(first posted 4/16/2018) Most of the cars featured on Curbside Classic are unlikely survivors – the one-in-a-thousand cars that are still intact long after most contemporaries met their demise. One question that we can rarely answer here is just how these cars survived: What set of unique circumstances led to a 50-year-old car still hanging around? Occasionally, though, we can answer this question, such as with this 1966 Valiant I found at an estate sale.
This Valiant wasn’t the only intriguing car at this sale. Parked right next to it – and wheeled out of the same garage where the pair had undoubtedly spent most of their lives – was a 1967 Mustang. Both were in solid, original condition. Beyond the cars, the interior of the 1957 ranch house seemed like a time capsule, with virtually nothing newer than the 1970s. It was almost a haunting scene, and one that piqued my curiosity enough to find out the story behind these two cars and their owners.
The house and cars had been owned by a couple whom we’ll call Ray and Hazel, who had purchased the 3-bedroom rancher in one of Northern Virginia’s premier neighborhoods from its builder in 1957 for $32,700. Though a hefty sum for the era, this was achievable on Ray’s salary as a university professor and Hazel’s as a professional illustrator. Both were in their early 40s at the time, and being without children (and their accompanying expenses), a new house in a leafy suburban neighborhood was well within reason.
A few years later, Ray was promoted to full professor and Hazel found employment with a federal government agency. The late 1950s and 1960s were likely the couple’s peak earning years, as well as the apex of their professional achievements. And during this period they bought two new cars.
Both respectable cars for middle-aged professionals in the 1960s, the Valiant and Mustang reveal their owners’ purchasing priorities. Ray and Hazel didn’t order stripped-down cars, or fully loaded models adorned with unnecessary frivolities. Instead, they stuck to the middle ground… sensible yet stylish cars with enough equipment for reasonable comfort and performance, but nothing even remotely ostentatious.
1966 was the last year for the Valiant’s first generation, which was introduced in 1960 as Chrysler’s first “compact” sedan. Even though the original concept had been restyled for 1963, by ’66 a Valiant was far from an exciting purchase. That it was given the smallest image in this Plymouth ad is not coincidental. While not trendsetting, 1966 Valiants were solid and reliable, and the clean lines presented an almost timeless sophistication. In fact, I could see myself considering a Valiant purchase if I had been around in the mid 1960s.
In many ways, I can relate to Ray and Hazel’s spirit of buying nice things and then holding on to them for a very long time. Their house was a virtual museum of the 1950s and ’60s – as I look around my own house filled with decades-old furniture and with cars between 8 and 23 years old, I see a bit of Ray and Hazel in myself as well.
Most of the couple’s belongings seemed to have been well-made when new, treated gently, and kept. Ray and Hazel didn’t replace things unless absolutely necessary, as witnessed by the pink Hotpoint oven and the family room furniture that was once fashionable, then frumpish, and now is in vogue again as “mid-century modern.” Hanging on to things for a long time is not the way everyone chooses to live, however seeing the entirety of their house puts the cars’ remarkable preservation into context.
It wasn’t just household furnishings that were preserved in Ray and Hazel’s house, as this late-1950s Electrolux vacuum can attest. Aficionados of vintage household items had a field day at this estate sale, but the Valiant interested me most, so let’s take a closer look.
This is a V-200 – not the bargain-basement 100, or the incongruously showy Signet – which corresponds to Ray and Hazel’s apparent purchasing philosophy of buying mid-range products.
For a Valiant of its era, this car sported some significant options – most notably the 225 cu. in. Slant Six engine, a welcome improvement over the standard 170 cid. Six. If one were to select a 1966 engine to survive several decades of daily use, a durable Chrysler Slant Six would be the engine of choice. It came as little surprise to see that this particular Valiant still contained its original powerplant. In this car’s case, the engine was mated to an automatic transmission.
Another noteworthy option is air conditioning. It’s unclear to me just how many ’66 Valiants came equipped with a/c, but in all likelihood, it was well under 50%.
The front seat of Ray and Hazel’s Valiant was a pleasant place in which to spend time, particularly with the soothing turquoise color.
I sat in the back seat as well, and wondered when the last time was that anyone had sat back there.
It was easy for me to picture Ray and Hazel buying this car when new, and driving it around Northern Virginia or to their jobs in Washington, DC. By the 1970s, they still owned this car, and a 10+ year old Valiant wouldn’t have been quite as common a sight on the roads. But my guess is that Ray and Hazel didn’t mind seeming a bit unfashionable. Nothing about the house or belongings exuded any air of pretension. Besides, in the 1970s, Ray and Hazel were approaching retirement age and likely had other financial priorities besides buying new cars.
Ray retired in 1974, and Hazel in 1979, but sadly their golden years did not last long. In 1980, Ray died of cancer at age 68. As I walked through their house, I noticed that very little – in terms of possessions or home improvements – dated after Ray’s 1980 passing. This of course is not an unusual phenomenon, but it’s striking to observe someone’s house following a 34-year widowhood, and realize how completely time stood still following her husband’s death.
For Hazel, this phenomenon included keeping the couple’s two cars. The Valiant and Mustang were last registered in 2007, when Hazel was 89.
Along the way, Valiants gained a loyal following, and somewhat of a collector status. This note (likely from the 1990s) that I found in the glovebox attests to the attention that an aging Valiant could attract from enthusiasts:
Hi, nice ’66 Valiant! I have two ’65 Valiants plus a third that I’m picking for parts. If you need any parts, or would just like to meet up to see my car, give me a call! P.S. – does your a/c work? Are those seats original?
Chances are that the then-octogenarian Hazel had little interest in meeting up to talk about car parts… but of course she did keep the note. Just in case, maybe, the time might come to sell it, she could give this man a call.
The time never came. Seven years elapsed between the car’s last registration and Hazel’s passing in 2014 at age 96. During that time, both the Valiant and its Mustang compatriot most likely sat immobile in the house’s garage – in the current parlance of senior care, one would say that these cars “aged in place.”
The Valiant and Mustang sat for three more years before the estate sale cleaned out the house’s contents. At the estate sale itself, both cars attracted considerable attention, but I never found out whether either car sold. One hopes they found owners who appreciate cars that have against all odds survived for decades in nearly original condition. Which is more than we can say about Ray and Hazel’s house, which was torn down and replaced by a 5,800-sq. ft. McMansion.
Curbside Classic’s tagline “Every Car Has a Story” rang in my head as I sat in this Valiant, for it was hard to ignore the story it was telling me. After I looked further into its owners’ history, the story coalesced – part fascinating, part lovely, part mournful. Hopefully this 1966 Plymouth Valiant is still out there somewhere. Maybe it is still in original condition, maybe in the process of being restored, or maybe already modified into a non-stock car that would be hard to recognize. But someone has probably added a few more chapters to this story. Let’s hope that those new chapters are among the best ones yet for this unlikely survivor.
Photographed in Arlington, Virginia in April 2017.
Beautiful story – very poetic. I’d have been a committed bidder on that Valiant. Virgil Exner had been gone for five years by then but you can still clearly see his influence; both on the inside and outside.
I need to shoot movie with 1966 Plymouth valiant JUST Like this one. Small Part in the movie? 5 minutes Anybody know where I can find one to rent or buy.
Concur with Lincolnman – very poignant. Great story Eric.
The Mustang has no doubt survived. The question there will be how much has it been hopped up, customized, and completely ruined from its original configuration (I’m guessing it’s either a six or 2bbl 289 with automatic).
Hopefully the Valiant is being cared for, rather than being used as daily transport by some Hipster unable to find a like year Falcon.
Why, will a hipster not take care of it?
I don’t know if you meant that as just a joke, Syke, but sometimes it feels some enthusiasts always want classic cars to be reserved for “real” enthusiasts — no hipsters, no donk or ratrod enthusiasts, etc etc. Frankly, I’d rather see a car like this be driven and not sitting, decomposing in someone’s garage. And besides, a hipster is more likely to keep it stock anyway… Not to mention, isn’t it refreshing to see hipsters driving old cars? Does that not mean classic car appreciation survives in younger generations? And why is a hipster less worthy than another enthusiast who doesn’t have a bushy beard and a natty hat?
William, it is absolutely essential for old guys (well, most old guys) to say just how wonderful their generation was and how the present one is somehow unworthy of something.
Get off my lawn, you young whippersnapper!
I’ve repeatedly admitted that I come from the old days in the antique car hobby. I started with the Flood City Region AACA chapter in Johnstown, PA in 1967 (at 17), and remember when car shows consisted of pre-1950 cars either in original condition or completely restored to factory original.
