My first thought when I spotted this gorgeous, red Cadillac being piloted by this lady was to wonder under what circumstances this scene was made possible. Several scenarios came to mind. This was in the middle of summer, on the Friday right before the July 4th holiday weekend. Dropping this car’s top in the city would make complete sense to me, even with the background din of traffic, car horns, panhandlers, construction, and passing L trains. It originally listed for just over $1,000 (a whopping $7,300 / adjusted) less than the ’66 Fleetwood Eldorado soft top’s $6,600 starting MSRP.
Perhaps the driver was the wife of an executive who had proclaimed that morning at the breakfast table, “Dear, instead of me taking the Metra commuter rail into the city today, how about driving me in to work? We can take the Cadillac!” “I think that’s a wonderful idea. I’ll get my scarf.” How delightful! After dropping her husband off at the Franklin Street entrance of the Sears Tower, she headed into the Gold Coast district to valet park and shop. The Cadillac’s 340-hp 429-V8 was plenty thirsty, but it still moved smartly and decisively among the buses and taxis around the Loop’s many one-way streets. Driving one of just over 18,200 ’67 DeVille convertibles gave her a feeling of exclusivity that few of their possessions had ever come close to matching.
Or, perhaps she’s an independently wealthy socialite simply out for a leisurely drive while on the way to meet some of her girlfriends for high tea at the Drake Hotel on Michigan Avenue. I’ve been to Drake high tea once, with my mother, on one of her visits to the Windy City. It is super-fancy and a long way from my urban upbringing, complete with a harpist and tiny sandwiches. It’s not for everybody, but I kept an open mind and liked what I got out of it. This photo was taken midday, and parking in the Loop is expensive, so I’d have reason to believe that the driver probably wasn’t a working stiff like Yours Truly, but I say that not like that’s a bad thing.
It was I who made my unspecial 3.2, “B” grade-point-average in college…not this driver. That’s right. I owe my lack of a classic Cadillac to the mediocre-but-passable marks that I earned, and I therefore accept responsibility. It’s my fault. And it’s possible (likely, even) that both of my scenarios above are one-hundred eighty degrees from the actual circumstances that day. It’s been said of me that I have quite an imagination. Of the featured photograph (the same shot, cropped two different ways), though, one does have to admit – this Cadillac and its driver seemed a very stylish pair.
Downtown, The Loop, Chicago, Illinois.
Friday, July 2, 2010.
The ’67 was my first favorite Cadillac. It sure seems to be the car that provides the most inspiration for modern Cadillacs.
Picky point, the ‘verts were simply known as DeVille.
Thanks for the save, Dave! I fixed it.
Joseph, Cadillac also offered a lower cost convertible all those years in addition to the top-tier Eldorado. It was just part of the Series 62, which morphed into the Calais in 1965. But there was never a Calais convertible; starting in 1965, the lower-cost convertible was a DeVille. In 1967, when the Eldorado became a unique car, in hardtop only, there was no more Eldorado convertible. The DeVille convertible essentially took its place, but its trim level was not as high as the old Eldo convertible. I’ve edited your text.
Thanks, Paul. Partial fail on this one, it looks like!
Keeping track of the Caddy convertibles was a little confusing in those years. Although technically 1964 was first year for the Deville convertible, the 1959 through 1963 Series 62 convertibles used DeVille-style leather interiors.
The DeVille was a series 62 until 1959 when it became a series 63. The Eldorado was also a series 62 until 1959 when it became a series 64. The 59 Series 75’s were really series 67.
I am biased, but the ’67 really is the best looking Cadillac ever.
You’ve definitely hit the mood with this picture. It captures the essence of commercials for various items aimed at women (shampoo, panty hose, whatever) that I will only see while muted.
This certainly isn’t a knock to anyone or anything as it portrays the independent, carefree, having fun atmosphere those commercials possess. Duplicating that on the fly is no small accomplishment.
I didn’t realize Caddy had gone without convertibles for all those years. Seems like an odd move. The point of a Caddy was to be SEEN, and a droptop is the best way to accomplish that goal. Roadmasters were GM’s offering for rich people who didn’t need to show it.
There were convertibles – it’s just that they were upmarket Eldorados / Fleetwood Eldorados / Biarritzes. The ’67 was the first “down market” (relatively speaking) Cadillac convertible in years.
Cadillac also offered a lower cost convertible all those years in addition to the top-tier Eldorado. It was just part of the Series 62, which morphed into the Calais in 1965. But there was never a Calais convertible; starting in 1965, the lower-cost convertible was a DeVille. In 1967, when the Eldorado became a unique car, in hardtop only, there was no more Eldorado convertible. The DeVille convertible essentially took its place, but its trim level was not as high as the old Eldo convertible.
Here’s the ’65 DeVille convertible.
” the ’67 DeVille convertible was the first, non-Eldorado Cadillac drop-top since model year ’52, with the new-for-’67 FWD E-body Eldo being offered only as a hardtop coupe.”
