino)
Curbside Classic – 1961 Cadillac Four Window Sedan deVille (by tbm3fan)
1961–1963 Cadillac Town Sedan And Park Avenue Sedan De Ville – Cadillac’s Bob-Tailed Nags (by me)
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1961 Lincoln Continental Sedan – “The Best-Looking American Car Built Today” (by Paul N)
Vintage MT Road Test: 1964 Cadillac Sedan DeVille – The Fastest And Best Classic Cadillac (by Paul N)
Carshow Classic: 1964 Cadillac Sedan DeVille Four Door Hardtop – Every Car Has A Story, But Some Are Just Better Than Others (by Spridget)
Vintage Review: 1964 Lincoln Continental 4-Door Convertible – “Quiet, Tasteful Luxury” (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1965 Lincoln Continental – The Last Great American Luxury Car (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1965-66 Cadillac Sedan DeVille – The King’s Last Stand (by Laurence Jones)
Nice deep dive!
“Didn’t look five years old” is a key point. Old rich and new rich had opposite attitudes back then. New rich, like Hollywood stars and Texas oilmen, enjoyed the Continental at first. It was dramatic. Old rich preferred to buy the best and keep it, even if it didn’t impress the hoi polloi. After five years the unchanged and timeless Continental was more appealing to the old rich.
One Cadillac advantage in the Jet Age 1950s was they were selling streamlined cars where as others were doing styling experiments selling high drag boxes or Forward Look cars…
I always love these deep dives into hard data!
The collectability angle is interesting, but I would argue that by 1966, the 1961-62 Lincolns looked far more current than the Cadillacs of the same years. The 63-64 Cads still commanded higher prices than Lincolns because they were still relatively new, but Cads of 1961-62 were far more likely to give the impression to strangers that the owner was driving an out of date car.
In an ideal world, I would get more KBB and NADA figures and try to chart the Lincoln depreciation curve, but I don’t currently have enough data for that. I think the telling point in that regard would be whether depreciation had simply diminished (which would support that argument) or whether used retail prices had actually gone up, even a little bit (which would suggest early collectible interest in the manner of the 1957 Thunderbird). As I said, I think the net effect was probably some of both; a lot of cars that are now quite collectible were then still in the “old car of very marginal value” stage.
The Lincolns were quality made and individually road tested as I recall, so an older Lincoln wasn’t needy. The other factor was a lesson in trendy style, the Cadillac became like yesterdays striped bell bottoms, something you didn’t want to be seen in.
That was VW’s gambit, too. Little visible change for years means older ones don’t look so old.
By the mid 60s, the rest of the industry had caught up to the ’61’s clean look, so your old Lincoln didn’t stand out from the crowd as much. Different clientele from flashy Cadillacs.
The downside for Lincoln dealers was that buyers weren’t motivated to trade in often, which really hurt. The marketing study found that Lincoln sales rose in the late part of the calendar year after new model introduction and then dropped off in the spring where things got very lean. Owner loyalty is nice and all, but it doesn’t move the metal and it doesn’t keep the lights on.
Cadillac was also extremely concerned with styling continuity to maintain resale values, to the extent that except for certain stylistic breakpoints, identifying model years at a glance takes practice, but their business remained strong year-round because demand exceeded supply and people traded in every year.
I suspect leasing was less popular in those days. My dad leased from the early 1960’s into the 1980’s but he was self-employed and the expense was deductible.
Today, it seems that’s what people do to soften the blow of heavy depreciation, especially in the case of pricier European cars, especially big Benzs, Bimmers and Audis.
I don’t believe I’d even heard of non-corporate leasing until the late 80s if not later. BMW once offered good residual value in theirs to increase volume, until Broke My Wallet became well known.
Leasing was very much around in the ’60s. There were leasing companies and banks that would lease, but it was not done by the manufacturers as was the case in later decades. Leasing was attractive to the self employed and business owners as the full amount of the lease could be written off as an expense instead of just the depreciation.
I’d love to know how Cadillac painted those lovely ’61 wheel covers and why they stopped. I think I bring it up every time one appears here. Sixty years later, they look perfect on the cars that survived.
I don’t think the Lincoln’s lower sales and higher depreciation reflected negatively on its prestige. If anything, it was the opposite; the ’61-up Lincoln was seen as more exclusive and prestigious, often the preferred choice by the seriously rich and such. But Cadillac simply was in the thrall of a much wider cross section of the population. Cars have to be relatable to their owners; a much wider demographic segment of the population could relate to owning a Cadillac than a Lincoln. For instance, I would see very large numbers of used Cadillacs when riding the bus through the predominantly Black and working class ethnic white sections of Baltimore, but never a Lincoln. And I think the same thing was true for many/most working class and lower/middle class folks who so commonly aspired to a Cadillac. I don’t think they would have felt comfortable in a Lincoln. Seriously.
