Merlettes, actually. The classic Cadillac crest has two groups of three birds that are usually identified as ducks, but are really merlettes – a bird used in French heraldry that has no beak or feet. Life imitates art in this lineup of a 1972 Coupe de Ville (seen earlier) followed by two offspring of the de Ville line from the 1990s and 2000s, still in the white plumage they wore when hatched.
The merlettes were in the coat of arms of a French explorer who called himself Antoine Laumet de la Mothe, sieur de Cadillac, who founded Detroit in 1701. Born in France to modest origins as Antoine Laumet, the “sieur de Cadillac” made his name and fortune in the New World after arriving at the age of 25 in 1683. Within four years, he had a grand new name with a coat of arms and had become one of New France’s experts on the geography of the continent after exploring as far south as modern-day South Carolina. He parlayed his name and expertise into increasingly important royal appointments, founding Fort Ponchartrain du Detroit in 1701 and becoming governor of Louisiana from 1710 to 1716. Henry Leland, founder of both Cadillac and Lincoln, chose the name and heraldry of Cadillac as appropriate symbols for his new car company formed in 1902 from assets of the failed Henry Ford Company, whose founder would start another car company soon afterward.
I’ll never forget the time I saw a ’72 Caddy in that exact color scheme, in that same good condition, being sold at a consignment-type dealership for only $2K.
It wouldn’t shock me if this was the same one.
Love the maroon Caddy. If the order of the white cars was swapped, it would make an even better picture because you could see the design evolution over time.
Is there really such a thing as a “merlette” bird with no feet nor beak? I tried looking this up, and the only photos I found of real birds looked fairly normal. Apparently merlette is French for “female blackbird”.
Almost all references to the merlette that I found were in French, which I barely understand, so I ended up deciding to be intentionally vague about them. From what little information I found in English, the merlette was a mythological bird, and displaying three merlettes was a reference to the Holy Trinity. I could not find anything about the significance of lacking a beak or feet!
Part of me thinks that a mutilated duck could be an amusing parody of the “Caddy that zigs!” Catera ads from the 1990s, but part of me thinks that the idea sounds a bit sick.
The merlettes is used in hearldry. Mythical. What would you do if you came across a unicorn? (used for GB?)
Or a griffin?
Or a dragon?
True that they are parked out of order in build dates, but…
The 3 are parked in perfect order as far as desirability.
I’d be capable of alot to get my hands on the first one … would love to have the 2nd as an extra daily driver.
But, the 3rd… I would not even take it for free.
@Driver8, see my friend, the last one likely has the 4.9 ltr V8 which actually makes it more desirable from a reliability standpoint than a pre-2005 Northstar. I would take a Northstar from the last few years of production and I would take a 4.9ltr Deville from any year.
Dan, without question, I agree with you about reliability and the integrity of the motor. And, although nobody wants a troubled drivetrain/engine causing so much downtime (such as my Mom’s HT4100 Biarritz did in it’s time), I do most all the work on my vehicles myself and for the most part, still enjoy it.
But here, I was strictly speaking about styling, which again as we all know, is very subjective. I’m a huge Cadillac person, but better motor or not, I just don’t like those years bulbous look. Mark~
As a birdwatcher I’ve never heard of or seen a beakless footless bird.
It pains me to say this, but I prefer the one in the back to the maroon coupe in the front. Silence is the name of the game, and the FWD GM full-sizers had it in spades. The one in this middle is generic looking, to me.
The first one is the most classic, though it is a 70s evolution of the early 60s Cadillac.
So, it’s not entirely original. But it’s clearly a Cadillac in every way, and that’s important.
I find the middle version actually has the most original styling. But it’s not as distinctively a Cadillac. As it doesn’t have the traditional Cadillac cues that the other two cars do. But credit to GM for trying to create a new identity for the brand.
IMO the third one reminds me of the 1980 bustleback Seville. Applying traditional styling cues to a modern design. Kind of a mish-mash. Not as original as the middle one. Trying to please everyone…
I think for GM and Cadillac, applying traditional styling cues has been a blessing and a curse. Sometimes they continue a look very well. Other times, like say the 1990s Skylark, it is poorly executed and dilutes the brand more than anything.
For Cadillac it was especially tough to evolve a modern style, as their history featured land barges. Their past could help them, but might also represent great baggage as well. I’ve always appreciated when they tried to push the envelope, like with the original STS.
In the mid 80s, a friend inherited a 72 Sedan DeVille upon his father’s death. It was a strange greenish-silver color with a dark olive green interior. Not really that attractive, to me. It had been fairly well cared for, but ended up costing my friend quite a bit in repairs that seemed to be needed fairly regularly. This was at this car’s absolute bottom on the value curve, and my friend remarked that the leather in the seats was more valuable than the entire rest of the car. I thought he was right. He eventually sold it after someone hit the front and the hood was jammed closed.
I like the two oldest the best honestly.
The nondescriptness and lack of presence the later cars have in comparison to the 72′ reflects the decline in prestige Cadillac saw from the 80’s onward.
