Classic cars...

[Ulf]

I agree - it sounds slightly arrogant but classics have never had much appeal with the new, fast money and they are the ones that have lost the most during this recession. The classic prices here are stable but there are loads of Audi convertibles and shiny new SUVs for sale at bargain prices (they might become classics one day - or maybe not...).

[Benz Dr.]

If a 113 really was a classic, which it most certainly isn't, it would be worth a small fortune.

People need to get their descriptions right. At worst it's an antique car, at best it's real milestone car. But it's no classic regasrdless of all the guys out there calling anything and everything '' classic. ''

[Garry]

I see CCSISC referred in earlier posts trying to sell the 'one owner"  is not having much luck.
First time on eBay $59,900 and then for what ever reason not sold then put back on without explanation and now 'did not meet reserve' at $56,889 after 32 bids.  What happened to the losing bidder the first time? I think the seller must be getting that sinking feeling or something is being manipulated.

Makes you very suspicious of what is going on though
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200461215851&viewitem=&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT

[Benz Dr.]

There's reasonable grounds to be suspicious of all auctions save the really high end ones. It's one of the main reasons I prefer private sales.


 The question was, '' Do we have a standard for what a perfect example is and do we have a document explaining these details? '' The answer is no, and we are not currently judiing our cars at any events. We have a few pictures of a 280SL engine bay which should get you very close but I don't believe we have a difinitive example for any one car or the three different versions. Most will agree on the basic things but even there we have different examples, all of which might be correct.
I thnik we should strike a comittee to explore this and present their findings well before the next PUB meeting.

[Peter van Es]

If a 113 really was a classic, which it most certainly isn't, it would be worth a small fortune.

People need to get their descriptions right. At worst it's an antique car, at best it's real milestone car. But it's no classic regasrdless of all the guys out there calling anything and everything '' classic. ''

Dan,

Ulf (who is from Denmark) uses European nomenclature. In Europe a Pagoda is called a classic car, just like a pre 1972 Porsche 911 would be called a classic car. We also have names like Pre-war car (prior to 1940), Antiques (in practice everything pre-WW1). Cars after say 1972-1975 but more than 20 years old are called "Young-timers" as opposed to "Oldtimers". So when a European calls a Pagoda a classic car, they are using accepted terminology in Europe.

Peter

[thelews]

Dan was probably referring to the US.

Here, it's somewhat of a gray area, but, true classics are usually older than our cars or achieved iconic status in its day.  For example, the Porsche 356 could be argued to be a classic, as it invariably is seen in any serious car collection, just like the MB 300 SL as a gullwing or roadster.

Our cars certainly have classic styling that has worn well through the years and certainly represented technological superiority in its day.  However, I would agree with Dan and not put the 113 in the Classic category...yet.  It may achieve it someday, but not quite yet.  The 121, 190 SL, is beginning to be taken more seriously, but, I wouldn't call that a classic either.

That said, our 113s are in a nice spot now, still affordable and drivable for many, but slowly increasing in value.  Give it another 50 years.  "Vintage" is probably the more apt description.

[Benz Dr.]

No, actually, you're both wrong.
 Classic cars were built during the late 20's and 30's during the the time of classic coach building. A classic denotes the ' time period ' when it was built and the type of car that was built and not what you want it to be. There are many Eruo cars from that time period and there are MB some benz cars such as 540K, SSK, 500K and a few others. There are NO Porsche cars that are classic although there are many which are Milestone cars. 

  The term ' classic car '  has been picked up by individuals everywhere these days when what they really have is probably an antique car at best. Regadless of what you read, or what your told, or so and so says, there's only one true definition of a Clssic Car.

Trust me, I have it right. I've been at this for a very long time and customs and countries aside, there is a very difinitive list of cars which are recognized as '' Full Classic '' and our cars don't even come close. You're looking at Delahye, Cord, Dusenburg, Moon, Talbot Largo and a fairly short list all of the hand built, very high end cars from that time period. This list is been well established since 1952; long before all the supposed ' classic cars ' from the 50's and 60's jumped in where they don't belong.

[Garry]

Whilst there is a definition made by the CCCA, it is not internationally recognised as such, rather there are several iterations by differing groups,

Bottom line is that there is no single international definition or correct answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_cars

USA
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim23200.htm
http://www.aeclassic.com/comments/classic1.ht

UK
http://www.classiccarclub.org/our_club.htmlUK

And I am sure there are lots more definitions around the world that differ from these two.

[Benz Dr.]

No. That's not true. I'm sure the ' 57 Chevy guys would also differ and they're wrong as well. The deffinition IS recognized by everyone who is a serious collector all over the world and you can't change that. Some will try and water it down but then it's so watered down now '' classic '' means nothing today.