No modifications. Period. If it was modified, by definition, it was a hot rod, and you showed it at some other gathering down the street. Preferably a long way down the street.
The concept of restorods (keeping the original body and modifying what’s underneath anywhere from updating the brakes to putting a complete modern drivetrain) didn’t exist back then. If you’d have suggested the idea, both sides of the argument would have looked at you like you were mad. To the antique car lover, you’ve just bodged a beautiful car. To the hot rodder, why go to all that work and have a car that doesn’t stand out in public?
And the end result doesn’t give you the true experience of driving an antique car, because they don’t drive like they were designed to anymore.
I don’t decry the ownership of the Valiant by some hipster because he’s a hipster. I worry that ownership of the car would go to someone because it’s a fleetingly current style statement, and once that statement becomes obsolete who care’s what happens to the car?
And it’s the Valiant’s of this world that are the ones need saved. The real cars, the cars that sold in the huge numbers and kept the profits going for the manufacturer. The cars that all of us remembering our parents owning, but almost nobody cares about nowadays because they cost just as much (if not more) to restore than a GTO/Road Runner/Firebird/SS396/GTX/Mustang Mach I/take your pick. These plain old four door sedans are the important cars in the history of the automobile, yet they’re the ignored models because they weren’t sexy, neat, cool.
I’m not that worried about that Mustang, because if it is chopped up, odds are there will still be a few more of those specifications being kept and cared for. But the Valiants are the rare ones . . . . . .
I’m in your camp. I have two large four door hardtops and people always say it was nice of me to save a four door. As we all know most everyone wants a two door.
When I bought my 68 Mustang in 1984 from the original owner, an older woman who bought it in Texas, there were two buyers looking at the car at the same time. Me, at 31 and the other fellow at 22 years old. She asked what was going to happen to the car and I told her restored to it’s original state. The other guy hemmed and hawed a little.
I got the car and it is in it’s original state for a 289-2V pebble beige automatic which is very typical on Mustangs back then. You could say boring as at any show these types of Mustangs are hard to find. The only thing harder is finding a basic six cylinder.
Eric, you’ve covered a lot of ground here in many ways.
No doubt both of these cars survive but it’s hard to imagine the Mustang staying in that original shade of green. However, like you, the Valiant has my juices flowing. A search a few days ago for Valiants revealed very few (at least on the sites I looked) were in driver condition and/or non-butchered. The few four-doors I could find were bringing a premium.
That house being torn down for the McMansion is a crime. Old doesn’t equate to being in crummy shape; rather, the build quality on the older one is likely better. My current house was built in 1988; the prior in 1977; the prior in 1967; my first in 1992. Want to guess the order of build quality for them?
Rant over. I’m glad you found this Valiant. Hearing about it has made my day.
FWIU McMansions *depreciate*, something buildings aren’t supposed to do…
That depends. According to the IRS, all buildings depreciate, which is why one can depreciate rental/commercial buildings. But as to whether they actually lose or gain value depends on their location and the local market. It’s the ground value that affects the swings in price, due to scarcity (or lack of it).
If a given house goes up 10% in value in a year, the structure (improvement) has really only gone up about the rate of inflation, but the lot value has gone up the difference (about 17%, in this example).
As much as I dislike inappropriate McMansions, a house this old is becoming functionally obsolete, and no one is going to pay for its high value (due to its location and large lot) and live in it. It’s like the Valiant: no one is going to buy it and use it as their daily driver for the next twenty years.
I don’t necessarily agree with that. I don’t know Arlington home/property values, and I’m all too aware of the causes of the teardown trend that is ravaging neighborhoods across the country (bad enough when initiated by the resident, ten times worse when speculative). I’m sure it’s worth a pretty penny. But that house, with an interior remodel and perhaps a rear addition, would be a MUCH better use of that property than some gargantuan faux-chateau or ersatz craftsman box. Many people don’t agree with me, but there wouldn’t be so many home remodel shows on TV right now if there weren’t a significant minority who do.
The architecture hasn’t reached “historic” status and perhaps never will, as an unassuming 50’s ranch without a clear stylistic bent, but there’s something to be said for scale and setback, and that is – *was* – a lovely lot with the Japanese maples and gently sloping lawn.
Pet peeve of mine, exacerbated by the fact that one of my favorite houses in one of the Raleigh neighborhoods where I used to live met the same fate. Late 50’s mid-century ranch on a huge corner lot which was halved and replaced by two 3000+ sf houses, one of which is at least architecturally interesting, the other of which is nothing less than an abomination. A $800k abomination.
I live in the (Maryland) DC suburbs and I’m familiar with houses in this area (in both MD and VA) like the one described here. The rooms are often quite small, with low ceilings. “An interior remodel and perhaps a rear addition” wouldn’t address the antiquity of the layout of the original house, unless such major work were done that a teardown would be cheaper. You can spend a chunk renewing the plumbing of a 1950s/1960s house and still wind up with very small bathrooms (as in “too small to ever use with a wheelchair, if we stay long enough to need one”).
This doesn’t mean I favor McMansions. I have to believe it’s possible to have a well-designed, well-built new house that isn’t ostentatious (two-story atrium entryway, etc.) and/or excessively large.
We live in a 1950s rancher like this that similarly still has mostly 1950s and 1960s decor. Yes, the rooms are small and the ceilings are low, and the layout does not “flow.” However it is what we are comfortable with. Since we have no intention of selling we don’t really care what younger buyers want. Now get off my lawn.
You’re a man after my own heart. Thanks.
I had that problem when I sold my house just over a decade ago in Calgary. The neighbourhood had gone from pensioners with old houses to McMansions as the location was great and close to downtown. I would have made more money if I had taken a match to the house. Nobody wanted a 100 year old home with no on suite washroom and walk in closet. I blame home and garden TV for that one. Ended up selling it to a tradesman and figured it would be torn down in short order. However I was back last spring and the house was still there.
As for the old cars I have sold as long as the next owner pays and hopefully keeps them from the crusher for a couple more years I can’t complain.
My house was built in the same year as the subject house, and quite the time capsule when I moved it. Sadly, it was last remodeled in the seventies. Yikes!
But I have to agree Jason that these are built like a brick house… oh wait… ;o)
I think in 1957, everyone was afraid of “the bomb” and these brick houses were built to withstand such. Extremely solid. Studs and joists are on 16 inch centers, not 24.
With some nice updating, these can be plenty modern enough inside. That 70’s Kitchen was transformed into a place where Mrs. Retro-Stang and I can get our “Culinary Saturday” on…
I’ve been in some McMansions, and while they look nice, don’t seem nearly as well put together as this little 1957 rancher. Sure, I won’t make as much when it’s time to sell, but my wife and I don’t care, its perfect for us, AND it fits with the architecture of the older neighborhood.
Oh, and sorry guys, I’d have to take the 1967 Mustang over the 1966 Valiant, even though I LOVE a 225 Slant-Six. Biased pinion, natch. But like my house, I’d leave it stock on the outside, and maybe make a few functional improvements where it counts, like the safety of modern brakes and such. ;o)
As a builder, I hate to break it to you, but your house isn’t as structurally strong as any modern house, due to the changes in the building codes. Seriously.
16″ 2×4 OC studs vs. 24″ OC 2×6 studs are equally as strong, although strictly speaking, it’s irrelevant on a one story house. One could build it from 2×2 studs and it would be strong enough hold up the roof.
Modern sheathing, tie downs, nailing patterns, etc all make modern houses more rigid. And the brick on your house is of course just veneer, and would come crumbling down in a fairly minor earthquake, Sorry.
Yeah, I figured you’d know since that is your thing, Paul. But we actually had a 5.8 Earthquake back in 2011 (granted it was centered in Virginia just about due south of us in Baltimore County, thus probably only 4 or so up our way), and there are some cracks in the mortar, but all in all not too bad. Not many more than the settling cracks that were there when we moved in.
As far as codes go… yeah, you’re absolutely right. Every time I’ve had anything done to the place, it has needed to be “brought up to code”, which is completely understandable since the place was built in ’57.
As to the brick only being veneer? I don’t know about that, but when the cable guy years ago had to drill through the wall he had a very tough time, and when he got through the first layer of brick, he found another layer of brick behind that. I guess that’s how they insulated them back then, a dead air space? – Again, not a builder here. I do know that the basement is cinder-block walls, so perhaps that’s the inside layer that the cable guy encountered and the bricks are merely ‘veneer’ as you say. I do know that on my house, I’ve got alternating bricks that are turned sideways, which would support that ‘double layer of brick’ if that’s what it is… May Dad’s house built in 1964 does not have some of the bricks turned sideways, so maybe his is just a veneer as you say.
