Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

1963-1964 Cadillacs

parmparm Posts: 724
Not to rehash the story, but I recently lost out on buying a nice/original and heavily optioned 1963 Cadillac Coupe Deville. If interested, go toward the end of the Collector Car Insurance thread to read my tale of woe. Any-who, I'm back in "search mode". The 2-door Coupe Deville has been my main area of interest, but I'm really starting to warm up to a 4-door Sedan Deville (or a Fleetwood) because, much like buying a large farm, they're cheaper per acre! Haaa! Actually, the exterior dimensions of the Coupe and Sedan are identical. Feel free to weigh in on the whole 2-door vs. 4-door debate. While one would think the coupe would command a premium in price, that doesn't seem to be the case with Cadillacs. I think they're pretty comparable in price - assuming both are in similar condition.

So, let's help 'ol Parm find a nice 1963-64 Cadillac, shall we? Alrighty then! Let me start things off. Submitted for your approval: http://www.motorcarportfolio.com/product.php?id=3416

Hallelujah! This one is offered by a dealer that is actually a comfortable drive from my house - a refreshing change. But, naturally, being a dealer, the asking price ($19,900 - reduced from their original price of $22,900) is excessive. They've had this car for a while. Today, I exchanged emails with the seller and politely presented my opinion (even supplied him with a listing comp) that their asking price was high and said I'd come inspect it with a check in hand if they'd agree to $9,000. While the dealer was very nice, they implied that at that price they'd be losing money (if that's true, they paid way too much for it) and that they'd rather hold the car indefinitely waiting for their price. Perhaps $9,000 is a bit low, but it's closer to what this car is worth than $19,900. Having said that, this is the quality of car I'm looking for and know of an equally nice (perhaps nicer) '63 Fleetwood that's more reasonably priced (but, I'm keeping that one close to the vest for right now).

So folks, take a look at this green '64 Sedan Deville (I actually like color) and tell me if you think I'm a genius or The Village Idiot (trust me, as a father of 2 teenagers, I'm used to hearing the latter!).

Gentlemen, the floor is yours . . . .
«134567

Comments

  • fezofezo Manahawkin, NJPosts: 10,376
    Nice car and overpriced sounds about right. I'll wait for Shifty and others who have better ideas on the right price.

    Meanwhile I see another car for Andre there!
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    I like that '64 DeVille a lot, but agree with you on the price. Personally, I don't think I'd go more than $9-10K on it. Very nice car, but it's still just a 4-door hardtop. BTW, I really like that shade of green, too! If nothing else, the seller has your contact info, so if he gets desperate enough, he'll get in touch with you. Either that or sit on his pride and continue losing money as the car sits. ;)

    Fezo, I kinda like that '72 Impala. IMO that's crazy money for it though, even with those low miles. Maybe if it was a 4-door hardtop with a/c, and had a 402 or 454 under the hood I'd be tempted. I like the way the ad talks about "saving $5,000", as they market the price down from $12,900 to $7,900.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    That guy has some nice looking cars, but it seems just about everything he has is a good 30-50% more than a realistic price. He's either in really deep, he's stuck in the time when people got endless HELOCs to buy toys, or he's tacitly asking for lowball offers.
  • parmparm Posts: 724
    I told the dealer if the car has all the options the ad says (some of which are out of view on the photo angles) that I'd go more than $9,000, but still less than the halfway point between $19,900. The guy politely said "no".

    Here's the listing of 1966 Fleetwood Brougham for $10,000. http://www.clcpotomacregion.org/66cadillacforsale.htm

    Looks pretty nice, right? Well, the dealer didn't think so and said it had "issues" with its interior and trim that his '64 Cadillac didn't have. That may well be true, but the under hood photos of his '64 shows it has "issues" too - which I told him. But, he apparently didn't see it that way (or, at least wouldn't admit it to me). How odd. :P
  • fezofezo Manahawkin, NJPosts: 10,376
    I liked his Corvair Monza convertible but would have liked it more if it was a 65 or later.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    Hmm, that '66 Fleetwood Brougham looks familiar, somehow. I might have seen it at various local shows. I know some guys who are into Cadillacs, so for all I know I might even know someone who knows the seller!

