Howdy, Stranger!

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

1963-1964 Cadillacs



  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 56,730
    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.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • 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: 23,025
    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 CaliforniaPosts: 56,730
    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.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • parmparm Posts: 724

    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 CaliforniaPosts: 56,730
    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.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 19,465
    That red Cadillac just screams 'Mickey Mouse" to me!

    Incorrect and gaudy interior, wide whitewalls that are wrong for a 1962 etc.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 40,941
    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 CaliforniaPosts: 56,730
    The vinyl top works better on the Fleetwood sedan.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,294
    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: 23,025
    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 CaliforniaPosts: 56,730 think laurel poly and heather poly are tasteful? Ah...well....okay.... :shades:

    1964 colors seem far less garish.

    What happened to pink?

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • 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: 19,465
    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: 40,941
    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.

    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: 23,025
    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 '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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 56,730
    I think those colors might look okay on a Miata or a MINI but on such a big car--it's really a bit much. I do know that such colors would make a Cadillac very hard to sell.

    You simply can't beat an early Cadillac or Corvette --50s era---in their original classic color combination---white with red interior. For 60s Cads, the blues, silvers, greens and yellows seem to work well---those soft pastels---ugh! Black is always no risk but it's quite formal for such a large car, and not very attractive on a convertible. Red works okay....just okay....but it's a LOT of red.

    Sometimes at those fancy auctions, I am rather shocked at which colors people choose to paint certain cars. It's like they never stood back and thought about it, just laid it on.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • parmparm Posts: 724
    I know some of you are aware of this, but a '63 Fleetwood ('64 I think too) has 8 (count'em 8!) power windows. Two front vents and the standard 1 per door makes 6. The very rear windows don't go down. They pivot out similar to the front vents. Pretty neat I think. Having the front and rear vents open provides nice flow-thru ventilation, thereby reducing the need for A/C unless its beasty hot.

    The car I'm looking at has newer rubber seals at the front 6 windows. But, according to the owner, there are no manufacturers who make the rubber for the rear vent windows. He's looked at Steele Products and all the major players. Any of you guys have any suggestions as to who might make these rear rubber pieces??
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 19,465
    I had a 1965 Buick Riviera that had most of the available options that were offered.

    It had power front vent windows, Autronic Eye, Reverb, AM-FM, A/C, deluxe interior and several other seldom seen options. It even had a purse hook.

    I saw one for sale last summer that was a total stripper. Cloth seats, no A/C and it even had crank windows. No thanks!

    Parm, those Caddys were hard on front end parts so make sure the bushings and ball joints are in good shape or budget accordingly.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,025
    Back in the early 1990's when I was in college, a 1966 Fleetwood sedan showed up at a used car lot near the college campus. It was black, looked to be in pretty good shape, and they only wanted something like $2995 for it. It had the four power windows and four power vents, which I thought was way cool.

    BTW, when did they stop calling that car "Sixty Special", and begin calling it "Fleetwood"?
  • parmparm Posts: 724
    In 1963, it was actually called the Fleetwood Sixty Special - and off the top of my head I think the same name was used in '64 too. But, by 1966, I believe the name Sixty Special was dropped from the Fleetwood name.

    BTW, what's the significance of the term "Sixty Special"? In the 1960's, I know Cadillac had used the term Series 62 before the Deville name was re-introduced. And, "75" was used to designate their limo. "Sixty Special" sounds like a holdover from the 1940's - as in, "Gee-wiz, that Sixty Special sure is a swell car!" :P
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,025
    BTW, what's the significance of the term "Sixty Special"? In the 1960's, I know Cadillac had used the term Series 62 before the Deville name was re-introduced. "Sixty Special" sounds like a holdover from the 1940's - as in, "Gee-wiz, that Sixty Special sure is a swell car!"

    I think it is a holdover from the old days when they really didn't give a car much of a real name, other than "DeLuxe", "Custom", "Special", "Master", or whatever. They used internal designations for the various models, and sometimes those would carry over to the name. For instance, that's how the Olds 88 and 98 models came to be. I think there was an Olds 76 at one time, too.
  • berriberri Posts: 7,387
    In the early 50's the 76 was the base Olds. I think the 60's Sixty Special was actually an extended length sedan a step below the series 75 limo.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Posts: 3,425
    The Olds 76 was a "Six" cylinder. Small body shared with Chev & Pontiac.

    The "88" was the small body with the V8 engine.

    The 98 was the big body shared with Buick Roadmaster and Series 62 Cads.

    In 1950 the Series 61 Cad had a Cad engine in a Buick Special body with Chevrolet upholstry, but it was a Cadillac.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 19,465
    In the 60's Cadillac made a model called a Calais. These were seldom seen and for good reason. They were "wannabee" Cadillacs. These were decontented De Villes. As I recall, they didn't have A/C and crank windows...on a CADILLAC!

    I remember the seat material was downgraded and a few other items were missing.

    I doubt if many people evern know these were even made and I don't know what years they spanned. I think they went away around 1970.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,025
    Believe it or not, Cadillac actually offered the Calais up through 1976! It held on right through the last year of the pre-downsized mastodons!

    Looking at my old car book, it looks like Cadillac broke out the DeVilles from the Series 62 starting in 1959. The '58, the DeVilles were just high-spec versions of the Series 62 hardtop coupe and sedan. I guess technically they were "Series 62 DeVilles"?

    For 1959, my book lists the DeVille as a separate series. I guess you could call it a "Series 63" if you wanted, as the series code started off with "63XX..."

    For 1965, the Series 62 was renamed Calais, and offered a pillared 4-door, and 2 and 4-door hardtops. Interestingly, for 1964, the 62 had a convertible but the DeVille did not, but for 1965, the 'vert was transferred to the DeVille line.

    As for sales, in 1965 they sold about 33K Calaises and about 123K DeVilles (plus 2125 Eldorado convertibles, 18,100 Sixty Specials, and about 3900 Series 75, which included the commercial chassis).

    By 1976, they were down to about 6200 Calais models, compared to around 183,000 DeVilles! By that time, the Calais must have been a real ripoff. My book lists the Calais at around $8600, while the DeVille was around $9000. But an Electra Limited (top line) was around $6800, and I'm sure was a much nicer car than a Calais! Similarly, a Ninety Eight Regency was around $6700.
Sign In or Register to comment.