I may be wrong, and possibly you have a structural brick wall. But the typical thing out there from the 50s on was to have a single-course brick veneer (one course of bricks) in front of the wood structural wall. Or do you not have studs and wood framed walls too? Having both seems odd. I’m not that familiar with that area. My parent’s house was all wood construction, but brick veneer on the front and side walls. It varies.
Don’t get me wrong; brick makes great “siding”, as its tough and doesn’t need painting. But structural brick walls are vulnerable in certain situations, and of course they have lousy insulating qualities.
On the flip side, there have been quite a few “improvements” in building materials that have turned out to not be improvements after all. Aluminum wiring of the 60s that has burned down many houses? The FRT (fire retardant treated) plywood roof decking of the 80s that would eat itself up and collapse if it was allowed to get wet on the construction site? The yellow CSST (corrugated stainless steel tubing) gas line of the 90s that is subject to arcing from a lightning strike which has burned countless modern houses to the ground? Not to say that the old ways are always best, but there have been a lot of modern materials that have been great ideas but have been disasters as actually used in home construction. I am pretty comfortable with my Romex wired copper plumbed black gas piped 1958 ranch house, thank you.
I had a townhouse before this one that was built in 1977 that fortunately was NOT built with aluminum wiring, as they learned their lessons and went back to copper before then. But sadly JP, that house DID have that wonderful FRT Plywood on the roof and well, let’s just say I replaced it with normal plywood when I had that roof done.
BUT is WAS better insulated than the 1957 Ranch in the picture. To answer Paul’s question, I think the bricks and blocks are the structural walls. The 16″ on center studs I talked about are the interior walls, with real plaster as opposed to drywall like they use now. While nice, that stuff is a PITA. Floor joists are 2X10s on 16″ centers; the roof joists are 2X8 or 2X6 on 16″ centers; and the block walls on the inside go all the way up to the peaks as viewed from inside the attic.
It would seem that this house was built with a serious amount of overkill, so I just assumed they were all built like this in 1957. My Dad’s house built in 1964 has similar ‘overkill’, but with a few less expensive touches. His house was built by a building company, whereas mine was built by a private builder. This man built his house (two doors down), my next door neighbor’s, my house, and the rancher you see across the street in some of my pictures. Sadly, he passed away a few years back after a battle with dementia, and I can no longer ask him any questions. He passed shortly after his wife did. As an upside to the story, his grandson now lives in the house and takes good care of it.
With my house, it finally gets a new roof on Thursday. It has those slats instead of plywood, so hopefully it will go smoothly. We shall see.
As far as why there are so many brick houses in Maryland? I have a theory on that. If you’ve ever done any planting or digging in this area, you only have to go down about 8 inches to encounter very hard clay. Since they make bricks out of clay, I guess this is what makes (or made) it such a popular building material around here.
Oh, and that townhouse? – Yeah, exterior walls were 2x3s (or it seemed like only 2x3s). When you shut the front door, it shook the whole house.
1977 or 1957? – I’ll stick with 1957.
Of course ’77 may’ve been a low point building wise. Or just simply a function of the builder of each of these houses.
The McMansion is definitely a generational thing. I grew up in a family of five in three bedroom 1500 sq ft houses till the age of 12. After moving to California we moved up to a 1750 sq ft four bedroom houses for Los Angeles and San Diego. When I turned 19 my father bought a 3500 sq ft house in Northern California. It was a lot of house to clean.
Being from that generation I am content with a 1500 sq ft house which is what I live in now. However, I have run into those in their mid-30’s to mid-40’s who felt such a house was too small for their 3-4 member family and thought a McMansion was perfect. I prefer yard square footage over house square footage any day of the week.
Should note that next to our last house was a 1500 sq ft house on 1 1/2 acres owned by a nice old couple. When they died their son got it and kept it. When he died he willed it to his church which then sold it to a developer. Soon two very large houses went up on it in an area where you didn’t really see your neighbor’s house and the streets were wide enough for a horse drawn wagon only. Now our old house looked right over into the next house. Ugh!
Are my eyes deceiving me, or does the Valiant have a/c, but no radio?
That’s the second time in recent weeks that I’ve noticed such an unusual combination in a car of that era.
Your eyes are correct. Car radios (even basic AM models) were options on most cars well into the ’70’s. They weren’t inexpensive either. A basic AM Music Master radio for this Valiant was $65.20, about $400 in today’s dollars. While popular options, they were far from universal.
Many cars were factory ordered back then, with dozens of al la carte options to choose from. Particular buyers could customize their car to their exact specifications. An uncle custom ordered a ’63 Rambler Classic 440 wagon with only two options, Solex Glass and a power rear window. Another special ordered a ’66 Chevy Bel Air sedan with Powerglide, 327 V8, rare factory A/C, tinted windshield, AM radio and door edge guards – dog dishes and blackwalls. The weirdest was the grandfather of a boyhood friend whose ’63 Olds 88 had lots of options, except Hydra-Matic. These oddballs disappeared when a la carte options were replaced by packages and equipment specific trim levels.
I wonder if Saturn was one of the last holdouts offering a la carte options like that, because my sister used to have a ’95 SL1 (purchased used) that had power locks, but manual crank windows. I always thought that was a strange combination, because it always seems like power locks and power windows come together as a package deal nowadays.
A lot of GM cars of that era, have “automatic locks” that would lock your doors either when you put it into “Drive” or exceed 8mph if you have a manual. So the Grand Am and the Achieva I had, and the Grand Am my mother had, all did this. Which meant all 3 cars had power locks, but manual windows… weird.
Oh yeah, I remember the driver’s ed car at my high school had that. It was an early 1990s Cutlass Ciera. But the Saturn definitely didn’t have that feature, at least with a manual transmission.
@WildaBeast: My Fiance’s Saturn SL1 is an automatic with AC (non-working) and it has crank windows along with power locks. It does have a Radio with a CD Player as well.
My dad bought his ’66 Fury without a radio. The dealer stuck in a Mopar AM radio they had laying around. It didn’t work very well.
Thanks, CPJ, but being well into my 50s, I remember all too well that radios were once options.
My surprise over this is that a/c was a VERY pricey option, particularly as a percentage of the base car’s price. The radio? Not so much. One would think that if one were to spring for an extreme luxury (for the time) such as air conditioning, a radio wouldn’t be much of a further stretch.
Our 1985 Chevy Caprice and our 1987 Chevy NUMMI Nova both had the same awful AM-only radio. Absurd.
A few items of note:
Both cars have what look like base stickers for a military or at least a federal installation of some kind leading me to speculate that Ray had the military/government job, while Hazel’s car got a sticker for occasional use as a driver to the base.
It looks like the Mustang ornament on the front fender is for a V8 equipped car (resolution with my phone isn’t all that great).
I would be willing to bet there was a 3rd car in this “collection, probably another Ford, but a largish 4 door sedan, or even an old wagon. That car would have been new enough to be inherited but old enough to not interest bidders at this sale.
When I was a kid (in the 50s) my parents had a custom home built that somewhat resembled this house…right down to the furniture.
BTW, my Mom died before my Dad, and none of us kids were allowed to remove or re-arrange a stick of furniture or buy anything that would not enhance my father’s quality of life. As much as we hated my Mom’s choices in furnishings, my father insisted they be retained.
And even though his car was on it’s last legs, we were not able to convince Dad that he might consider a newer model.
Good observations… yes, the parking stickers are for the Military District of Washington. As far as I could tell, neither Ray nor Hazel had worked for the Department of Defense, but clearly there was some reason for both cars to have DoD parking decals.
The Mustang was, in fact, a 289 (w/ automatic). After I got home, I did have some guilt for not taking more photos of the Mustang. Initially, I’d thought “gee, I see Mustangs all the time,” but afterwards I thought I’d overlooked an interesting part of the story.
There was no 3rd car at the estate sale, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the couple had owned a third car at some point.
if they were in their mid 40s in 1957, their peak earning years would have been just before retirement, in the mid 1970s. These were very frugal folks, which was not uncommon given that they came of age right in the Depression.
Those were their actual professions. Ray was a professor at George Washington University, and Hazel worked as an artist (& was hired by the US Department of Agriculture in the 1950s).
