1961-62 are just about my favorite years for classic Cadillac design. After the ‘50s excess and before they started going full pimp-mobile, those two years represent a new, cleaner, modern Cadillac. And today I bring to you the finest example that I could find on the old Bay of E.
The 1961 was a departure from its predecessor in all the right ways. The wheelbase was down a half inch and the overall length three inches from its predecessor. Special care was taken in narrower sills and wider-opening doors to ease entering and exiting the car, but in your authors opinion the single best improvement was trimming all that fat from the design.
Don’t get me wrong, It would take a heart of stone and a soul of concrete to actively hate the 1959’s. They’re the biggest expression of the dazzling fin-tailed Jet-age of car design. But to look at it as anything other than the exact moment when the ‘50s started collapsing onto themselves is to look at it through the eyes of nostalgia. If the 1955-57 Chevrolets were the beginning of the climb, and Virgil Exner’s “Suddenly it’s 1960” 1957 Chryslers were the peak in ‘50s design, the ‘59 Cadillac was coming down from the peak, going home, gaining 300 pounds, and going out in public claiming you’ve still “got it”.
I’m a fan, but not their biggest fan.
This style, on the other hand, can do no wrong in my book. Of course they were a lot more conservative than their predecessors, but that was exactly the point. The Lincoln Continental look was the future, and while the ‘62s still had the curved A-pillar and vestigial fins keeping it in the fifties, it was definitely a leap in the right direction. Besides, who would dare question Cadillac’s design and the cues they wanted to keep from generation to generation back then? (Anyone with a Continental.)
Oh dear, it seems like my love for the design has distracted me from the car itself. Well, it is the finest expression of the design. The Sixty Special was the finest Cadillac you bought if you wanted to drive it yourself. Our featured example is finished in black with a wool Broadcloth cream interior. The odometer is showing 36,117 miles.
Best part about it is that there’s a plethora of information regarding the car. To quote the ad “This outstanding Fleetwood Sixty Special was purchased new by Rueben B. Hays, president and chairman of the board of the First National Bank of Cincinnati. The original warranty book indicates that Mr. Hays took delivery on November 14th, 1961 from Thomson Brothers Cadillac in Cincinnati Ohio.” That’s the sort of attention to detail that lets you know you’re not buying from a Wormwood-style dealer.
Apart from a professional-grade respray at some undisclosed point in its life, everything is original and it’s in excellent condition. The interior doesn’t have a single tear in it, the wood is umblemished, the chrome shiny and even the jacking instructions decal is just lightly worn as a small concession to the 53 years it has spent attached to the car. The engine is claimed to be a 429, but since that didn’t arrive until 1964, we’ll assume it’s a typo and that the original 390 cubic inch V8 is still softly burbling away under that long hood.
With such an amazing vehicle, it should come as no surprise that they are asking quite a bit of money for it. If you want to take this Caddy home you’ll have to pay $32,500…OBO. I know it sounds like quite a bit of money (because it is) but it’s not a bad deal when you remember the same money would buy you something like a mildly optioned CLA or a loaded to the gills Ford Fusion. And if you buy either of those, people will think no better or worse of you. Buy this, and they will know you have taste.
What a beauty!!! Thomson-MacConnell is still in Cincinnati…I doubt they sell a whole lot of new cars, but seem to do a booming business in used cars. They are the only Cadillac dealer in the City of Cincinnati…the others are in outlying suburbs.
Sweet looking car! My favourite years for Cadillac are 1959, 1962, 1964, 1969, and 1972. And the Fleetwood is perhaps my favourite Cadillac trim. 🙂
One word: WOW!
Simply beautiful. The ’61-62 GM fuller sizers are my favorite of all time. Their styling made them look trim, athletic and elegant, with the Caddy wearing the look well. Always loved the curved A pillar and vent window, which integrated so beautifully with the windshield and roof.
I have a hard time deciding whether the 62 or the 63 is my favorite post-1955 Cadillac. That Fleetwood roof is a masterpiece, taking a car that looks almost sporty (like the 4 window Sedan DeVille) and making it stately and elegant. Wonderful car, and that interior is simply beautiful.
I share your dilemma. I lean toward the cleaner, but heavier, lines of the ’63, but there’s something quite appealing about the leaner look of the ’62. Giving the Fleetwood its own, more formal roof was a master stroke and a welcome distraction.
I’ve always found the front end of the 1962 Cadillac more attractive than either the 1961 or the 63.
I’d love to drive around in one of these in my charcoal grey suit with the subtle pinstripes and fedora. (“I hear he’s a made man.”)
Forget what everyone else thinks, nothing makes you feel as important as driving a car with eight separate power window buttons at the fingertips of your left hand. 🙂
There was one of these in a Gallup, NM neighborhood I lived in. White with gold-tone interior and a chronically leaking transmission judging by the stains around it. One day it suddenly had four new Pep Boys Scrambler truck tires on it and a for sale sign. It was quickly gone.
