1961 Cadillacs Still on road

[Jack Miller CLC# 24441]

I remember even as a kid everyone wanting a 1959 Cadillac. But back in the day, it was all about a new car, not preserving what you had. The 1961 Cadillac fins are just about as big as the 59 but back in the day the 61,62 etc were disposable. People started keeping the 1960's as they were close in looks to the 59. Now after all the years past and the 61's were crushed, parted or left to rot, the amount left on the road is slim. I go to car shows here in New York and maybe one 61 Convertible there besides mine. The ratio of survivors is small. I am wondering why the 61 & 62 have not yet picked up in value due to the rarity of the year.
Just a thought
Jack
1961 Cadillac series 62 convertible

[Dan LeBlanc]

Interest is building in 1961-1964 models and I find values have increased in the last 10 years since I've been involved with 1961/1962 cars.  What I could buy for a parts car 7 years ago in the $1000 range for a coupe is now in the $2500-3500 range.  1961 and 1962 seem to be oddities somehow and I do see a lot more 1962's than 1961's wherever there are skeg cars present. 

I'm in the same boat owning a 1961 (Fleetwood 60S, 24k mi, survivor car) so I tend to pay closer attention than most to these years.  I believe I slightly overpaid for my car in 2013, but, I still believe that there is a bit of an upside on the values of these cars so long term, the damage to the pocketbook may be minimal.

[76eldo]

A low mileage original will always bring a premium price.
Dans car has to be seen to be believed.

Brian

[James Landi]

Having owned several 50's Cadillacs as well as a 1960, then a 1961 Convertible I am conjecturing here that the '61 was not only a styling departure but had strong engineering advances and a couple of deficits.  Upper A frame rubber bushings did not (IMO) deaden the shock transfer and road noise as well as its predecessors.  The front fenders around the headlights were a constant source of "rust through."  Overall, my '61 seemed "lighter and less durable" when I compare it to my 1960. THe '61 and '62 COnvertibles were strikingly beautiful with the top down, and dash styling refinements and interiors were aesthetically pleasing.

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

My theory is that 1960 and 1962 were much better received Cadillac cars when they were new than their respective predecessors and as a result, remained in the hands of the original owners for a longer duration on average where they were more likely to have gotten better care, thus the better survivorship of 1960 & 1962 models. Speaking from my own experience, I've seen a lot more excellent preserved original 60s & 62s than 59s & 61s.

The reason 1959 Cadillacs are so predominate today is because their value makes restoration more economically feasible. In other words, they get restored more often because they are worth more - therefore seen more.

Being that the 1961 probably didn't survive as well on average coupled with the fact they don't get restored as often- are the likely reasons they're the least represented of 1959 - 1962.

That's my reasoning anyway.

[76eldo]

All of the above makes sense.

I had a 61 Biarritz for a short time.  The difference between a 60 and a 61/62 is staggering.  The 61 is much lighter and not as substantially built.

Brian

[Dan LeBlanc]

I like the fact that one does not see as many survivor 1961's - somewhat adds to the mystery and rarity, although rarity in this case does not equate to higher value.

[64\/54Cadillacking]

The 59-60 Cadillacs were the pinnacle of Cadillac flamboyant styling, therefore will always be cherished and treasured as such. In many ways those 2 years are the coolest, most recognizable Cadillacs ever made IMO so people WANT those years more than any other and the demand is still high for them.

The 61-62 Cadillacs was a completely different looking car compared to the previous designs, that I think if Cad stylist would have kept the smoother, sleeker bodies and bold styling of the 59 and 60's and implemented some of those styling cues into the 61-62 Cads, maybe those cars would've seen higher demand and popularity also. The lack of styling consistency I believe from one year to the next made them oddballs years for enthusiast and collectors alike.

It's true however even when I go to car shows, most of the Cadillacs that I do see, are mostly 50's Cads, mainly 55-59's, some 60's models like the 65-69's,  some 70's ones as well, but hardly any 61-62 models strangely or even 63-64's

Personally, each year Cadillac up until 64 was great as far as them still having some real personality and looking very youthful and "Cadillac" in design, being high quality cars especially in materials, and of course the last of the tail fins ended in 64 so that means something.


Off topic:

To think that these classic Cadillacs were actually considered disposable in those days is insane. Every time I get into my 64 I'm still surprised and shocked by how overbuilt these cars were. Everything is still in tack and made to last. No cheapness or craptastic plastic anywhere like in today's "true disposable cars".

Everything is relevant but still, I mean if we compare the old Cads to old Cads, maybe that was the mentality back then for Cadillac owners, since nobody in the 1950's and 60's ever could imagine that all that wonderful chrome metal trim, strong heavy metal bodies and beautiful interiors would all go away 20-30 years later. But compared to modern cars, the classic Caddys definitely were built to last forever. the cheapness of materials used that is so prevalent today in just about every modern car, one can argue that the newer Cads probably won't hold up in 50-70  years compared to the classics especially with all the complicated electronics, and environmentally friendly paints, and materials.