    Of the two, I think I like the '64 better, because of the color and because of it being a hardtop. But that '66 is a much more upscale car. I'd definitely take it at $10K before I'd take the '64 at $19K!

    Plus, at least the seller of the '66 is only "asking $10,000", not trying to pull any of this "firm" crap.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    I bet you could knock off a little too, given this stag-deflationary nightmare economy right now. Those brocade cloth interiors have always seemed amusing to me, much cooler than 70s velvet/velour.

    That dealer must have a big low overhead storage facility, if he's planning on selling those cars at those prices...because they'll be hanging around for awhile.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    I think the '66 is worth about 80% of the '64 Sedan de Ville, and I think the '64 is worth about $8K--$9K in today's market, so the '66 would be worth about $6,500 or $7,000 tops.

    Both cars are overpriced, the '64 ridiculously so, and neither one, in my opinion, has the value or desirability of a 2D hardtop.

    You could spend $100,000 dollars on restoring that '64, and I'd bet a big lunch you would not sell it for $19,000.

    If you are going to pay "top dollar", it has to be for a 2D hardtop, or you'll lose your shirt on resale.
  • parmparm Posts: 724
    If you are going to pay "top dollar", it has to be for a 2D hardtop, or you'll lose your shirt on resale.

    Gee thanks. Just when I was starting to get over losing out on that Coupe Deville in NY state. :cry:
  • parmparm Posts: 724
    Here's a 2 year old listing of a Coupe Deville. http://www.carsonline-ads.com/colsite/col?use=UC3_ViewPosting&cmd=showPosting&po- stingID=22917

    Here's the thing, this car just sold yesterday (Thursday) at Barrett Jackson (lot # 618). Sold for $14,300 which includes the 10% buyer's premium - so, the hammered price was $13,000. The car went through a restoration of questionable quality a few years ago. After said restoration, the family listed the car for sale. Originally, they wanted around $21,000. Their asking price eventually went down to $18,000 which is when I contacted them. I offered around $12,500 and they seemed offended and responded with, "We've turned down $15,000!" If a car is really for sale, why do sellers say stuff like that??? It amazes me how when given a market correct offer, some folks will say they've already turned down a ridiculously high price. I lost track of this car after that. Apparently, somebody came along, bought it and took it Barrett-Jackson. I'd love to know what the consigner actually paid for it.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    So a hammer price of $13,000, and then we subtract the 25% "Hey I'm on television and I'm drunk" FACTOR, and we come up with real world money of about $10,000 bucks.

    True Story: One time some guy told me that "I turned down X dollars on this car!" and I suddenly touched his shoulder, made my eyes real wide and said "OH MY GOD...call him back up! That's the highest price i've EVER seen offered for this car and I've been shopping them for a year!"

    Man, was he PO'ed at that. . He was actually hopping up and down while he was shouting at me..... :P

    Follow Up: Car sold 6 months later for $300 more than I offered him.
  • parmparm Posts: 724
    Point of order - I watched every minute of Thursday's TV coverage and this car wasn't on it, so it sold before the cameras were on.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Okay, no TV, just drunk then :P
  • parmparm Posts: 724
    The whole coupe vs sedan debate is becoming more and more interesting to me. I know some consider coupes as "sportier" if that's a valid arguement - but remember, we're talking about 1963-64 Cadillacs here. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I'm not seeing that much difference in the sale/asking prices between nice 1963-64 Coupe Devilles and equally nice Sedan Devilles or even Fleetwoods. Seems to me, big cars like these are meant to be enjoyed by more people than just the pilot. Doesn't it make sense you'd want take your partner and another couple out for a spin, or to dinner? I know the idea of "functionality" may be diluted somewhat for a car that's not used as a daily driver, but there's no question that a 4-door is more functional than 2-doors. Now, if we're talking about a smaller car, a 2-door 1970 Nova is definitely more visually appealing than the 4-door. But, when you're talking larger cars (and they don't come much larger than 63-64 Cadillacs), I don't think the difference in visual styling is as apparent between 2 and 4 doors. So, with these 1963-64 Cadillacs, is there really THAT much difference in value? If so, why?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Don't go by "asking prices". They mean nothing to actual value, as you know by now.