I hope it went to someone who could properly love it.
While I always joked about barges like these, I must admit it felt cool driving in one, like a big shot ready for anything. It was a great prop for human vanity. And the poke of that big-block (grandfather’s ’72 deVille in my case) didn’t hurt, either.
Nice!
I like the slightly more formal ’63-’64 models better, in 60 Special trim, but these are also quite nice examples and you have found a very pretty one here.
It’s been mentioned before, but I find it interesting how there is a little bit more continuity in the front end between the ’63s and the ’59-’60…’61-’62 kind of went off on their own and then ’63 reasserted the earlier themes on the front end. That may be why I like the ’63 and ’64 so much, all the positive aspects of the ’59 without the celebrity rep and ’50s parody feeling.
From what I recall reading, the 1961-62 front end was considered too downmarket for Cadillac, more fitting for an Oldsmobile or Buick. I happen to like it.
So for 1963, the headlights were moved up to their traditional locations for a more formal, dignified look, or so it was thought.
Sorry, guess it’s because I was born in the 50s, but while these are elegant / classy cars, to me they just spell FUNERAL…..at least as 4 doors.
When I was in grammar school a neighbor had one of these, exactly like the picture. It was decades before the Simpsons but that neighbor could have been the inspiration for Montgomery C. Burns. So I will admire these cars, but never aspire to own any Cadillac.
Caddy’s dashboards were always disappointing. They looked cheaper than other GM products and much less dramatic than Packard or Chrysler in any parallel year. Compare this one to Chrysler’s big arched instruments and seamed padding in the early ’60s.
I love the photo of the rear fin and trunk lid….well-designed detail at this scale is so pleasing to the eye.
I’m also struck by the memory that it used to be possible to support a 4000 lb car with a jack placed under a bumper.
“I’m also struck by the memory that it used to be possible to support a 4000 lb car with a jack placed under a bumper.”
My 63 Fleetwood sedan weighed in at every ounce of 5200 lbs. Which only serves to make your point with more vigor.
I well remember jacking up big American cars that way, and seeing the bumper bend under the strain, and wondering if they ever broke off. Especially so when I was laying underneath them.
My Dad’s ’66 and ’68 Chevy Impalas had that same exact Jack and instructions for use, and I was always amazed it worked without bending the bumpers… more amazing though was his (then my first car) ’73 LTD… now THERE was a heavy car. That too had a bumper jack and never bent the bumper or failed to lift such a huge car. BTW, Paul, although those jacks were strong, we NEVER got under the car with just the jack. That’s what ramps are for ;o). By the time I got my ’79 Fairmont Futura, the jack became the scissors type and went under the body for good (on all of my subsequent cars).
To the subject of the post: Wow, what a beautiful Caddy. I also like the ’66 Fleetwoods, too.
The steel reinforcment beam in the rear bumper of my ’76 Cutlass rusted out in less then 6 years. I discoved this when I attempted to jack the car and the bumper went up while the car stayed put.
I ended up disassembling the entire thing and installing a new reinforcement beam myself. The steel seemed to be the better part of a quarter inch thick. It was astonishing the amount of rust the original beam had suffered – while the rest of the car and body was in fairly decent shape.
When I was doing brakes and wheel cylinders on my old ’70 C10, I had it in a friends garage with 4 of those triangle shaped base jack stands under the frame. I think they were rated at 1500 lbs each. Truck weight around 4000 lbs. It was down to the backing plates with wheels, drums, and shoes removed. My friends son was playing around it, standing between the front bumper and the wall of the garage. and even though it was properly supported I told him it was dangerous and to stay away. Just as he walked away the truck started to shift forward and slammed on to the concrete. All four backing plates were now L shaped as the truck landed on them. The base of the stands just folded up like spaghetti. The floor must have been just ever so slightly slanted to the wall, which the bumper was now touching, where the kid had been a minute ago. After that, I only use old wheels with tires laying on their side to hold up any vehicle I’m working on. And that Cadillac is a real beauty, what a time capsule.
I know when they went to the big crash bumpers you were lifting something of substance.
I used a farm jack all the time to lift my eponymous 86. It was not safe, but what did we know.
Simply stunning. The penultimate model of Cadillac’s best year. Glad to see it still survives relatively untouched. And a bank president’s car, no less, what a great pedigree.
I have mentioned the story before when my dad was hot on the trail to buy a new ’62 Series 62 coupe, until my mom put the kibosh on that venture. But I can still recall as a 14-year old accompanying him into the Cadillac dealer, and seeing one of these sitting on the showroom floor. To sit in the rear seat of one of these was like entering the hushed confines of a cathedral, brushing your hand on the broadcloth upholstery, you would almost whisper to each other, it was so awe-inspiring. And as JPC mentions above, running your fingers over those eight power window buttons on the driver’s arm rest was a tactile experience you just didn’t get in mom’s ’59 Ford. I could only dream back then. This was an aspirational car, if ever there was one! Great memories.