Polite mention, the 62 series convertible existed from ’46 through ’63. It was promoted to the 62 DeVille sub-series in 1964, where a convertible remained through 1970. These were Cadillac’s volume selling drop tops.
Thanks, Dave! Partial fail on this piece, I’m afraid. Learned something new… Sometimes for reference, and when I’m checking production figures, I have sometimes overlooked (important) details like the ones you and Paul N. pointed out. Whoops. 🙂
It’s a never-ending learning process. 🙂 And learning about cars before your time is fairly abstract.
FWIW, the Eldo convertible was very expensive in its day, and quite rare. For instance, in 1961, Cadillac sold 14,000 Series 62 convertibles and only 1450 Eldo convertibles. The overwhelming majority of Cadillac convertibles from the 50s and 60s are series 62/De Villes.
Dave, the switch to the DeVille convertible happened in 1965. The Series 62 was a separate series from the DeVille, not a DV subseries. It switched its name to Calais in 1965.
I sourced 1964 from the Standard Catalog. I notice Old Car Brochures is missing the ’64 Cadillac.
This pic of a ’64 seems to have DeVille script on the rear quarter. On-line pics are hit and miss for the script, but there seem to be too many out there for being customizations.
Dave, it appears you are right. My Encyclopedia of American cars shows it happening in 1965, but I found the brochure and confirms that it was in 1964.
Great find. The ’67 and ’68 have always been my favourite Cadillacs of the Sixties. Understated and elegant, yet the forward canted grille gives them a rakish look.
I have a soft spot for the 67, an aunt and uncle had one that they inherited from his parents – a Calais 4 door with cloth and vinyl seats and crank windows.
I remember going for a ride with my cousin, and when he opened up that 429, it was impressive. They got many, many good years out of that old Cadillac.
This may come just a little after “peak Cadillac” for the interiors, but as far as mechanicals and exterior styling, this was still very much “peak Cadillac.”
The crank windows seem almost unimaginable today, but a big ’60s GM beast still felt pretty swank (and roomy!) with a minimum of options.
My friend’s mom had a 1966 Olds Ninety-Eight Town Sedan pillared hardtop with few options beyond AC, and probably the radio was technically optional. The interior was only a bit better than a Caprice, likely similar to a Cadillac Calais. But the long wheelbase, monstrous trunk, distinct Oldsmobile engine note and better standard automatic transmission assured you that you were in no mere Chevy.
The apex, or peak, of Cadillac is said by many aficionados, including myself to be between 1965 and 1969; with 1967 being the post-war high watermark of Cadillac as a luxury car producer. 1967 was a golden year for GM and especially one for Cadillac. I do have to disagree with many on the “material slip”. Many Cadillac connoisseurs believe interior quality took a dive beginning in 1969. 1967 marked an era of padded, yet luxurious surfaces. 1968 however began that dreadful one-piece molded door panel, cheap! The materials in the interior of a 1967 Cadillac are just carry overs from the 1966 line. The plastic dash and arm rests present in the 1966 models were replaced by highly textured vinyl padded surfaces in 1967; a very refined approach. One could argue that the interior quality fell slightly beginning in 1965, with the introduction of hard plastics throughout the cabin, however this dissipated for the 1967 model year, but was reintroduced in 1969. Cadillac begin to subtly slip following the 1970 model year. Cadillac’s slip was both a result of their own actions as well as the federal government, and its strict regulations. 1967 was truly an understated height in Cadillac’s interior design theme. It was handsome, yet efficient, the last of the great Cadillacs before the government and oil crisis struck.
That is a great shot that showcases how luxuriously appointed the interior was. Love the flip-down trays in the back and (what looks like) brocade upholstery on both the seats and door panel.
This is quite the stylish convertible. In the 1967 movie “The Thomas Crown Affair” Steve McQueen’s German mistress drove a white one of these while Steve had a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow coupe, pre Corniche. Ah to be a young successful bank robber.
As a teenager, I remember the car and the mistress.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
When Faye Dunaway confronts Steve McQueen about her. He responds as Thomas Crown,
“She is just there to keep you in touch with yourself.”
Hah!
Male fibbing in the First Degree without mitigating circumstances!! ???
Had one hauled away recently. Rust had taken over.
For a large vehicle, it was remarkably quick, helped by the superb switch-pitch transmission.
One night driving from Binghamton NY to the Boston area, my son woke up in the back seat and asked why we were going so slow. I told him we were cruising at 85. It was that smooth.
It ate exhaust manifolds though which eventually put if off the road.
This is like deja-vu, Joseph. I was at a pub/restaurant last weekend and a guy pulled up with his family in a 1968 Coupe, white with a black convertible top. I have to say, I much prefer the interiors of the 67’s…the dashboard, imho, is more attractive than the 68 model, with it’s big vent pod in the dead-center of the dash. Anyway, beautiful car!!
“Well pumpkins, it comes down to that age-old decision: Style, or substance?”
See Tucker’s comment below…
I’ll take the style of the 1967’s Standard of the World.
I love that you posted that Dmitri from Paris song here — perfect, Joseph!