Do you know what he was a professor of? Something that would give him reason to call frequently at the Pentagon?
He was a professor of physical education… so not quite a direct link to National Security.
I wonder who drove the Mustang….Ray or Hazel? I would guess Hazel.
I like the concept of buying good stuff and then keeping it for a long, long time.
You sure will go through a phase where your stuff is utterly outdated.
But its also just a matter of time until you will be surrounded by things that truly mean something to you. And that as a feeling is so much more gratifying then alwalys following the latest trends and fads.
I debated this question myself — I tend to agree with you. The Valiant seems more like a professor’s car (the ’65 Valiant brochure cover even featured a professor driving his Valiant on campus),
The main thing that had me questioning this were the bumper stickers on the Valiant’s front bumper. They are from the National Zoo in Washington, DC… FONZ stands for Friends Of the National Zoo. I know it’s a bit speculative, but I see it more likely that Hazel would drive a car with a panda bumper sticker… though the zoo bumper stickers may date from the 1980s after Ray’s passing when Hazel could have driven either car. And the note from the Valiant admirer shows that she did drive the Valiant in her later years.
Anyway, it is fun to speculate
Both cars have blue DOD parking decals on the windshield that were issued by bases up until about the last 5 years or so and they have the old issued decals on the bumpers that were phased out sometime in the early 1980s, which means that at least one or both of them were retired military officers.
Given that its Arlington, that’s about right for the area. Too bad the house was torn down and replaced by a McMansion, which is also typical for Arlington anymore.
Torn down. That’s a shame. If you took two lots, one with this well cared for and well built house, and built a McMansion next door, then I would wager that the house would stay in good shape and will last longer than the mansion. The McMansion will be lucky to remain standing in 30 years.
When I lived in Memphis in the 90s-00s, real estate speculators were tearing down houses in “mature” neighborhoods and on the large lot where 1 ranch…or even 1 Colonial house stood, they would erect 2 or 3 mcmansions crammed onto tiny lots. THAT is usually my biggest beef with mcmansions, though not my only beef: huge houses on tiny lots to maximize a speculator’s profits.
I would guess the opposite. The Valiant looks to have seen very light use and I would suspect that Ray had more cause to drive regularly in winters with his teaching job.
I agree that Hazel probably drove the Mustang. It seems, at least in couples I’ve observed (myself and my wife included) that the wife drives the newer car. In our case, my wife, being less mechanically inclined, will not have to deal with any issues with our 17 year old vehicle, so she drives the 6 month old car.
As far as furniture goes, we go one better than that–buying things that someone else has already kept for a long, long time. Since moving into our current house in 2015, we’ve bought a pair of 1930’s or 40’s vintage art deco dressers, a late 40’s wooden tanker desk, two early 60’s lowboy dressers, and a 1950’s armchair (with new cushions but original upholstery). If it’s held up 50+ years already, it’s not going to do you wrong when taken care of. And it nicely solves the “utterly outdated” phase.
Plus it’s more cost-effective. Most of the items we’ve bought new haven’t been the same quality because of how much you have to pay for it nowadays.
This story resonates with me on multiple levels. My 68 Mustang was the same color (but with a black vinyl roof) and my 66 Fury III was the same interior and exterior colors as this Valiant. That turquoise interior may have been my favorite ever.
I live in a neighborhood about the age of this one and when we moved here in the early 90s there were still several longtime original owners. We would go to neighborhood open houses when places would come up for sale and some of them were time capsules just like this one. I hate it when beautifully maintained old homes are torn down to make way for something new.
And if I had been given the job of choosing a 1966 car that would be good for the rest of my life it is hard to imagine a better choice than an air conditioned slant 6 Valiant. The a/c would have kept it functional as a modern car and the six would have made it economical enough to keep during the fuel price spikes of the 70s and early 80s while still offering reasonable room and power. All while offering ease of entry/exit/handling that would be important for those later years. Simply perfect.
Like many Americans of their generation, Ray and Hazels income and purchasing power peaked in the late 1950 to mid 1960’s.
Doubtful that they were personally were members; but this was also the peak period for unions membership.
Coincidence? (peak union membership and peak purchasing power) I think not.
Yep, the years when blue collar steel and auto workers could afford a decent house in the suburbs, two nice cars and send their kids to college. Workers who worshipped men like George Meany and Walter Reuther, who brought them the American Dream through their sheer will and determination. But the world changed, as it always does. High paying blue collar jobs in steel, autos and mining disappeared, just as blacksmiths and candlemakers did a generation before. In their place are new high tech jobs that didn’t exist back then. No ones fault really, just the enevitible march of technology and economic realitiy that creates new opportunities while abolishing old.
It’s fun stepping back to the mid-’60’s to peek into Ray and Hazel’s world. More fun would be guessing what America will be like in 2070 and what CC’ers then will think of our F150’s, SUV’s and Camcords.
There won’t be any CC’ers, at least not in our format, in 2070. By that time I’m quite sure that the only place to see a human-driven car with an ICE will be in a museum or at a vintage sporting event (unless those have been legislated out of existence too). Car ownership will probably be mostly a memory too, with driverless electric on-demand hire cars being the norm (except for those living in far rural locales).
Not to mention that it would probably be nearly impossible to keep a 2018 vehicle running for the 52 years that this Valiant has been in existence. The electronics will have worn out long before and parts for modern cars are starting to become NLA as soon as the warranty expires. Hobbyists will likely be able to fab up replacement systems, but operable originals will be beyond hen’s teeth.
Like many Americans of their generation, Ray and Hazels income and purchasing power peaked in the late 1950 to mid 1960’s.
How do you come up with that? If they were in their early 40s in 1957, and he was a professor, their earnings would have steadily grown and peaked at retirement, in the mid 1970s.
And American median hourly wages peaked in 1973, not in the late 50s and early 60s. In fact, the big growth in real income came in the second half of the 60s. All of this explains why folks were buying Falcons and Valiants in the 60s, and big broughams in the 70s.
“Purchasing power” and “take home dollars” are not necessarily the same thing.
Take home salaries appeared to be larger in the 1970’s, true, when compared to the salaries of the late 1950’s.
However, one has to take into account the rising inflation rates of the late 1960’s and 1970’s; which was very low/non-existent in the late 1950’s/early (pre Viet-Nam war buildup inflation) 1960’s.
Actual “what can I get for my dollars” purchasing power was higher in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s; before inflation started it upward climb to eventual double digits, than it was in the mid 1970’s.
A dollar in in the mid 1970’s did not purchase nearly as much goods and services as it did in the late 1950’s/early 1960’s.
A dollar in in the mid 1970’s did not purchase nearly as much goods and services as it did in the late 1950’s/early 1960’s.
Of course not. But wages were growing too, generally faster than inflation until 1973, when they started to fall behind some.
If you can show me facts/citations to prove your point, I’ll be happy to change my mind.
Keep in mind that average houses were bigger by the late 60s early 70s, and folks were driving nicer cars. And gas was lower too; the adjusted price of gasoline fell all through the 60s and right up to the time of the first energy crisis.
This is a subject that interests me quite a bit, but everything I’ve ever read (and experienced) tells me that peak purchasing power happened right around 1971-1973.
Certainly not in the 50s. Real purchasing power expanded significantly all through the 50s and especially the 60s.
If Ray had served in WW2 and stayed in the Reserve, he’d probably use base facilities at times for medical care or cheap groceries. That was common in the ’50s and ’60s even among professors.
This is such an interesting story, thanks for this on a miserable Monday morning.
That Valiant is the kind of car that really speaks to me. Just a plain well preserved car that needs a sympathetic caretaker. As both JPC and I are finding out caring for old cars is sometimes easier than caring for old people.
Tearing down that house to build a McMansion is barbaric.
It’s not barbaric. It’s reality. It’s on a huge lot in a very affluent neighborhood in the Washington DC area, whose real estate prices are very high.
It’s like asking someone to pay $100,000 for the Valiant and have it be their daily driver the next 15 years.
I understand the emotional response, and I tend to have the same one, but houses do become functionally obsolete, just like cars. The difference is that houses have underlying lots whose value can become astronomic, and the mismatch between lot value and the house itself creates situations where this is almost inevitable. Folks willing to spend $500+k on a house don’t want a 1200 sq.ft rancher with a little kitchen, one or two little bathrooms, poor energy efficiency, and all the other shortcomings of a mid-50s modest house.