Those “FLEETWOOD” block letters on the trunk-lid unequivocally convey a grandeur, a majestic bearing you never see anymore.
Classic understated excellence .
A timeless beauty .
-Nate
Understated??? For a Caddy maybe, lol.
My point exactly .
They’d come a long way since 1959 .
-Nate
There is not a car being built today that says you have arrived like this one. If it weren’t for the badge on so many luxury cars today I wouldn’t know what make they were. This car speaks for itself.
I so agree. The 1962 model year is IMHO, Cadillac’s best year in terms of attractive styling. 🙂
IMO, 1961 was a highmark for all GM model’s styling; not to be repeated until 1965.
+1.
Class and elegance. From 1961-1964, Cadillac was the exemplar, and a beautiful survivor like this Fleetwood still has it today.
Simply gorgeous. The ’62 Caddy is among my favorite cars.
Can you imagine if Cadillac had insisted on maintaining the quality of their interiors at 1962 levels over the next 40 years. They could have truly remained the “Standard of the World.”
I agree. Today’s Cadillacs are crap by comparison.
It’s sad as you look through the years to see things gradually taken away. The interiors were not suddenly decontented on these but rather went downhill in dribs and drabs. Some of it was for safety of course, but a lot of it was weight savings, ergonomics, or just an attempt to save a buck or copy a trend. The 70s interiors have nothing on the 60s, the 80s really have nothing on the 70s, the 90s are horrifically bad especially once Fleetwoods went to the bubble body. I guess there’ve been some attempts very lately at improvement but they have a long way to go to make it back to 1975, let alone these.
I agree. The problem with saving weight is that more often than not, it’s at a sacrifice to safety and durability.
I’ve searched the interwebs to confirm my memory of my grandmother’s 1961 four-door Cadillac. It was not a Fleetwood, but like the Fleetwood and unlike any image I can find, it had a thick C-pillar, not the thin one of the Sedan de Ville or 6-window. I recall the circular interior lights on rear pillars. Definitely a ’61, with circular taillights and front turn signals. Apart from rear pillar, exactly like that pictured here:
http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1960/cad61d.htm
Imagine a ’62 Sedan de Ville roofline, but with ’61 lights and side body lines. Can anyone confirm for me that such a car existed, or has memory tricked me?
I’m not so sure about Cadillacs, but for the lesser GM cars, the thin pillars on the ’61s were mostly discarded for ’62, with the then-fashionable thicker C-pillar being used. One holdout on the thin pillars was the “bubbletop” ’62 Chevy Bel Air hardtop, the final year for a hardtop in the Bel Air lineup.
The only possible thing it could be is a ’61 Fleetwood 60 Special. it’s the only ’61 that had the wide C Pillar, along with the Fleetwood 75 Limo.
It sounds like my memory has tricked me, or my grandmother drove a ’61 Cadillac Unicorn. What I need to do is search old photos to confirm my memory. It was certainly not a Fleetwood; it lacked the badging and gentle curve at rear roof edge, and the interior was a marvelous black-and-white combination cloth and no wood trim.
dad had a 64 identical to this. I can remember in the early 70’s at age 10 or so riding in the back and pretending like I was royalty when I saw anyone looking. can also remember curling up and sleeping between the centre armrest and the door when travelling late at night.
let’s see a ten year old boy do that in his parents 2015 ats/dts whatever alphabet they are nowadays!
You probably could not do it in the downsized 1977’s either.
It’s surprising how few modern luxury vehicles match the rear legroom of even downmarket sedans of that era. People evidently do not care about that as much today, or carmakers think that.
I like everything about this design except for the roof. That graceful curved a pillar and the angular c-pillar just seem awkward together to me. I suppose the only solution is to get a convertible. 🙂
I think you have a valid point.
If Don Draper had passed on the blue coupe, he certainly would have picked the above 4 door.
Don at the wheel, Betty puffing on a cigarette, Sally and Bobby hanging out of the back windows.
Lovely survivor, emblematic of the elegance and class Cadillacs were then.
The surface development for the side sculpting of the 1961-62 models was previewed by the ’60 Eldorado Brougham, as had been the six-window configuration on both the 1959-60. Although more subtly handled on the Brougham (a personal preference here), the deeper sculpting is more dramatic, yet still in tune with the times. Mitchell’s taste for more refined shapes with far more judicious brightwork applications begins to show. The reinstitution of the formal C-pillar/backlight returned real distinction to this exclusive model, somewhat lacking since the 1949 model.
I’m a fan of the styling of the 1962 Cadillac, but I am certainly biased because I just recently obtained a Maize Yellow bucket seat Series 62 convertible project, thereby fulfilling a childhood dream of mine.
While I think I prefer the 63/64 overall, this is still a gorgoues example and every bit a Real Cadillac.