(BTW, the sound clip in the song is from Breakfast at Tiffany’s — the Patricia Neal character, talking about herself.)
🙂 …With George Peppard and Audrey Hepburn piping in. I thought of this song almost immediately when reviewing this frame.
Aren’t you in your office on company time…? 🙂
Yep, haven’t heard that since the Lounge Revival in the Nineties. Nice find!
Great looking car, and one of my American /CC favourites.
And thanks for the explanation of why I drive a Fiesta diesel and not an XF-R 😉
Perfect. Thank you Joseph and thanks also to the driver for playing along.
I agree with much of the sentiment above – while I love the exterior style, the interior is less well resolved. In my enthusiasm to own one I’d forgive that shortcoming.
For years I watched a black 67 Fleetwood Sixty Special sedan, converted to RHD, cut a path through Melbourne traffic and it looked even more amazing in this context of largely forgettable nothingness. Not seen it for some time but can still recall the registration number, I hope it’s doing well wherever it is.
I saw a ’65 Cadillac sedan parked outside a school in Geelong last year. I was moving in heavy traffic at the time, so didn’t catch the trim level, but at one glance it screamed “I’m a Cadillac!”
A very commanding presence, it made the other ‘prestige’ cars/SUVs parked nearby just disappear.
I owned one of these about 20 years ago.
It had been used in the movie “To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar”.
When I bought it it was still painted in the pale yellow with ugly beige upholstery.
Mechanically it was in excellent condition, and it still had the modifications for
cameras to be mounted to the body.
There were pipes welded near the tailpipe where something could be done to make the car appear to be backfiring.
The ashtray was full of used cigarettes with lipstick on them.
It had been allowed to sit outside in the rain, so it needed paint and upholstery.
The front seat had been cut in half, so I had to replace it with a later model that had headrests.
The car was originally blue with a blue interior, but had been painted yellow for the movie, and the interior had been dyed yellow/beige and had the ugly yellow/beige upholstery.
I dyed/changed the upholstery to black, and had it painted red. Put on a new black top.
One of the very best driving older cars that I have ever had, and I keep looking to see if
I can find it again.
I sold it to a young football player from Georgia.
Any info on its current whereabouts would be appreciated.
Speaking of Julie Newmar, just like this Cadillac, she was nice to look at with her top down.
Funny you should mention… see cjiguy’s comment above.
Ah, mid-sixties Cadillac convertibles; good thing that my garage is not big enough to dock one of these or I would have to have one. Just waiting to win that lottery so I can make it happen.
As soon as I saw the photo, I looked at the byline. Joseph Dennis – of course!
These were truly an eternal piece of design, still looking impressive, prestigious and, yes, desirable almost fifty years later.
Gorgeous gorgeous gorgeous
Elegance in motion — once Cadillac’s fins were cut down to reasonable size, any of them from 62 to 70 captures the essence of the brand. I do have a fondness though for the stacked headlight versions — 1965-68.
What a nice looking car. Big and regal. Just what a Caddy should be.
Dad brought home a 1967 Cadillac 4-door. It was an aquamarine blue very similar to the 1964 Pontiac he drove previously. Both cars looked very ‘clean’ to me with a minimum of bright trim but what trim they did have was in the ‘right place’ I thought. A neighbor had a1965 Sedan deVille. I thought it was a handsome car but the ’67 appeared more taut and athletic. Those weren’t words that ran through my six year-old mind then but they do now.
I was only in first grade at the time but I knew that car was something special. I doubt I would have been more impressed had he parked a Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow in the garage (perhaps a Phantom though).
Dad’s idea of a vacation was a long trip out west (Colorado, Wyoming, Montana) where we routinely covered up to 600 miles in a day. As I remember this was a piece of cake in the Cadillac.
Yes the 1967’s were more athletic in appearance to the 1965 and 1966 models.By 1967, the interiors of the 65 and 66s seemed to be overbearingly garish. The interior of any 1967 model seemed to be subtly understated and tasteful. As motortrend said in it’s late 1966 issue, “Cadillac has come a long way in taste since garish 1950s”. The 1967 Cadillac’s marked one of the finest interior’s ever seen in an American car, and the world for that matter. Sadly, however, this understated tastefulness would subside following 1968.
This is a perfect description of this car and its driver. Cadillac sold a fair amount of convertibles in the 1960s. That 18,000 figure is over 10 percent of total Cadillac sales for 1967.
When we visited Chicago this past summer, I kept trying to find various landmarks and streets, based on Joseph’s stories. Unfortunately, I wasn’t familiar enough with the city to make any connections. Nor did I see any cars as cool as the ones he keeps seeing and photographing to share with us.
I’ve always loved the ’67 Cadillacs, but I just can’t look at a DeVille Convertible from that timeframe without thinking of “Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice”.
Love the 65-68 stacked headlight cars as well, and I think the ’67-’68 version of the styling suits the convertibles best (slightly prefer the ’65-’66 on the 4-door cars). Wonderful atmospheric photo!