 Clearly, this place needs some serious education.

[mdsalemi]

I'll have to agree with Garry.

Let's make a distinction here.  There are many definitions of the adjective "classic" and many of them can apply to lots of things--cars included.

There is a definition of "Classic Car"; by the CCCA; notice the capitalized C's.  http://www.classiccarclub.org/pdfs/Why%20We%20Define%20Classic%20as%20We%20do.pdf That is only their definition and as Garry points out there are a lot of other definitions, not to mention common usage.

It doesn't matter what they (CCCA) say, or think or believe--but to think they can disallow the use of the common adjective "classic" as a modifier to the noun "car" simply because it doesn't meet the standards they set up is crazy.

At best, if you want to believe the CCCA, refer to their cars as Classics with a capital C.  And for goodness sake, be a snob if you do!  Don't forget to turn your nose up at 6-cylinder Auburns, 'cause they don't count.  Only the 8's and 12's. 

If you think what ever you are describing meets some definition of classic the adjective, by all means use it.  With a small c.

[Peter van Es]

Definitions ≠ Practical use.

Well known and very respected UK magazines as Classic Cars or Classics and Sports Car also describe e.g. Ford Escort Mexico's, which are neither classic by Dan's definition, nor a sports car. Motor Klassik in Germany frequently describe BMW's, and Pagoda's and the like. As I said, classic does not have formal definition associated with it in Europe.

I would never be so presumptuous as to assume that my definition is the correct definition for the entire world. I was just trying to explain that Ulf's use of the word classic in Europe is just a practical way of describing a treasured (even if only by one person) old car.

Peter

[Garry]

The CCCA definition is not recognised in Australia. There is no formal definition for classic other that set by the different States for registration purposes. There is the Vintage and Veteren and Other

Just for interest, we have another Group here used occasionally called Chromies.  You cannot enter your car in the rally unless it has a chrome bumper bar!!!

[Benz Dr.]

I'm sure there are those around here who would agree with almost anyone about almost anything; as long as that person disagrees with me.

Let's look at the CCCA for second. They started in 1952 with the objective of saving all those old pre war cars. Contrary to what a lot of people think, they aren't snobs nor do they care if you call your car a classic. I'm not a member of that club right now but I think It's fair to say that they tend to be well heeled.

The actual trem is, '' Full Classic '' indicating any of those cars which are recognised as such buy this club. I don't think it matters where you live, if you own a Duesenberg, you know that you have a full classic. Almost half of the full classics are European cars such as Delhaye, Delage, Rolls Royce, Alfa Romeo, Mercedes Benz and many more. If you own a 540K, believe me, you will know that it's a full classic or you're so rich and stupid about cars you probably don't know or care.

All this other stuff about classic cars doesn't amount to beans. There are so many different classifications by car clubs, governments, and individuals as to make it pretty much meaningless .

So, rather than talking about what IS a classic car, let's spend a second or two and say what isn't a classic car. Some people would say a Pinto is a classic car. Others would say their ' 77 Caprice Classic is one, just by virtue of its name. Others will say a 113 is a classic car.
None of these cars meet the nearly 60 year old definition but then I think we can all agree that we don't agree.

You know, now that I think about it, I think I'd rather stand on my head all day long, sticking pins into my eyes while performimg self circumcision with a rusty knife, than bother will any of this......

[thelews]

So, stand on your head and engage in sado-masochism while playing with yourself.  Ok by me.  In fact, it'd be a classic!

[66andBlue]

.... Let's look at the CCCA for second. They started in 1952 with the objective of saving all those old pre war cars. ....

Unfortunately, the CCCA was either not very successful or very selective when they decided what to save and what to call a Classic.
Example: Only about 6000 KRIT cars were built (clearly a limited quantity) but few survived the time period after WWII for reasons that become apparent when you see the cars emblem. Did that also sway the CCCA for not saving it and excluding it from the list?
I photographed the car in the attached photo in an interesting museum in Nelson, NZ, that combines fashion and classic cars.
The KRIT was not an expensive car and the remaining few examples are neither.  A mere $23K will get you one:
http://www.volocars.com/1913-krit-five-passenger-touring-c-1176.htm

[Ulf]