Not to belabor the point, but I do question the idea of functional obsolescence for a house. Things like wiring and plumbing need to be repaired and sometimes replaced wholesale in the event of dangerous setups like knob-and-tube or lead piping, but other than that, what’s to stop it? You don’t *need* open floor plans, walk-in closets and 4-piece master baths, and if you do, a remodel makes a lot of sense. You don’t buy a turn of the century rowhouse to tear it down and build new.
I am kinda with you. I understand why people buy an old house and tear it down, but I don’t like it. It is like the folks who want a classic pickup truck but replace everything but the body with modern components. People want to live in a classic, established suburban development but they don’t really want to live in one of the houses that makes the development what it is. Living in a house of that age I understand that peoples’ living standards have gotten better and that everyone “needs” way more square footage than was considered luxurious a half century ago. I see it as a preservation issue. I am happy that many old close-in neighborhoods from the turn of the last century have had their old houses rehabbed or restored instead of having aluminum sided tract houses built there in the 50s. I see these old higher-end 50s suburbs as the next battleground for historic preservation, but I don’t see that movement as having yet gained critical mass.
By functional obsolescence, I mean the floor plan. Buyers in that price range (and it would be interesting to know what this house sold for), which may well be $500-$800k for the new house that was built there, do not want a narrow galley kitchen, a separate dining room, and little narrow bathrooms. It would likely not be cost-effective to turn this house into one that could support the price range that buyers in this neighborhood are looking for and willing to pay.
Let’s not forget that when folks sold their 1890s houses in old neighborhoods and moved into the suburbs in the 50s, they were looking to get away from the functional obsolescence of their old houses! They wanted what was new and in style at the time. People forget that.
From where did Ray and Hazel move from when they bought this quite expensive house? Quite likely an old functionally-obsolescent house built earlier in the century. One could say the same thing about them: they were causing beautiful farmland and meadows and forests to be turned into endless suburbs by moving out here. One could say that was barbaric too. Maybe even more so than than tearing this house down to build a modern one.
I understand the urge to preserve; I saved 8 houses from the wrecking ball when I had them moved. But they are very functionally obsolete, and useful only as housing for young folks willing to put up with their deficiencies: tiny closets, tiny baths, tiny kitchens, lack of privacy, etc..
Since I did that, the market in my neighborhood has changed so much, that folks are starting to tear down the old little houses here.
It’s all relative, but I’d rather see a new house replace a crappy old one in an existing neighborhood than have it be built in virgin land on the edge of town. And that goes for splitting/dividing lots: the reality is most buyers now don’t want a big lot, as it means a lot more maintenance. The kids are inside anyway on their devices and not playing outside.
In my neighborhood, which was divided into 9000 foot lots a hundred years ago or more, the very deep back yards are often overgrown and not maintained properly. Build a second house on the alley; much better than out on the edge of town.
Well, given your real world experience with moving & saving houses you’re certainly more qualified to comment on that than I am, but to me it seems more like buying the Valiant for $100,000 and crushing it so you can use the licence plate on your Lexus LX.
But yes it’s an emotional response, near our place there are entire neighborhoods of 60’s houses replaced, which I suppose takes care of the inappropriateness of the new homes.
Doug, You misunderstood me. Someone buying that house for the very high price it undoubtedly sold for and then living in it would be like paying $100k for the Valiant and then driving it.
For $100k, folks want something a bit nicer than a ’66 Valiant to drive. That’s my point.
I have to agree with Paul on this. A spacious new house will be more energy efficient and conform to the new owner’s standards of comfort. The real estate is so valuable that it is best to teardown and build new. A 32,000 dollar house in 1957, that was an expensive house. The profile of a childless, professional couple was not that common. Chances are their neighbors had several kids each,and the parents of these families were more exposed to contemporary ideas and fashions. Your kid’s can exert a lot of influence on a family’s buying decisions.
I would still like a little house on a lush,green, tree shaded lot, luckily I’m living in one now!
The choice to hold onto a car for a really long time is really an indication that cars as such, were not of great importance to this couple. They were just transportation, and as long as they fulfilled that job that was good enough. Their commutes were short enough that fuel economy wasn’t that big a deal. I’m sure that they never saw their choice of cars as an indicator of their social status. He was a college professor and I’ll bet his wife went to a prestigious women’s college where she received a degree in art. Their education and accomplishments combined with that beautiful little home tucked into a tony suburban neighborhood was all the status indicators they could ever want.
Getting back to cars, a lot of us could hold onto our cars for a very long time, if we wanted to, but most of us choose not to.
32K in 1957 dollars would equal about $284K in today’s money.
Depending on the area of the country; that could be an upscale home price today.
My 24×26 house on 2 1/2 acres in rural Maine feels like another planet relative to this discussion.
Implicit in the discussion so far, and covering houses built from the 50s to 70s mainly, is the idea that older houses were built better than newer ones (until the more recent stringent enforcement of codes).
I think the truth is that there has been no such thing as a continuum, more likely examples of everything you could imagine. Until the era of suburban subdivisions beginning in the 1920s, most rural homes were owner built or one-offs, and varied widely in quality. Multifamily city homes were thrown together by cutting as many corners as possible. Richer city folks, of course could hire a reputable builder. Codes were rare. Until relatively recently, I think you could say that every house had its own story.
My grandfather was born and raised in a house built in 1748 and owned by his family from 1800 to 1900. It is still alive and well (and worth millions, due to proximity to Boston). It has 7 foot ceilings and none of the functional features today’s buyers want, but it has irreplaceable wainscotting, fireplaces and hearths, hidden stairways, tiny alcoves, etc.
The first house I owned was built in 1845. It was built by the man who owned the sawmill across the road and whose name graced the entire settlement. At 13 rooms originally, it was the McMansion of the day and showplace of the neighborhood. But it wasn’t built very well. It was an early balloon framed house (studs from first floor sill to second floor plate). This kind of construction prevailed for decades until platform framing replaced it and many of those homes have a pretty poor reputation for quality and most have been torn down. (I bought that house when it had been pared back to 8 rooms and in deplorable shape. It too, is still alive and well nearly 40 years later).
The first home I built from scratch (in the 80s) was a self-taught affair. (There were no codes). So, as is typical of owner built homes (most of my friends also built their homes, including three single women I knew) it was overbuilt. You have a vested interest in longevity and low maintenance. Half inch plywood sheathing (no strand or chip board for me), 16″ on center, metal roofing, cedar shingle siding. Careful attention to energy use. You take your time and are motivated to do it right. (This house is also still alive and well).
So, unless you know particular circumstances, it can be difficult to make blanket statements about quality.
I agree with JPC that a number of innovations over the past 30-40 years have bombed, various miracle adhesives, some plastic plumbing, etc. Of course, now the big new thing is to print your house. Will be interesting to watch how that sugars out.
I once had a job doing the final inspections of a number of very upscale seaside homes in a gated community. Most construction practices, most materials and the objective quality were no different in these homes than basic 1000 SF tract homes. Price differentials were a function of architectural visuals, inside and out, square footage, and cheap to provide details (designed to impress the uninformed) such as SS cladding and the inevitable “crystal chandelier”. Location and the amenities of the development also played a big role of course. And one could therefore say, as most do, that it is the price of the lot, not so much what’s built on it that determines the price of homes today.
But there is a more fundamental determinant of price. Most homes are mortgaged. The rule of thumb is to lend 30% of the buyer’s income. If you chart the rise in the size of the affluent income segment of the market and overlay it on a chart of the rise of home prices over the last 35 years, they closely match. This data is tracked closely by the real estate industry and signals to the builders what to build and to existing owners, what to charge. In other words the underlying determinant of home prices is the income of the buyer. (This starts the trend in prices. As yearly increases approach 10%, investors switch from stocks to housing and owners upgrade to the max accelerating the price rise. . . until the bubble bursts. So, I think the overall determinant of house prices is financial, with location or shortage of buildable land (the price of the lot) overshadowing mainly in local or perhaps regional situations.
Have to agree. The houses of this era that tend to be preserved in high-demand markets are either protected by existing zoning or were or have more innovative and open floor plans, like Eichler houses. A common middle ground is to renovate and open up the plan, often to put in a master bath – a lot of these houses only had one.
If I had $500,000 to spend, this is exactly the kind of house I’d look at—a late 50’s to early 70’s ranch or split level. If I won a brand new $800,000 house, I’d flip it, buy a mid-century house I actually like, and a couple of nice vintage cars to park in the garage.
I understand. But I also understand that the CC community is not exactly representative of the public at large. We love old cars and old houses.
Notice that you said If I had $500,000 to spend. People that actually do have that amount to spend typically demand modern floor plans and amenities.