    As for selling prices, these are driven by the old supply and demand equation.

    More people want coupes than want 4-doors. Why? Various reasons. One, as you say, "sporty"; two, 4 door hardtops rattle like crazy; three, generally the coupe design is more handsome.

    I do agree with you though, that this difference tends to blur when you are talking about the USS Nimitz-sized cars. But keep in mind that each and every price guide asserts that there is a difference, and each and every auction list seems to support this as well. Sure there will be the odd 4-door HT selling at an equal price to the 2D HT, but by and large, the 2D will always bring stronger money.

    I think there is a psychological reason here, too. "4-door" suggests "grandpa" or something...I don't know...it's a mental barrier of some sort for old car buyers.

    But hey, buy what you like and take advantage of this seemingly irrational price split, is my advice. Just don't pay 2D money for a 4D--that's not good advice.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,225
    I would definatly lean toward the 1964's. They have cleaner grills and tailights.

    They were the first with the Turbo 400 transmission which is a much better trans tan the earlier ones. First year for Auto Air Conditioning and, I'm almost sure, 1964 was the first year for the 429 engines.

    Not to say the 1963's were "bad" cars, not the case at all.
  • parmparm Posts: 724
    1964 was the first year for "climate control" A/C which some may perceive as a cool feature. But, the downside is that this unit is well known for being much more complicated and thus harder (and more expensive) to repair. The '63 A/C was much more straight forward. As you indicated, 1964 did offer some mechanical advantages, but by 1963, the 390 was reknown for being darn near bullet proof and the hyrdamatic tranmission works fine when its in proper working order - though its probably more expensive to repair than the TH400. I think the '64 would beat a '63 in a drag race, but that's not a big deal to me as that's not how I would drive the car.

    Hopefully, the Car Gods will smile upon me and present yours truly with another opportunity to buy a nice 1963-64 Coupe Deville for a reasonable price. If so, I won't let THAT one get away (trust me).
  • parmparm Posts: 724
    Yes, perhaps the 4-door suggests "grandpa". But, a 2-door 1963-64 Cadillac isn't exactly what'd you call a "babe magnet". So, how much of a hit to its image does a 4-door 63-64 Caddy take?

    With regard to the propensity for 4-doors to squeak, I guess it stands to reason that if you have twice the number of doors that you double your chances for squeaking. But, doors themselves don't tend to squeak, do they? And, keep in mind that 1963-64 Cadillac 4-door models do not have a B pillar which would reduce the possibility for squeaking, right? I mean, that massive roof by itself should provide ample rigidity and the lack of a post eliminates the number of squeak points I would think.

    It's lack of a B pillar is an attractive feature for me. With all the windows down, you get a lot of the open air driving experience - so much in fact that you'd hardly miss not having a convertible. Not saying its the same as a convertible, but its a nice trade-off when you consider the sedan's advantages in terms of cost (both in its purchase and on-going maintenance) and reduced body flex.

    Am I all wet on these points?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    No you're not all wet but I think the lack of a B pillar makes the squeaking worse...there is no support for the windows, so they rattle in their channels.

    The only 4-doors I think are really cool are 4 doors with suicide doors.

    I agree that the 4D is more practical as a usable vintage car but since when did practicality and value go together with old cars? If anything, the opposite is true.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    "I guess it stands to reason that if you have twice the number of doors that you double your chances for squeaking."