Seem to have stirred a hornets nest here by referring to Pagodas as "classics" - that wasn't the intention. Here's a little story to put things into perspective: a couple of years ago I stopped to help an old man who had trouble with his BMW 327 (pre-war sportscar) and asked him whether he also had a modern too, to which he replied "Sure, I have a 1965 Rover". This man was 88 and I'm only 36 - that might have some effect on which cars one consider to be classics.
I'm not sure which rules or classifications apply in the US, but here (in Denmark and most of Europe) they are decided by both the government (for tax and vehicle inspection reasons), the clubs and by the insurance companies. As there are a number of different rules that often vary from country to country, I won't go through them all. But generally the terms in plain language are: Classic - a car that is iconic, cherished and has a value due to its significance and age rather than its practical use. Vintage - cars that are older than classics e.g. pre-war vehicles. Youngtimers or new-classics is a definition used for cars that may still be in daily use, but represent the period in which they were built very well and thus may become classics at some point. For instance the w107 and w123 MBs are certainly considered to be somewhere between classics and youngtimers, but in common European terminology, a w113 is a classic and has been for many years - so is MGs, Triumphs, Beetles, chrome bumper Porsches, Mustangs etc..
I frankly find it more than a little arrogant to be corrected and told what terminology and frame of reference I should use in my own country and that I need a serious education - if I wanted that tone of voice, I would spend my time elsewhere on the Internet...

[Ulf]

BTW: If you do a search on the word "classic" in this forum - 38 full pages come up, that should give an indication...

[mdsalemi]

Well, Alfred, I can see how the Krit logo might be an issue.  Neglect for a moment that it has not one, but multiple unconnected origins all around the world, including extensive use by the Navaho! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Native_American_basketball_team_crop.jpg  That "logo" is sadly remembered for one use, dismissing eons of uses around the world by many civilizations.

Those in the know, will remember the very old Dodge brother logo from 1914-1927.  They were not Jewish, but somehow their logo made people think they were.  Origins are unclear and conflicting, the best is probably that the logo is two of the Greek letter Delta, one for each brother Horace and John.

It's probably a good thing that automotive companies retire logos that offend anyone for any reason, and carry no religious connotation, implied or otherwise!

Ulf, the reason why this becomes such as issue as usually someone making a claim as to a classic are simply trying to distinguish their car from something newer and or more pedestrian.  When that comment, innocent as it might be, is met (meaning countered, or refuted) with some CCCA definition, or some other definition, he who makes that claim is being a bit pedantic.  It's that--a pedantic comment--which ruffles all the feathers, so to speak!  Yes, it is a bit arrogant to correct someone as you note with such a detail.

[Benz Dr.]

You know, normally I let insults run right off of me but just this once I think I'll comment.

  Generally, when I see someone refer to some web site as their source for all of their points of view I sort of imagine they might not have a complete handle on the subject at hand.
When they then go on to use words that are so obscure one has to look it up in the dictonary, it only underscores just how far some will go to poke you in the eye. :'(

   Be that as it may, I'm not a complete rube even if I didn't go to university.  I have a fairly good handle on the English language.  I understand words too - ones I'd rather not use right now......

[bpossel]

I recommend we "close" this thread and get back to "car" talk....
Bob 

[Ulf]

Bob, please define "car" - just kidding! 
The matter have been settled elsewhere, so I agree to shutting this thread down this very instant...

Regards

Ulf

[mdsalemi]

Pedantic:

pe·dan·tic   /pəˈdæntɪk/  Pronunciation: [puh-dan-tik]   
–adjective
1. ostentatious in one's learning.
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.

In a quest for lifelong learning, it isn't uncommon for many people to reach for the dictionary to either understand or clarify usage.  I read and write constantly and a dictionary is always at my side.

In the case for the the word above, this is a classic example, particularly definition #2, of describing somebody correcting somebody else, when that somebody else calls a Pagoda a classic car, and that correction refers to simply one definition of classic car.  Ulf said this correction is arrogant.  It is.  It's also pedantic.

You may not see it often because it describes situations we try to avoid?

[Ulf]

Guys, please...don't make me even more sorry for causing this controversy over a simple word

[Benz Dr.]

Uh..... you didn't do that Ulf. Mike has too much time on his hands and spends most of his time on the internet, I guess.

 I'm sure we all know that almost anywhere you go today someone will call any old car a classic. To me, it means very little. Our 113 cars are recogniserd as true milestone cars, which in and of it'self, is a fairly nice thing to be. As an example, only one Japanesse car has that distinction, the Toyota 2000 GT.

 My only real comment is that there realy IS cars recognised as '' Full Classics. '' Since this was done almost 60 years ago it's hardly fair to suggest that this is some sort of snobbery today. It's what I usually hear and what I often get from the general public.

 Generally it's from some guy that has no idea what a full classic is but in Mike's case that's not an excuse. I'm sure he's been to Meadowbrook ( in fact he showed his car there - not a small honor ) so he knows there's such a thing and further to that, if HE was making this statement it would be filled with graphs, diagrams, reams of information, web sites, full frontal nudity, 3/4 shots, arial photograghs and just about any other means to supress any notion that he wasn't the difinitive expert on the subject. 

enough said.

[Peter van Es]

full frontal nudity

I'm looking forward to that part...