The public at large can’t be trusted with nice things.
Obviously, this is a country where by and large you can do what you want with your money (within the framework of such things as zoning laws and HOA convenants), which is good. Architectural merit aside, though, I see the teardown phenomenon as an affront to the neighborly spirit. When you buy a house in a given neighborhood, you’re not just buying the house you live in, or the lot, or the school district or proximity to amenities. You’re buying a piece of the neighborhood, the view out your front door and down your street, the character of the place, whether that character is 1890’s Victorians or 1980’s starter ranches. And when someone comes in and starts clear-cutting lots, leveling exsting houses, and poking holes in the fabric of the neighborhood, it fundamentally changes your investment, in ways that most people would not consider good. If someone bought the lot next door to me, tore down the ~1700sf 1948 brick cape that stands there, and replaced it with a 3-story 4300sf McMansion, by the numbers it just might raise my property value. But the way I experience the neighborhood, and I’d wager the way most of the other homeowners do as well, would be irreparably injured. The thing would literally block out the sun and loom over the homes on either side. And there’s not a thing we could do about it. It would be called progress. And, if the neighborhood were attractive enough to support a price outlier like that, it might encourage more folks to do the same, and the dominoes start falling.
It sounds like a worst-case scenario, and thankfully our prices don’t support that (though we do currently have what I believe is the first ever listing for over $400k in my neighborhood currently on the market, so give it time…) It’s a slippery slope. And something that I’ve blathered on about for far too long… *picks up soapbox and walks away*
I’m sure Paul can appreciate a recently sold $1.3 million tear down recently in the South Bay around San Jose.
Turns out this was sold for $955,000 and now a new house being built is listed for $2.5 million. That explains everything. Nobody would have spent a million bucks to live in a modest 60 year-old ranch house.
Paul, I absolutely agree with you. Having lived all 17 years of my life in a house built in 1912 situated in a leafy area in Ottawa, I can attest that it is very common to see (at least in my area) houses being torn down and in-fills built. While sad, I can also understand why. My area is very often pricier than $500,000 (US), with my actual house being more than $800,000 (US). Some of the new ones are going for $1.5M CAD, and along the Canal and in The Glebe, even more than that. While, for example, I love the original hardwoods in the house, the gaps between the boards can be a pain when your not so well behaved cousin throws couscous into them. (He thought this was very fun. Cleaning it up was not.). I think there is a balance, and luckily in my area many of the homes have been renovated to strike a good balance between modern comfort and retaining the original character. (This is not cheap in many cases.). Sometimes the new houses are hideous, but they are surely more efficient and often much better in most ways. I suppose that progress must always be present, but hey, I got the couscous out eventually!
(Just my two cents on the issue!)
Benjamin
A bigger modern house that’s well architected and fits into the neighborhood is a good thing. But Doug said “McMansion”, which Wikipedia defines as “a large “mass-produced” dwelling, constructed with low-quality materials and craftsmanship, using a mishmash of architectural symbols to invoke connotations of wealth or taste, executed via poorly thought-out exterior and interior design.”
Our neighborhood in Portland has a mix of 1910 and 1940 houses, mostly craftsman bungalows on 5000 sq. ft. lots, with big trees, sidewalks and nearby stores and restaurants. Many of the bigger old houses have been updated, but many of the little ones have been torn down.
Fortunately they are mostly replaced with bigger high-quality modern bungalows that are not out of scale or style with their neighbors. Such houses add to the neighborhood.
This year a block from me some builder put up a giant contemporary box that gobbles up the whole lot (maximizing the square footage) and dwarfs its immediate neighbors. It’s generally hated, and we find some satisfaction that it’s been on the market for about six months now without selling.
I take Doug’s point to mean either take good care of the old house in place, or replace it with something of similar quality and character that suits its surroundings. It’s the McMansion that’s barbaric.
It certainly is. Where I live many beautiful (and well built) character houses have been demolished to built ghastly apartments or at least ugly duplexes in alignment with the idiotic Ponzi scheme imposed on us.
I’m no Mopar expert but the Plymouth looks exactly like the Valiant, marketed as a Chrysler down under.
Another piece of the story is the license plates. As you point out, the owners appear not to have replaced anything unnecessarily. But they did get new plates about 10 years after purchasing those cars. Those Bicentennial commemorative plates were only available around 1975 and 1976, and, if I remember correctly, they cost extra money each year you renewed your registration, just like “Save the Bay” or other special plates you can get today. But once they go those plates, they kept them all the way up through the last time they renewed the registration in 2007.
So you can add patriotism to what we can deduce about Ray and Hazel.
What was the last year Virginia issued annual license plates? It seems like mid-70s was prime time for phasing them out.
1972:
http://www.15q.net/va.html
The Mustang is likely an A-code 289 2 barrel (see fender badge.) I had an identical one except for the turn blinker hood.
The Valiant’s doppelganger lives not far from me in Deming,WA. I see it during my daily commute, so no doubt it still sees some duty doing the same. Was there any car better at just being a car than the Valiant/Dart?
A Plymouth Valiant…
I wonder if sales man David Mann would have appreciated the A/C option in his slant six powered sedan in the middle of the hot California desert.
Would maybe have helped to keep his cool a little more yet would certainly not have aided him to get away from that pesky little Peterbilt truck in the rear view mirror! 😉
(guess the movie)
Probably not as much as he’d have appreciated a warm 340.
TV? Movie was “Duel”, by, I think, Speilberg. The movie probably cost about $500 to make. Rent a Valiant, Rent a Peterbilt. A lot of drama as that Peterbilt terrorized the Valiant driver.
His Valiant had a 318, not a Slant-6.
I would love to drive around in either car (although I would slap on some Cragar SS mags on the Mustang). I think my 2005 Focus is sorta kinda the modern equivalent of the Valiant. I’m very happy w/it & there’s really nothing right now that I want.
As for the house, it’s too bad it got torn down, especially in the shape that it was in.
They tore down the house to build a McMansion. Ughhhh!!! About 10 years ago my nephew rented a cottage on Cape Cod for the winter. It was off season so the rent was cheap. It was a beautiful, quaint little place on a bluff overlooking Cape Cod Bay. Just what Cape Cod was famous for back when Patty Page had her hit song “Old Cape Cod”. After the winter he had to move out because the rent spiked. About a year later it was sold, torn down and replaced by a 3 story McMansion. Ughhhh!!!
This happens all the time in Rehoboth Beach Delaware and Ocean City Maryland. Entire blocks get torn down and replaced. It’s sad, but as Paul says above, its a reality of escalating value of the property, especially in resort towns like these.
Progress might have been OK at one time, but it’s gone on for too long.
Estate sales are fun; my wife likes them and I go along when there is an indicated potential of cars/tools/bicycles.
Two one-owner, original cars have come home with me from estate sales: 1979 LTD wagon; 1988 300CE. Both homes were similar to the one in Arlington – time capsules from the era when the car was new (though the Mercedes home was much nicer of course than the Ford one).
Both cars presented problems due to their long periods of garage based retirement but in retrospect they were reasonable purchases. LTD is now gone but 300CE remains.
These sales are enjoyable and I advise other readers here to plan to have a way to pay for a car when going.
Don’t understand all the reminiscing. i still drive my 65 Valiant Signet, most every day, and still live in the same house my wife and i bought in 1968. no big deal.
Still surprised by the “alternate universe” appearance of these genuine US Plymouth Valiants, I grew up with the Canadian versions, which I understand now, were more Dart than Valiant.
Reminds me of a house and an elderly couple I met about 30 years ago. A friend and I went trick-or-treating and rang the bell of this c. 1920s Craftsman house on Malapardis Rd., Morris Plains, NJ. They had a ’58 Buick (like the picture) and a ’72(?) Olds Cutlass, both blue. The Cutlass had white racing stripes. The man answered the door, and because I probably asked about the cars, he invited me and my friend inside. In the living room, his wife was watching a 1950s Philco black and white TV! The rest of the room had that same unchanged, period look to it.
Years later, the house was sold and has since been remodeled in a less-than-historically correct fashion. I always wondered what happened to the people I met and their cars.
I still live in the same home – built in 1978 and purchased by me in 1985. Other than paint, not much has changed. I don’t have central A/C. My daily drivers are utilitarian, and I’ve owned several Valiants & Darts. Of course, I was brought up with parents that would have bought the Valiant with ZERO options, (three speed on the column and manual steering is all my Mom knew) and a clothes dryer consisted of manually hanging clothes on a line whether outside or in the basement.
