With spring finally displacing the East Coast’s long and snowy winter, convertibles are starting to come out again, along with joggers and gym-goers trying to look good as beach season rapidly approaches. What better time to take out a classic convertible and improve one’s appearance? Even in the case of this fifty year old Cadillac Convertible spotted last autumn (according to the 1963 Cadillac brochure, a 1963 Cadillac convertible, other than an Eldorado, was called simply a “Cadillac Convertible,” not a deVille or 62 Convertible), some work has been done to restore its youthful good looks. Just as with people, the results are debatable.
The old girl apparently is a resale redhead rather than a natural one, since the exterior and interior colors do not match. The seats appear not to be restored to their original state either, as they lack the buttons and creases usually seen on the seats of 1963 Cadillac convertibles, as seen on the example profiled earlier (someone else will know whether that seat treatment was used on all 1963 Cadillac Convertibles or was an option). But on a sunny day when you have this view from your wheelhouse, surrounded by colorful paint, chrome, and aluminum, and with a 390 V8 at the command of your right foot through that big pedal, would you really care?
I am a big fan of the 63 Caddy, but can’t say the same for the color – those super hot reds don’t do it for me. Ditto those whitewalls, which are much too wide for a 1963 car.
But all that said, it is hard to muck up the looks of a 63 Cad, especially when the top is down. When I was in high school, I knew a guy whose father drove one of these, in a dark metallic red that was in pretty much the same condition as today’s Camaro. It seemed like just an old worn-out car in the late 70s, but wouldn’t I like to have it now.
I agree, never felt that red was a good Cadillac color. Also on the whitewalls, I hate it when people do this to cars that never had them to begin with. It’s looks silly and detracts from the car.
Proper whitewalls for a ’63 Cadillac
I agree on the whitewalls and color, but at least there ain’t no stupid fuzzy dice hanging from the rear view mirror!
Would I care? Yes, I would care greatly if the owner was trying to ask for a restored to original condition price. At that point it matters greatly as the word “original” is thrown around as much as “all natural”. Original puts it under a microscope.
I am happy to see preservation classes becoming more popular at cars shows. With any luck, over time, more owners will have the confidence to skip the quick repaint in a “better” color and leave things original, even if the paint is a bit thin (or heaven forbid, white) and the seats torn.
That said I admire a properly done full restoration, especially after a few years when it becomes hard to tell if the car is original. The factory look is maintained but the finishes are more durable and the car better protected.
I don’t mind a dull or cracking paint finish but too much pitting in the chrome can detract from a car like this Cadillac. Nice find!
What the heck is that thing sitting on top of the center of the dash?
The famous Cadillac Autronic Eye. This was the device that contained the photocell that sensed oncoming headlights and then dimmed your headlights. There was a little knob on the back side that you could turn for increased or decreased sensitivity. My own 63 had this, and it was really cool to see it work. Unfortunately, there were two classes of people who really hated me when I let it work as intended: the people I was following (because my brights would be shining into their rear view mirrors) and oncoming traffic on interstate highways (because the device would not pick up headlights from that far away from the car’s path). It was great for a traditional 2 lane highway at night, though.
Edit – Mr. Google reminds me that it was a product of GM’s Guide Lamp Division and was available across all of GM’s automotive Divisions starting around 1952 or 53. However, it was a rarity in anything other than Cadillacs. I think it was gone by the mid 60s, I am guessing because of its inability to handle interstate highways.
My ’88 T-Bird had a similar system. The “eye” was mounted on the rear view mirror and there was a thumbwheel next to the headlight switch to control the distance or turn it off. It worked almost exactly as JP described, right down to being useless on most divided highways.
Autronic-Eye or GuideMatic was available as an option on Cadillacs until 1988-1989. After 1964, it moved from its pedestal mounted position to being mounted IN the front fender of 1964 Cadillacs and behind the grille from then on after. Cadillac has a more sophisticated auto dimmer today called Intellibeam.
That’s pretty cool. Thanks for the explanation.
GM’s famous ” Magic Eye ” it automatically dimmed the head lights for on coming traffic…
-Nate
She’s got fewer faults than I do at 50, so I’d go out with her. With the eye, tilt, power vent windows, power locks and factory AC (and cruise on the upper left dash?) she is stacked.
My Standard Catalog of American Cars lumps the base convertible in with Series 62 (6200 Series 6267F) production. I think it is considered a Series 62. 17,600 produced – don’t you miss the whole concept of this car in those numbers?
My favorite is still the ’62. I’ve got a feeling the red on this Fleetwood is closer to what should be on this car………..
Yes, that is cruise on the upper left corner of the dash.
The cruise control was more complicated to operate than today’s “push a button and the speed will hold” operation.
Turn a sliding switch on the cruise control bezel to “on.” Then you’d set the dial to the desired speed. Accelerate to that speed using the accelerator pedal, at which point you’d feel the pedal get “hard.” As you held the pedal down, push the sliding switch farther against a spring-loaded stop, and the unit would lock in. If you wanted to speed up, you could force the accelerator pedal, but it remained “hard” and took a lot of effort. If you wanted to speed up or slow down to a new set speed, you turned the dial to the new speed. If you wanted to disengage cruise control, you could either step on the brake, or turn the switch to OFF.