The Cadillac was a symbol of (relatively) affordable affluence, luxury and social prestige. The Lincoln was a symbol of exclusivity. Those two are not the same.
As to the prices of the used older Lincolns improving after 1965 or so, that does not surprise me. Yes, the Lincoln was seen as something more timeless and classic from the get-go. The 1955-1957 Thunderbird experienced the same phenomena, being seen as a classic almost from the time they stopped making them.
It’s also possible that the Lincolns experienced a boost from the association with JFK. Even though he was assassinated in one, these cars were commonly referred to as “Kennedy Lincolns” and the association was a positive one. Kennedy exuded the privileged exclusivity that the brand had. And this effect only increased with time. In the ’70s, “Kennedy Lincolns’ were very much desirable among a certain type of car owner. Not quite a collectible, but a special interest car that could still be a daily driver.
That was not what Lincoln-Mercury determined at the time. The quote about “prestige parity” was a conclusion of the Lincoln marketing study, not mine.
Can we jump to the conclusion that Cadillac’s superior residuals (at least in the short term) were due to higher prestige and not other extenuating factors? Today, a Toyota Tacoma or Tundra holds almost 75% of their value after 5 years, considerably better than their competitors, but I doubt their higher prestige vs. a Ford Ranger or Ram 1500 has anything to do with it. Likewise, five-year-old Mercedes-Benzes and BMWs are prestigious, but they also seem to have a rep of being expensive to maintain after the first few years. Alfas and Maseratis are iffy used car purchases, but the prestige is certainly there. Cadillacs of the 1950s and into the ’60s were well made, and used car shoppers had many more to choose from than with Lincolns, and had numerous stand-alone dealerships they could get them serviced at. All these things could be weighed by used luxury-car buyers, helping to buoy their trade-in value.
Cadillac residuals in this period were driven by demand that exceeded supply (until mid-decade, they were straining the limits of their production capacity), combined with a generally high level of styling continuity that meant last year’s model didn’t look or feel too different from this year’s. Prestige undoubtedly played a role in that, but those were the material factors involved.
It would be nice if you could scan each page of the KBB March-April guide and post it for all to see. I sure would appreciate it.
I submitted the 1966 New Car Complete Price Data and Paul (with help) showed me how to include it in a post:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/1966-new-cars-complete-price-data-what-would-you-buy/
I would like to have it digitally, but it’s low on the list of time-consuming scanning projects I haven’t gotten to, I fear.
The takeaway I get is that the ’61 worked brilliantly well as the Hail Mary pass to save the brand that it was; Lincoln had been burning money trying to match Cadillac, and going to a very limited line with much less annual changes than the norm tapped into a profitable niche of well-heeled buyers who were done with the annual trade-in cycle but not yet ready to buy foreign.
That put the division back in the black and slowly over the course of the ’60s burnished its image with the public, but the Iacocca Mark 3 didn’t come a moment too soon.
Indeed it was probably clear to HFII by the end of the ’50s that his Whiz Kids were whizzes at management science but not at sales, and Ford needed a salesman in product development which likely helped Lee’s rise from the Philly zone office to Father of the Mustang in about 7 years.
I have always understood FOB to be an abbreviation for Free On Board, rather than Freight On Board.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOB_(shipping)
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fob.asp
In any case, I think Paul is on to something with Lincoln prestige. I was always a little awed to see one, whereas Cadillacs were a daily sight.
Also Fresh Off the Boat. I thought it was Freight On Buyer for decades, because that’s essentially what it means.
What did exclusivity do to Imperial resale values?
Either “freight on board” or “free on board” is potentially correct depending on the context. The first is the logistical sense; the second is a legal term that gets into the nuance of when and where a sale is deemed to have taken place, which may be relevant for various tax and insurance purposes.
Nothing good. They were significantly lower than Lincoln or Cadillac.
Although Cadillac had a larger lineup than Lincoln through these years (including 2-door models), the Sedan deVille was certainly the most direct competitor to the Continental at this time. No one thinks that the Series 62/Calais was a direct competitor, but some people will argue that the Fleetwood 60 Special was the most direct competitor.
I’m glad to see you mention the distinctions between 4-window and 6-window Sedan deVilles as well as the “short-deck” Park Avenue models. As a child in the 1960s it seemed to me that the 4-window models were the most popular (and IMHO the better-looking of the 4-door offerings). To this day I have never seen a short-deck Park Avenue.
I believe the 6 window hardtops had more rear legroom than the 4 window, certainly more than the ’59-60 flattops. The relatively rare pillared ’65-70 C body sedans had noticeably more than the hardtops, and more headroom (they were taller).