That pink Hotpoint oven is fantastic. I’ve recently discovered that there are business who will restore and refurbish classic stoves/ovens for home restorations–while they’re usually the big floor-standing gas models, I wonder if you could make a mid-century electric like this practical for modern use. It does have the limitation of being rather small, but for whatever reason it seems like ovens, ranges, and radios were the household items that shared the most with automotive styling and trim of the era.
I rather hope whoever purchased the Mustang kept it green. It’s unlikely, but that really is one of *the* characteristic late 60’s colors. I’m not as much of a purist as some, and don’t begrudge a nice restomod from time to time, but this one deserves to proudly wear its Kermit-like hue.
If you enjoy automotive style on products that are not cars, go to Google images and type in tailfin boats. Prepare to be amazed.
Lime Gold Poly, code I. Know that color very well as many Ford cars of that time were that color around my neighborhood in San Diego besides Mustangs.
This is one of the nicest stories here on CC.
Thanks very much!
-Eric
Indeed it is!
Thanks, Eric.
30 years ago I would had looked down my nose at this Valiant.
Today I’d be pleased to welcome it into the one un-occupied parking space in my driveway.
The “Big SIx” and Mopar’s “Reference Standard” (for the time period) 3 speed Torqueflite automatic transmission would give adequate performance for today’s driving, the manual (non power assisted) steering would be a lil’ bit slow geared but with easy effort, the comfortable, upright seating position would be a welcome change from many of today’s back pocket dragging cars, while the factory A/C would keep me chilled while driving this Time Machine.
If you keep the mechanical (solid) valve lifters adjusted properly, points & plugs current and the carb clean, that Slant Six would be quiet and torquey. A much more solid and substantial car than the same year Falcon or Nova.
Nice post. Real time warp. As for the Valiant, it brings me a deep sense of honestness. It’s also good to remember when sedans used to have “real” roof lines not to be confused with the rear windshield and trunk.
I love stories like this- and can relate to them.
In 1918, my mom’s Uncle and Aunt decided to sell their businesses in Wisconsin and flee the brutal winters. They moved to Los Angeles, and built a fairly large home in what was then an up and coming neighborhood. They were pretty well off, so they bought everything new inside that home. Many items were custom made for the individual rooms- like the dining room table that could easily seat 22 people on it. Because they bought quality, and didn’t have children to raise, every single piece of furniture, appliances, etc were original when mom’s aunt passed away in ’69. That included her ’36 V12 Packard in the garage. Mom’s cousin inherited the house and everything in it (she was the aunt’s caregiver), but the only change was replacing the old Packard for a ’70(?)… wait for it… Valiant… deluxe model with A/C and the 225 6. When she passed in the early 90’s, the trail had grown cold- we don’t know what happened to the house or contents. I always wonder about that.
(Another) Outstanding piece, Eric. Really enjoyed this. I was a bit haunted by the line where you stated time had just stood still for Hazel since Ray’s passing in 1980.
So true though, Dennis, as the previous owner of the 1957 Rancher I talked about above did the same thing. She and her husband had the house built (by a friend 2 doors down that passed just a few years ago). They raised a daughter together. Her husband passed sometime in the 80’s and there the decor changes stopped. She was a really cool lady. When she got up there in years and couldn’t take care of the place anymore, she sold it. It’s small, but was big enough for her small family, and big enough for my wife and I with no kids.
Being happy with the new (to us) house, we quickly got going on gutting the kitchen/dining room to open up the space… all parties gather in the Kitchen, right? – Anyway, with the work completed and a repaint of the living room… We tore out the SHAZZAM Green 70’s carpeting to expose the beautiful red oak floors that were covered up (and lucky for us hermetically sealed) that needed nothing more than a good cleaning…
She came by to visit the neighbors (her friends) one day and popped in to see how we were doing with the house. She was pleased to see we were so happy with the place, but at the same time it brought a tear to her eye… it wasn’t what she and her husband shared together.
Sadly, she just past away a couple of years ago (as did her friend that built the place just two doors down)… Circle of life I guess in these older neighborhoods.
Great story, Eric. Now I’m tearing up a little bit…
Thank you Joseph and Rick,
When I first got to the sale, I went right to the cars and took pictures, figuring that I’d write a CC on the Valiant. Afterwards, when I walked through the house, I was a little bit haunted just like you said — then I realized that the car itself was only part of the story. The owners’ story was the part that would make this piece complete.
Researching the story was fun too. A few years ago, we bought a 1920s-era house, and (being interested in research), I decided to find out as much as possible about the people who lived here long ago. It’s been a rewarding process, as was looking into Ray and Hazel’s story. I’m glad folks have enjoyed it.
Eric, do you have the address of this place? I’d be curious to check on Zillow for how much it sold for, and for how big the lot is.
The address was 3600 N. Peary St. in Arlington, Va., 22207
It’s a big lot (21,000 sq. ft., and deep rather than wide), and is in a neighborhood that has become very desirable among high-income households due to its proximity to downtown Washington. A builder bought the house shortly after the estate sale for $955,000. It was a direct sale; the house was never put on the market.
The new house is currently for sale for $2,500,000 (it’s on Zillow). 6 bedrooms, 5.5 baths, 5,800 sq. ft.
Oh, that explains it!! I kinda’ thought this old house might be pushing up into the very high six figures. It would have been really helpful to include that in the article. I’m afraid we rather wasted a lot of time debating a non-event: NOBODY would have spent a million bucks on this little ranch house and lived in it.
I’m hardly for raping and pillaging nice older dense neighborhoods, but this is on a huge half acre lot and the house was worth essentially nothing compared to the lot value.
A lot of our readers live in the midwest and other places where these kind of values don’t exist or are very uncommon. I feel like I was made out to be the proponent of destroying old houses but I just knew that there was no way this house was going to be saved based on the general location, lot size and its age and size.
There’s no photo on Zillow, just a drawing, but it looks rather tasteful for a leafy neighborhood to me. Not a McMansion, just a much bigger state of the art house.
Paying $2.5 million for any house is beyond my imagination. It might make sense for one of the larger government parasites, I mean, wealthy people in the DC metro area (America’s richest), especially if entertaining is a business expense.
Hard to think back to a time when such a nice neighborhood in our nation’s capitol was affordable for a professor and an illustrator.
McMansions are the real estate equivalent of BROUGHAM
An amazing piece, and thank you for it.
What is interesting to me is the air-conditioning. I am not at all sure if it is a factory unit, with the vents hanging below the dash. The compressor is huge! It must have taken a good 15-20 hp to drive that baby!
I believe that the a/c is original. Valiants and Darts had their vents hanging below the dash like that all the way through the 1976 models. In my part of the country almost nobody got a/c in these cars. I am trying to remember if I ever saw one, so I am seriously impressed with air in a 66!
The humidity in the Baltimore/Washington/Northern-VA area is brutal in July and August. AC wasn’t common in the 60’s cars… we never had it… until Dad bought that car you love so much, the ’73 LTD ;o)… It had AC; my Dad’s first car so equipped. He wondered how we ever did without it.
If this couple was indeed well paid enough to buy a house in the affluent neighborhood discussed, I can totally see this being a must have option with the summers we have around here.
Coincidence…we were also living in Northern Virginia (Manassas) when my Father bought his first air-conditioned car, also a ’73 Ford Ranch Wagon…it was plush compared to the Country Squire it replaced, having the trailer towing package, power locks (but not windows) and AM/FM Stereo radio also as firsts. Dad’s first car was also a Plymouth (though not a Valiant, but a ’56 Plaza…and it was a stripper with 6 and manual transmission).
He did buy other non-air conditioned cars after that, like his daily driver to work, but always the “main” car we had for trips had air conditioning. Ten years later, after moving to Central Texas, understandably even the daily drivers had air conditioning…me, I was a bit of a hard case, I loved the Scirocco that I brought down from north to Texas, and went through four years of summers before buying a car with air conditioning (but the traffic wasn’t so bad then, so could keep moving and count on some breeze…traffic now MUCH worse so even having bad air conditioner makes repair high priority.
This became a big issue in Australia when both Holden and Ford shifted to integral a/c vents and Chrysler was still stuck with these bolt-ons,
Agree with JP here.
The push button dashboard controls, the A/C compressor used on Mopars since the late 1950’s and the slim line below dash vents all are indications of factory A/C on this Valiant.
The Ford factory A/C compressor (of this time period) was about as heavy as the Mopar unit; the huge GM compressor weighed more and was a serious power robber on their 6 cylinder compacts.