If you want the best of both worlds- modern performance, efficiency, and reliability with classic Cadillac style and luxury, check out the ’93-’96 RWD Fleetwood with the 5.7 liter Chevy-built LT1 small block. Those cars are essentially an Impala SS in drag.
Well, those giant Impala SS cars for some reason, ‘worked’ with that design, I’ll give you that, I actually always liked them quite alot.
But the Buick and Cadillac… nope. Truly hideous.
BTW…. The Chevy was just as ugly unless it was an SS variant.
Maybe performance and reliable, but ‘Classic style’ or luxury? hardly. They were so bloaty, frumpy and even more bulbous than the DeVille I commented on here earlier.
Besides ugly exteriors, those horrible interior plastics and cheap giant plastic switches, etc. They should have just carried thru a few more years with the Fleetwood Brougham that ran basically from 1977-1992 with the 1980 style change and subsequent cosmetic re-freshes after re-named simply Brougham.
THAT ’80-’92 body IS classic Cadillac style… prestige, class and real luxury, along with the reliability. (again, with the right motor choices) After Cadillac stopped making reliable motors 77-81 (i include the ’81 V864 because if cylinder de-activation is disabled, its a rock solid motor), the choices were of course, the Olds or Chevy V8’s
This picture says it all on it’s own.
Horrible interior plastics have always been a GM traditon 🙂 .
+1 Bwahahaha ha
Of the three cars:
– Red ’70s :
lousy built quality and cheap details but from 20 fts away, it had style and actually quite handsome.
– White ’90s :
Still looked like a Caddy, just an ugly Caddy.
– the other white thing :
Was that a Camry? no? an Accord? no? got it, a big Mazda?
Remember those pictures in the early world history books to demonstrate evolution that would show the silhouettes of australopithicus getting up on its hind legs and evolving into cro-magnon, and thence to homo sapiens?
Well, if they put the Northstar Cadillac at the back and a ’63 in front this would be like that in reverse…the gradual devolution of Cadillac. Even as is, the picture really brings it home. If the next version was pictured hanging from a tree it’d be about right.
I’ve never driven a ’73. I have, however, driven both a ’95 SDV with the 4.9 and an ’04 Northstar. During the time I drove them, I owned and drove daily an ’87 Fleetwood Brougham.
As far as I am concerned, the ’95 and ’04 had only two things going for them over the ’87. Acceleration and ergonomics.
The ’95 made me feel seasick. It pitched and wallowed around more than any RWD sedan–Panther or C-Body—I’ve ever driven. The interiors in both the ’04 and ’95 might as well have come out of a leather-upholstered Hyundai. The ’04 peeled out the first time I floored it, but other than being fast had little identity to distinguish it. It was, as suggested above, rather like a big Mazda. A hypothetical 12-2-12, big brother to the 929.
What I found most distressing was not the lack of hood ornament, chrome, or RWD (although I like and want all those things in a Cadillac). It was rather the real loss of quality materials. One thing that always stuck out for me about my Brougham was how much of the interior was still made of quality stuff. Sure there was plasti-wood but it was nicer than any plasti-wood today. The coat hooks over the rear windows were made of chrome. So were the doorhandles, ashtrays, lighter knobs, and column shifter. Opening the front engine found extra insulation under the hood, an X-pattern of cross members over the engine apparently for structural support. The push button door knobs, also metal. In the ’95 and ’04 all of that had been replaced by el cheapo black plastic. Maybe it was a more efficient, faster, ergonomic, safer car but it felt like a real comedown for Cadillac, even from the admitted flaws of that brand’s Broughamy years.
I think of that whenever I see these post ’92 models floating around. For all their weaknesses I still consider the ’80-’92 run of rear-drivers the last real Cadillacs, the last to carry anything other than an engine that would truly make them a genuine cut above anything else at GM.
Orrin,
Your comments on the differences between Cadillacs of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s are exactly what I would say about Lincolns of the same decades. I have spent a lot of time in Town Cars of each decade and very little time in comparable Cadillacs, for various reasons, and the Town Car went through exactly the same process of becoming cheaper feeling and less luxurious each decade. It looked and felt a level above common cars during the 1980s, became average during the 1990s, and by the 2000s looked and felt like the disguised taxi that it had become. The engineering became more advanced each decade, but the car’s status and the manufacturer’s attitude toward it plummeted at the same time.
Since you want to compare a 1963 Cadillac to these cars, be sure to check this site on Tuesday. 🙂
Oh, yes, I agree. The 80s were the final stages of the old marques: a downsized platform and engine-sharing, before full-out homogenization and irrelevance.
It depends. I find the interior of my 2000 TC Cartier very comfortable. The detailing on the seats and the quality of the leather are quite nice, as is the wood steering wheel. And it is my first domestic car. I’ve owned nothing but Volvos before it (940SE, S70AWD and V50), and those all had quite nice assembly and materials too.
I wouldn’t kick your Town Car out of the driveway. It was the only new car I would have considered buying…don’t know what I’d buy now. That said I think the comparo posted on TTAC years back between the ’88 and the ’06 was an apt one.