    I don't think the number of doors and the chances for squeaks is proportional. The relationship changes because the structure of the two body configurations is different, so their respective rigidity and other squeak-causing factors isn't necessarily proportional. As an analogy, consider the probability of mortality in a given year of a 80 year old compared with a 40 year old. Are they proportional? Or, are an 80 year old man's chances of dying twice the chance of a 40 year old man's, in the same physical condition? We know that an 80 year old's chances of dying are more than twice those of a 40 year old's, wouldn't you agree? In fact, although I don't have a mortality table handy to refer to, it's probably quite a bit more than twice as much.

    Sorry for citing a morbid analogy, but I believe Shifty is is right in terms of the propensity for rattles with a four door hard-top versus a two door hard-top.

    Another analogy would be the cost of repairing body damage if you hit a stationary object at 20 mph versus 10 mph.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    I'm sure a person could remove all 4 door panels, and tighten and lube all 4 window mechanisms, and install new "fuzzies" into all the channels. BIG job but might be worth it if you live on lumpy streets. Nothing worse than having a nice big car like that, sounding like a NYC taxicab every time you hit a rough spot.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    I dunno how the '63-64's compared, but my '69 Bonneville was a 4-door hardtop, was pretty squeak and rattle-free, even at 108,000 miles when I bought it. Now I'm sure the 2-door hardtop was tighter still, and anything with a full B-pillar, even better.

    The really old hardtops had chrome trim around the window glass, and the glass itself tended to be thicker and heavier. I wonder if that extra bulk contributed more to rattling, as the extra weight might stress the lift mechanism more?

    Now that Bonneville did seem flimsy in some respects. The trunk lid seemed kind of tinny when you closed it, compared to the similar-vintage Mopars I've had. My '67 Catalina convertible seems the same way. But the doors on that Bonneville seemed nice and tight, and had a nice sound when you closed them, whether the windows were up or down. The sheetmetal in general just seemed thin on that car, at least compared to the Mopars of that vintage I've had.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    If you had a squeak and rattle free 4D hardtop, it was the only one in the world :P They rattled right out of the factory. Maybe someone really gave your car a going over.

    could be I'm too sensitive. I hate rattles in a car, drives me absolutely nuts.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    Not that one unscientific example proves the rule, but my parents' '63 Olds Dynamic 88 four door hardtop definitely rattled more on less-than-smooth roads than their '69 Dodge Dart two door hardtop. Both cars were purchased new.

    Incidentally, both of these cars provided good, comfortable, reliable, low-maintenance transportation. The Olds had the "Slim Jim" tranny, which, while not the best design, worked fine, and was trouble-free until the car was traded at almost 100,000 miles. Unfortunately, the Dart Slant Six experienced the cracked manifold problem, but soldiered on to something over 110,000 miles. It was purchased by a young guy who swapped the engine for a 340 V8.

    What puzzles me is that, unlike Yugo and Hyundai, for example, Detroit had a history of building decent and even excellent cars through the '60s. What the heck went wrong in the '70s, '80s and '90s?
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,225
    Your parents got lucky. The Roto-Hydramatics (Slim Jim) weren't that robust especially compared to the Turbo 400's.

    I can think of worse automatics though.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    They rattled right out of the factory. Maybe someone really gave your car a going over.

    I doubt it. I bought the thing from my cousin, and he's notorious for abusing cars. So why, do you ask, did I buy the thing? For the life of me I don't know! I just always liked that car, and was a bit envious when he bought it in 1989. I paid $400 for it, and it was worth every penny! :P

    I'd say that compared to my '68 Dart 2-door hardtop, the Bonneville was definitely tighter, but that may not be a fair comparison. The Bonneville came to me with about 108,000 miles. The Dart? 253,000. Being a much bigger, heavier car, the Bonneville also rode better. It was smoother, which might have helped dampen out the squeaks and rattles. It also had taller tires, 225/75/R15's. I had 205/70/R14's on the front of the Dart, and on the back would switch between 205/70 and 225/70.