A wonderful article, which stimulated quite a wide-ranging and informative discussion.
What a great story. Not having children is somewhat odd for the era. The sad part about bread and butter 4 door sedans like Valiant is they are the first to be robbed for parts; end of the day, they will be the rare ones.
What a great read, and a poignant story behind the house and cars. I’m glad I’m not the only person here who despises the trend to demolishing interesting old houses to build McMansions. But enough of that.
Not only does every car have a story, but in a car this age every option does too. I was also struck by the expensive option of air conditioning in a relatively inexpensive car. Would this have been the dearest option you could add? Off the top of my head it seems so. Nothing flashy on the outside of the car, but comfort at all times inside.
But wait – no radio! I knew many folk who in the sixties did not have a radio in their car; listening to the radio was something this generation did at home in comfort, I guess. A far cry from the need to be surrounded by manufactured sound at all times, that seems so prevalent today.
What intrigued me most of all though was the shoulder belt on the back seat. For an couple with no children, who did they carry in the back who not only ‘needed’ a seat belt, but not just a simple lap belt?
Questions.
Old Pete, I know that it looks like a shoulder belt, but I’d bet a buck that it is a lap belt extended and tossed over the back of the seat. Rear shoulder belts are a more 21St century thing in the U.S..
I did wonder before I posted that. In retrospect, you’re probably right.
But even a lap belt in a car that age would be an aftermarket addition, surely. And behind that, there must be a story – one that we’ll never know.
What a great story! I would have liked to meet them.
Near where I grew up in Ohio, in the 70’s, was a modest ranch-style home where an older couple lived. A ’66-’67 Ford Fairlane 2-door hardtop was often seen there.
I first started noticing it in the mid-70’s. By the mid-80’s they still owned it. It looked like new, from the outside.
I had occasion to stop at that house in the late 80’s for business reasons (nothing to do with the car). It still looked wonderful.
I don’t know whatever happened to it.
The pink oven reminded me of this article I came across a few years ago about this house that was built in either 1956 or 1962 (sources disagree on the year) and was never touched since:
http://stories.sfglobe.com/2015/02/21/jp3/?src=share_fb_new_35581
https://retrorenovation.com/2010/02/24/1962-ge-time-capsule-kitchen-for-sale/
You’ve gotta love the push button controls for the stove, a product of the same “push buttons for everything!” fad that bought us the Chrysler push button transmission controls.
The Valiant, and the house resonate with me. A 64 Valiant with a push button automatic and air conditioning was my parents’ first new car and the first car of my childhood. The house also reminds of the first house I lived in, a late 50s split level, complete with Hotpoint appliances and a pink tiled bathroom.
The Valiant was actually the last American car for a long time since it was replaced by a used Mercedes in 1969. The house is something I appreciate more after reading McMansionHell.com
Nice story and I love the time capsule house
I am going to agree with Syke on the Mustang. I would not be surprised to see it with an engine and suspension transplant to make said engine swap work.
The Plymouth I can see going to a loving home and not being changed other then the normal maintainece and shake down that a car that sat for years should get.
Valiant freaks (ahem »raises hand«) might argue that point with you, for the ’63-’66 cars are considered 2nd-generation. The ’60-’62 cars are 1st-generation. That said, there are other ways of drawing the lines; the ’62 cars have very much more in common mechanically with the ’63-’66 cars than with the ’60-’61 cars, for example.
As for the popularity of factory A/C in ’66: a whole hell of a lot greater than it was in ’65! I don’t have the figures in front of me to back this up with data, but in my decades of mooning over Valiants in parking lots, car shows, club newsletters, and wrecking yards, I have seen what has always felt like an unusually large number of ’66 A-bodies with the factory air—and most of my looking has not been in extra-hot states.
Living my entire life here in one of the Heat & Humidity sink holes of the USA (New Orleans, LA); factory air conditioning has always been of great interest to me.
I do recall more Valiants and Darts, from this time period, equipped with factory A/C than the same generation Falcon or Nova.
Ramblers seemed to have more A/C units than any of the “big three” did in the early 1960’s.
In my mind’s eye, this couple reminds me of this Washington couple that was photographed in the 1950’s:
http://www.shorpy.com/node/22157
“Which is more than we can say about Ray and Hazel’s house, which was torn down and replaced by a 5,800-sq. ft. McMansion.”
Hate that!
Nice Valiant and quite different to the Aussie versions, You can see both flavours of the in NZ though originals are quite rare, theres one AP5 63 daily driven round here but most are Sunday driver collectors items.
In 1971 my older sister’s first car was a 1965 Valiant 200 with a 273 (and a bad but not completely blown head gasket). It had water in the oil, but it ran for a year and a half before the gasket became a real problem. I was 14 and would drive it up and down the driveway, with her permission of course. Peppy little thing it was, though it had that lumpy head-gasket induced idle. It was a very light beige and had slightly different styling cues, such as a round back-up light between the taillight and a lower reflector. I liked it, but when it died our dad found her a 1963 4-door Vista Catalina. Another story indeed.
Seems to me that for a particular owner, the big factor in predicting longevity in an automobile would be the make, model and equipment. Back when I was young, those Keller Mopars had the right stuff to go the miles. Extra care in engineering did appear to make a difference. Not only did these cars seem to rust less, Those tough L – head engines with Fluid Drive just kept going. Likewise with the Slant-six with Torque Flite in later years. Not so sure that the left hand threads on the right side wheel studs helped much. Never broke one on a Mopar. That happened several times for me on those skinny Chevrolet studs.
Oops, got that one backwards again! The left hand threads are on the drivers side. Anyway, as I recall, the wrench would always get rounded first on Mopars.
At least they didn’t put 6 or 8 McMansions on that lot; I have seen a lot of that each like 10 feet apart. What’s the point might as well have a townhouse. Driving using stuff is better than letting it sit.
This has got to be my favourite entry of this year – as both a diehard fan of vintage Mopar metal and of mid century design. There’s definitely something to be said for keeping things that are fundamentally good and well-designed for a long time, instead of glomming onto every current trend that comes down the pike.
Thanks very much… this was a very enjoyable article to research and write as well.
I will grant you the superiority of modern building materials and methods, but I want to understand who is going to furnish and live in and clean and maintain 5800 square feet of house? I am reminded of the “Not So Big House” series of books, written by a Minneapolis architect after so many people bought a McMansion and then came to her, too late, for advice after they felt like they were living in a barn.
I do love that Valiant, though. You could only get the four door in the 100 and 200 line that year, but I’ll bet the 200 level was plenty plush for our couple. Talk about your greens, looking at the old brochure, there were three exterior blues, two of turquoise and one dark green that year. Not to mention the two-tones. Just one each of black, white and silver, however.
I used to deliver pizza in some very well to do neighborhoods and some McMansions were built specifically with elderly parents in mind. Some of the parents will have mobility issues so first floor living is a great benefit. The parents will have their own sitting room, master bedroom, and bedroom on the first floor. The house is too big for a family with two kids but just right for a family with two kids and two grandparents.
Great selection for best of 2018! It would be great to know that the Mustang and Valiant found caring owners.
The address of the house is shockingly close to downtown Washington, so yeah no surprise it got whacked and replaced. Not on street view yet although satellite shows the new house construction.
Anyone know what happened to this Valiant?
I never found that out — would love to know.
Meeee Alsooooo !
What a preserved pair. The ’66 is probably my least favorite Valiant, mainly due to the front end which is trying too hard to be up-to-date, kind of like the ’65 Fairlane, which also suffered from a fourth-year/one-year extensive remake.
The Valiants were common patrol cars in Sweden during the 60s and 70s.
That gear indicator on the steering column and the gearshift lever appear to be the same as what was in Mopar’s parts bin well into the ’70s.
Interesting to note then the 1966 Australian Valiant got a different front end and kept the 1963 dash.
https://oldcarbrochures.org/Australia/Chrysler/Chrysler/1966%20Valiant%20VC%20-%20Australia/index.html
On the second go-round, that living room set with the one-armed love seats and the two-tier corner table with the triangular upper half shelf. My parents bought a similar set up when they were married in 1955, and later had the love seats converted to two arm when they were recovered in the sixties. One of them wound up in my college dorm room in the late 80s.
And much as I like MCM houses, I have to echo Paul’s points about their obsolete layouts and forms. It’s notable that in places where they’ve been retained and upgraded, they are often on small lots where you really can’t build anything bigger aside from a small addition or two.