Ah yes, that little dashboard wheel. It had numbers on it that corresponded with vehicle speed, up to 85 mph (if memory serves. ) It was always fun to spin that wheel to the max with the cruise on. The acceleration was impressive.
What I love about the rear-drive Cadillacs is how they maintained so many of the same features and equipment for decades.
The door handles, window switches, and pedals are almost identical to those on a 1992 Brougham. I believe the 1965 interior redesign made those exactly identical, along with the square mirrors whenever that started. A real continuity of quality bits and pieces, that sadly did not make it to the final 1993-96 versions.
The square (remote control) mirrors were introduced with the 1968 MY cars, along with the hideaway windshield wipers. That’s one way to tell the 68’s from the 67’s.
When I bought my 89 Brougham, I immediately noticed the same exterior door handles from my 63 Fleetwood. The feel and action of that handle on both cars always whispered quality to me.
Exactly, noticed that on my ’87 Brougham, too. And the metal coat hooks in the rear, the metal gear selector. The nicer carpeting. You don’t find those in the lesser makes, except maybe the Park Avenue trim Electra and the Regency trim ’98. Not in my ’77 225, for sure. For all the justified criticism of the ’80s Broughams in terms of weak performance, lack of technological updates, and cheapo details tacked around the interior, there were still some special touches. I’m enjoying the ’93 FB I just bought, the leather is still nice, it still feels solid, but the carpets, dash, and instrumentation lack the specialness of the prior iteration.
Don’t forget that totally awesome chime when you turn the car on. It’s a real chime with a tiny striker and everything.
I’d prefer the darker red, but the brighter red probably wouldn’t deter me if I wanted to add a BigOldCaddy to my stable. It is a beauty.
A guy down the road at our cottage has or had a Caddy convertible almost exactly like this one, except I think his was a ’64.
You wonder why they didn’t match the color on the dashboard?
I’m a little bothered myself about the combination of body color and interior, and I’m not a fan of the wide whitewalls either. Otherwise, very nice, and as long as it’s mechanically sound I won’t complain much. Considering that it’s been around as long as I have it’s entitled to a wrinkle or two.
For me, extra wide whitewalls, turn it from elegant to gaudy. Especially in bright red.
Very nice auto, otherwise.
What is hard to tell is if the guy made it up that way or bought it that way.
If I paid way less than trailer queen “original” prices on an old drop top Caddy like this and it had these imperfections, I’d be just fine with it. I don’t like those wide white walls either, but if they are good, functional tires I’d just leave them on and use them. I would guess that is probably the situation this car is in.
As a cruiser (which is the only reason I’d buy something like this), I don’t care if it isn’t perfect. Actually, I’d rather that it wasn’t “perfect” so I don’t get some classic car show junkie’s pearl-clutching reaction to me actually using it as intended.
Cool Marauder behind it.
As with other red heads you don’t always get ” Matching carpet and drapes “…….
This is a nice old car in any case , a fun driver I am sure .
I prolly shouldn’t have scrapped my ’59 Caddy drop top , it was fully loaded with factory leather and even had the Wonder Bar radio , it needed a radiator so off it went to the scrap yard , decent original white paint and all , I didn’t get a dime for it , this in 1977 or so , rust free Cali. car ,black plates , oops .
-Nate
You scrapped a ’59 Caddy convertible because it needed a rad?! What a shame. Today that car would make the top-10 list of most desirable cars of its era.
Yes, but look at it this way – back then, it was about as desirable as a worn-out 1996 Sebring convertible would be to most people today.
I recall a few early 1960s Caddys sitting in my town, in some cases for my entire childhood, in the exact same spots (back in 1970s-80s). Nobody wanted them, especially during the fuel crisis.
Well sort of ~ I was living on the very top end of an amazingly narrow and
steep hill in Highland Park (Los Angeles) at the time and it wasn’t running so the L.A.P.D. (this was before Parking Enforcement was a separate division) towed the damn thing away , I simply didn’t bother to fetch it because it was $45 or so to get it back and I’d not wanted to replace the radiator already….
Foolish I know but please understand at the time is was just another old Caddy Drop Top and I like driving smaller , funner rigs anyways , I’d gotten it for free so no harm , no foul is what I stupidly thought .
-Nate
Even with all the aforementioned faults, when I look at this car, all I can say is OOOOHHH!! You sexy thang! (c;
So the old girl put on the wrong shade of lipstick and pulled the old wide white pumps off the shoe rack. I’d still ride her!
I was thinking the same thing. She’s trying too hard, but darn it, she’s still a ’63 Caddy, and she’s still mighty pretty.
The ’63 is my favorite postwar Cadillac. Last of the real fins – yeah, they had them in ’64, but like the rest of the car they were compromised from the previous year – and a great presence overall. When I was in college in New Jersey in the early 80s, I used to see a ’63 Sixty Special, white with a black vinyl roof, with perfect blue cloth upholstery under clear plastic seat covers. Wonder where it is now.