    It's also been years since I've had that Bonneville. It finally got towed away in 1996. As I've gotten used to newer cars with full B-pillars and better seals and such, I might not be so tolerant of that Bonneville today. But then, maybe it wouldn't bother me. My '76 LeMans isn't exactly bank vault-like, and neither are my two '79 NYers or my '85 Silverado.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Of course, I only get to drive the 4D hardtops NOW, with a gazillion miles on them and their creaky 40+ years. But still, every time I drive one, it's the hammers of hell in there when you hit some rough patches.

    Go slow on smooth roads or on the freeway, no problemo.

    The windows just have no support. They are just blowing in the wind. If one examines the design closely, the problem becomes apparent. Open one of the doors and move the windows back and forth with your two fingers---there's a lot of play in there, and no side pillar to stop it.
  • texasestexases Posts: 8,940
    Besides the windows, the rear doors' hinges on four-door hardtops are supported only from the bottom, not the bottom and top like on a sedan, so I'd think any given car would be stiffer/less rattley in sedan or 2-door form.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    I could see a 4D hartop's doors popping open on a really hard bounce, yes.
  • parmparm Posts: 724
    GENTLEMEN, we're talking about a Cadillac here . . . the STANDARD of the world!, remember??

    Rattles? Doors popping open? In a Cadillac?? Are you serious????

    LOL! OK, we're talking a FORTY-FIVE year old Cadillac, and I get that. But, you guys are talking like this would be my daily driver or something. Believe me, nobody hates rattles more than yours truly. I would be a new car dealer's worst nightmare if I heard rattles in something for which I'd just plunked down 40 large. And, while I doubt I'd want to buy a 1963-64 Cadillac without A/C (thereby suggesting I'd be doing some windows up driving on occasion), the windows will probably be down the bulk of the time when the car is on the road (this would strictly be a spring/summer/fall toy). Again, that's why I'm rather intrigued with the whole idea of a 4-door pillar-less hardtop. With all the windows down, the interior turns into a big greenhouse space providing me with a "wind in my hair" (such as it is these days) driving experience without the drawbacks of a convertible. I'm talking something along the lines of a 1963 Flleetwood like this.

    http://www.rmauctions.com/CarDetails.cfm?SaleCode=AW07&CarID=r172

    You could fit half of Dodger Stadium in there and the hotdog guy would still need a cannon for an arm to pass me one with everything from the backseat!! We're talking Big Sky country here guys! Hence my reason for considering a 4-door.

    BTW, I know of a '63 Fleetwood I can buy like the one in the link above that is pretty much identical in color and in very nice condition. The seller is thinking of selling and has a figure of $15K in mind - though we've not yet had a serious discussion of price. This was originally a California car (delivered new in Beverly Hills) and lived there until 1991 when it was bought by the current owner who moved the car to his home in Texas. He's a member of the Cadillac LaSalle Club and appears to have maintained it nicely. While I think $15K is kind of high, I'm not sure yet what I'd offer him. Any thoughts????
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Again the price is nuts. It's an $8000 car. Okay $11,000 if it's a 100 pt show car.

    Here's what a $15-16K Cadillac from the 60s should look like (in terms of quality standards, not it terms of good taste). I know the price tag is higher but you can deal heavily right now on cars like this, especially consignments that have been around a while.

    http://specialtysales.com/1962-cadillac-deville--c-1653.htm
  • parmparm Posts: 724
    Well, the interior of that '62 is not factory correct. And, they've done some cutting to add speakers to the kick panels. Both of which may make the car more enjoyable to live with, but that's the kind of stuff that makes purists barf. The engine bay shots show the inside fender bolt heads are painted over - a sign of a quickie paint job.