[D.Smith]

I would agree that the 61 & 62s were not saved to the degree as other years.  We all know the 59 and 60s have a high demand.    I think people kept them knowing that things would never be like that again.

The 61 & 62s albeit slightly smaller (only 3 inches) were much more fussy in design with their skegs other delicate features.   When the 63s arrived the 61 & 62s were immediately obsolete.  By 65 anything with fins was just plain old fashioned.  You have to consider the competition too.  Lincoln had gone to the slab side design in 61.   Buick and Oldsmobile were slab sided by 63, Imperial by 64.   As much as we love our finned cars, they were old news by the mid 60s.    That's why I think the 61 & 62s were not saved in the numbers of the 59 & 60s.   

I wouldn't say they were inferior cars.   Quite the contrary.  The 61 redesign improved so many areas.   The dogleg was gone and entry-exit improved.   The rear doors were 6 inches longer and opened 7 and a half inches wider.    The car was more maneuverable with a 3 foot narrower turning circle.   New lower floor allowed for greater headroom and leg room.  Other advances included lubrication free chassis and a new wiper system that covered 15% more area.   

62 added the dual chamber master cylinder, larger 26 gallon gas tank and cornering lamps to name a few things. 

I think their downfall was their throwback styling.  After the toned down 1960 models, the 61s were quite garish in design.   They were designed in the Jetsons mindset.   Lincoln changed all the rules in 61, just as Exner did in 57 over at Chrysler.   The 61 and 62s are great cars just out of step with the times.

I find my 61 Sedan Deville to be a joy to drive, especially at highway speeds.  Must be due to all those stabilizing fins.   

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

In a lot of ways, the '61 was as outlandish in its own way just as the '59 had been before. Both were followed by toned down versions of the same theme. And in both cases, the public overwhelmingly approved the toned down versions above their predecessors when new.

Today however, the difference in value between 61 & 62 cars is negligible whereas between 59 & 60, it is tremendous.

The '61 was a shock when it debuted but by the time the '62 was introduced, the public already had a whole year to digest the new look so it could not help being better received.

Whatever the relative merits/criticisms of 61/62, they are arguably in a class by themselves among all Cadillacs. They really don't fit anywhere in the continuum of Cadillac styling. If anything, the 1963 would have been the perfect followup to 1960; the 60 & 63 sharing far more "styling DNA" than the intervening two model years, which - both figuratively and literally - seems to have come from outer space. 

[Scot Minesinger]

The styling of the 1961 and 1962 Cadillacs are the best to me.  I like the looks of them better than my 1970 and more than the 1959 and 1960 Cadillacs. 

Being an engineer the driveability of the 1970 is preferable to an early 1960's Cadillac to me.  If I could make the perfect Cadillac, it would have the 1961 body with rear section between taillights a 1962 and the mechanics and features of a 1970 (472, turbo-hydro trans, cc, tilt/tel, twilight sentinel, collapsible steering wheel, electric locks, marker lights, headrests, and etc.).

The 1961 Cadillac convertible at Hershey in 2015 sold for 71k -respectable.  My Grandmother drove a 1961 Cadillac (her first of several for decades), and she loved it.  It was a SDV w/ac in gray.

[D.Smith]

   the 60 & 63 sharing far more "styling DNA" than the intervening two model years, which - both figuratively and literally - seems to have come from outer space.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[D.Smith]

If you look at the sales figures between 60 and 61 it tells an interesting story.

At first look, sales were down.  142,184 in 1960, vs. 138,379 in 1961.   Down 3,805 units.
So you might think the public balked a little at the new styling.   But it isn't that simple.

In 1961 they dropped two models.  The Eldorado Seville and Eldorado Brougham.  While not high production cars, they made up 1,176 units in 1960. 

But the biggest losses in 1961 were in the series 62 line up.   Coupe sales were down 4,000 units.  The four window sedans took a big hit in both series.  Flat top models were down 5,000 units. Half the year before.
The one bright spot in the series 62 was the convertible.   Up to 15,500 from 14,000 the year before.  But altogether Series 62 sales were down 8,400 units.

Deville Sales were up.  Not much.   55,174 vs. 53,389 in 60.   The 6W Sedan sales were up almost 4,000 units from 60.   Coupe Sales were down about 1,400 units.  Flat top sales were way off, down half from 60.   The added short deck Town Sedan added 3,756 units however.

A big jump was in the 61 Fleetwood Sixty Special sales.  Up to 15,500 from 11,800 the year before.  I guess style conscious Fleetwood buyers wanted to have the new body with its unique roofline. 

As for 1962, sales did jump up to 160,840.   The reason was the new roofline of the 4W sedans and Coupes.   All 4W sedan models had huge jumps in sales.  Coupe Devilles sales went up 25%.  Series 62 Coupes however did not.   Short deck sales were up a little, just split between two series now.  Series 62 convertible sales were up to 16,800, yet Series 62 6W sedan sales dropped 10,000 units.   6W Deville sales were about the same as 61.    Fleetwood 60 Special sales were slightly down to 13,350 units and Eldorado sales were identical to 61 at 1450 units.