    So, you're thinking is that's a $15-16K car?
  • parmparm Posts: 724
    "I know the price tag is higher but you can deal heavily right now on cars like this, especially consignments that have been around a while."

    Well, that's not always the case. As proof, I submit the previously presented green 1964 Sedan Deville currently being offered by a collector car dealer in Ohio for $19,900. He basically told me to go pound sand when I offered him around $10K - and he's had this car for a while now.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    As much as I love the '61-62 Caddies, I don't really care for that one, myself. The interior is the real killer for me. Just looks too pimpy, and that's not what these cars were supposed to be about. If it was a 1976 Eldorado, it would be fine. But the thing that always drew me to the '61-62 Caddy were the smooth, tasteful lines, both inside and out, so that interior just grates my nerves!

    I'm also not too keen on that red paintjob. I know Shifty tends to say the only thing that big that looks good in red is a fire engine, but I think a big car CAN look good in red. But it helps if it has a contrast color. The white roof on that car does help a bit, but I think there's still too much red. Also, this might just be my eyesight, but that red looks just a touch orangish to me. I think I'd like it better if it was a bit darker hue of red. I think burgundy would look really good on this car, too.

    Something else I just realized...didn't they pretty much move away from those extra wide whitewalls by 1962?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Well the seller has the right to keep the car forever, and buy it a birthday cake once a year, which is what he'll be doing. Besides, the seller might not even OWN the car in this case, so he can talk big all he wants---it's not him that's stuck with it.

    Buyers determine the market, not sellers. And the "market" is the result of many points of sale, not one or two isolated cases of paying too little or paying too much.

    If the seller isn't hungry, then basically his strategy (which is a good one) is to wait for that one sucker who has no idea what something is worth, or for the "emotional" buy, where the person does know what it's worth but will pay double because grandpa had the exact same car, blah blah.

    RE: 62 Cadillac -- yeah, $15K without looking at it, just knowing it has things wrong. But the "pimpy" style really appeals to a lot of Cadillac buyers--it's not a 'defect' for that type of car, but rather an asset I think. For every purist with an old Cadillac, there are ten buyers just waiting to put a pair of steer horns and silver dollar door panels on it.
  • parmparm Posts: 724
    http://newyork.craigslist.org/wch/cto/991584078.html

    Can't say I'm "gah-gah" about white, but this one looks very nice. And, it doesn't have tilt wheel or cruise control. $29,500? Seems like a lot to me for a non-convertible. But, I'd rather have this than the red '62 convertible that's been "tarted up". What's your take on the value of this one?
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Posts: 3,425
    As he has had it for 20 years, it would be interesting to know why he wants to sell it. There are not a lot of other comparable Cads for sale in the shape this one is in.

    If it satisfies you 100%, buy it and pay his asking price BEFORE somebody else does.

    If its condition was in the form of a 66 Mustang GT, it wouldn't last long at that asking price.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    I'd say $20,000 is all the money. His ad is very telling....he starts off calling it show quality and then at the end equivocates and calls it a 2+/1- car, to explain the fact that it is, in fact, a ten year old restoration.

    It's a very nice car but if you look closely you can see little defects....the paint under the headlights, the scarring of the interior door chrome trim, the gorilla who installed the sill plates, somewhat funky door jambs, rust on power brake booster, soiled trunk mat, rip in trunk lid seal, kinked heater hose, blah blah. All nit-picks, but these things would cost him points in a judging and that's how you get a 2+ car.

    so for a #2 car, he should ask #2 money, not #1 money.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,225
    That red Cadillac just screams 'Mickey Mouse" to me!

    Incorrect and gaudy interior, wide whitewalls that are wrong for a 1962 etc.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    I like the condition of that car...imperfect, but it has kind of a time warp feel to it, like maybe the car would have been like that when it was 1 year old. Price has to be #1 money, no doubt.