So things were changing.   Flat tops were out of style.   The 6W roofline would quickly be outsold by the new blind quarter 4W style.   The new blind quarter coupe roofline would make it the best selling model by 1963.   

So were 61s and 62s mistakes?   Hardly.  Oddballs in styling perhaps, but they were designed back in 58 and 59 when "anything goes" was the rule.   The Cyclone show car had skegs so it was no surprise that the 61s had them.   Who knew that the publics mood towards fins and glitz would change so fast.    The 61 and 62s were important in that their sales changes in models reflected the publics taste in rooflines and budgets.    More people could afford the move up to a Deville and the decline of the series 62 began.

In reality the 61s and 62s were the right cars for their time if the 1960 had never existed.   But the 60 did exist and reflected the rapid change in styling.   But the 61s were already finished and ready for production.   Can't you just see the styling dept guys reaction when they had the 61s styling all done and heard the 60s were being toned down?   Oops!

So the market changed.  Fortunately Cadillacs loyal buyers bought the new 61s regardless.    They were improved in so many ways that overshadowed the styling gaff.      Hindsight always being 20/20  Eric hit it right on the head that the 63s styling should have followed the 60s.   But when the design studio must work on cars years ahead of release it is impossible to predict rapid changes.    GM with its deep pockets has always been able to survive such turns.   

I like to think of the 61s as the car that got caught in a time warp.   Sort of a Ray Bradbury rocket ship version of what 1961 was supposed to look like when viewed from the mid 50s.

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

Thank you David for that detailed analysis.

For some time I had planned on doing a model by model comparison between 61 & 62 but never got around to it.

Interesting to note the 25% jump in CdV sales which is rather significant. Buyers evidently liked what they saw and as the owner of a '62 CdV myself, I could not agree more. The car just looks right.   

The low '61 4W sales figures were never surprising to me but today but on those rare occasions when one does manage to show up, few 61/62 fans can resist making a bee line for it - and that probably holds true for most Cadillac fans generally. Same goes for Coupes which are also seldom seen.

Of all the Cadillacs made over the decades, the 61/62 seems to resonate the most with the younger generations which usually bodes well for future appreciation. These will be the cars to watch - particularly in 2 door body styles whether coupe or convert.

[N Kahn]

This one is on the road again.

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

I can hardly wait to receive the next SS now.

[N Kahn]

me too.

[Jack Miller CLC# 24441]

I remember those days in New York. When my dad and uncle tried to sell their 1961 & 1962 Convertibles, the dealers really didn't want them in trade for 1965's. I remember them putting the cars in the papers. Their best offers (not to sound racist) was from the Latino's who came to see them. My uncle and Dad lived 20 miles away from each other but had the same experiences. It seemed that only the Puerto Rican community wanted them and offered them the best prices. They sold to 2 Puerto Rican businessman who ironically were their customers in business. White, African American's, no one had interest in them in 1965. I remember my dad being upset that he couldn't sell it. I being 11 years old when it was new, always loved the 1961 convertible only. I thought the 59 & 60 were too busy of a design. I restored the 61 I have now in memory of my dad.
Jack
1961 series 62 Convertible

[jagbuxx #12944]

My feeling of the '61 styling compared to the 1960 is that it is the first "modern" looking Cadillac. No more slab sides/50's look. A car that looks in motion while standing still. I've had my bubbletop for almost 19 years now. It seems at shows, everyone has a 59 or a 60 but rarely do you see a 61.

[Bill Young]

Very interesting discussion. In his superb book " Cadillac's of the Sixties " Roy Schneider states in the Introduction that real income in the United States went up 30 % in the 1960's this also widened the audience purchasing new Cadillac's at that time and also must influence the total production figures . I say this as the increase would have been felt across all models to some extent. Another factor was competition , Packard was dead , Cadillac was outselling Lincoln and Imperial in multiples. In sales they killed the imports be they German or English. So in short Cadillac in the 1960's found itself in a marketing sweet spot .  That said there was a third factor compared to today  The amount of Government intervention into the Automobile industry was low albeit growing so GM Divisions had an almost open hand in design and styling to create absolute timeless masterpieces of Steel and Chrome and Leather that endure today as icons of the era. At the time these cars were new NO ONE I believe could have foreseen that 40 to 50 years later styling wise cars would be reduced to little round pillared 4 door sedans in about 4 colors that if you remove the badges virtually cannot be told apart. So it did not occur to most owners either new or used to preserve them as they looked forward to the next alluring model to lust after and buy. How many are left of each model year ? , I believe probably somewhere between 5 and 10 % of each model favoring the Convertibles over the closed models in any condition from perfect originals thru total restorations down thru parts cars and derelicts laying in fields. As time marches on and the baby boomers die off I am not certain that the generations of the future will covet these historic vehicles as they mostly will have not had life experience connection with them and they may become transportation white elephants like the brass age cars are today mostly trailed to events rather than safe for future  traffic conditions. Hence their values will go down. One Mans Opinion