    I don't like the vinyl top either. Those silvery blue sedans are prettier.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    The vinyl top works better on the Fleetwood sedan.
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    That car is just somebody's nostalgic ideal of what a 1962 Cadillac looked like. It may be a 1960s Cadillac but its whole vibe seems like a 1980s movie idea of what a 1950s car was all about. It just comes across as cartoonish and what some rich obnoxious unknowledgeable idiot would drive. Wide whitewalls like that were out of style by 1962. The red finish is too intense and the interior is WAY over the top. A proper color would be a more muted metallic color and the interior would be a tasteful brocade/leather combo in a much subtler color scheme.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    And to go one step further, here's the paint chip chart for a 1962 Cadillac:
    1962 Cadillac colors

    The only red in there is a tasteful Pompeiian Red Poly, a deep metallic that's probably similar to what Pontiac called "Firethorne" in the 1970s. Looking at that chart, I'm actually quite impressed. I don't think there's a vulgar color in there. I'd say my least favorite is the Maize, but even that's not bad. There used to be a '62 Coupe that lived in my neighborhood in that color, and I always thought it was a looker. IMO, the Cadillac truly was a class act for 1962, and the colors reflected that.

    For comparison, here's the 1963 color chart for Cadillac. It looks like they trimmed the amount of choices considerably but still, I think every one is tasteful. For 1964, the color choices were expanded again. Yet once more, it seems like great care was taken in picking every color, so that they would suit the car.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    er....you think laurel poly and heather poly are tasteful? Ah...well....okay.... :shades:

    1964 colors seem far less garish.

    What happened to pink?
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Posts: 3,425
    By now we have learned there are jealous deal killers out there who will nit pic another's choice of anything. A lot of sour souls have not the $$ to be in the market & resent your ability to buy. You will always hear from them, on that you can depend. ;)
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,225
    So who are you calling a "jealous deal killer" ?

    We were picking on the tarted up non original fire engine red 1962 and unless I missed something, that's not the car he's looking at!
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    Some people don't like to see a fellow car enthusiast either pay too much or buy something that isn't as represented. Other people like to see the seller not have to answer to any criticism or questioning.

    An incorrectly restored car or a #2 car being passed off as a #1 car has nothing to do with a "nit pic" nor jealousy or other babble.
  • parmparm Posts: 724
    Interesting comments. With regard to the white '63 Coupe Deville, I posted that merely to get feedback as its true value in the market. I think the asking price is outrageous and mostly for that reason I'm not even remotely considering pursuing it. There's no way I'd pay in the neighborhood for $20K for a collector car. And, I agree it's not as nice as the seller would lead one to believe.

    The same is true with the red '62 convertible. Too gaudy for my taste and, again, too much money. That dealer has had it for sale for a while, so I'm apparently not the only one who finds it offensive at that price.

    I hope to find something I like in the $10,000 to $13,000 range. For that price, I know I'm not going to find a 1963-64 Cadillac (or any other marque for that matter) convertible in the condition I want. So, I've pretty much relegated myself to a hardtop. Now, it's more of a matter as to how many doors it has. I actually like the Fleetwood Sixty Special. Hard to believe, but it's length is identical to that of the Coupe Deville. http://www.plan59.com/images/JPGs/cad63flt.jpg

    I know of a 1963 Fleetwood I can buy in Benton Blue - which is a color I really like. But, at this point, the seller is wanting $15K, though we've really not gotten nitty gritty with the price. And, I'm not ready to move on it yet. Let me say this appears to be a very nice one.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    Actually, for an early '60's Cadillac, I do think the laurel and heather poly colors are attractive. I don't think the color would suit any of the cars in my fleet...my '76 LeMans would look especially awful with that color! It makes me think a bit of that 1965 "Evening Orchid" color...sort of a light, silvery lavender. I think the fact that it's got a bit of silver in it, to my eye, at least, helps tone it down and make it attractive.
Sign In or Register to comment.