I was first entranced by the 8:40-something sunset over western San Leandro as I dropped a friend at home, but sparkling in the soft hues of Pink, Orange and blue sat a face I normally only see in the dark. As we’ve finally made it to the longest day of the year, I decided to spend a few moments with this Cadillac as the season changed, before changing direction to head back to my apartment in Oakland.
Cadillac was at the top of its game in the American Luxury Market with the 1963 models, in my opinion. Just as the days begin to grow shorter over the next six months, Cadillac’s influence as the top motoring choice for affluent buyers similarly began to wane year after year from the mid 1960s onwards.
There’s a part of me that wonders how much it had to do with the design. I’d never thought of the 1961-62 models as lacking continuity, but in a few remarkable ways they do. The Skeg fins and deep creasing were a far cry from the way the 1958-60 models were adorned.
The more time I spend looking at the 1958 and 1959 Cadillacs, the more I see some shared elements, including the headlamps which float above the grille, and the twin pod taillamps (minus the Eldorado two-doors on 1958 models). Thematically, the 1959 Cadillac is perhaps the most bulbous of the GM Crash-redesign program cars as well. The sharp features live at the edges of the ’59 Cadillac, giving it more of a creased definition than the previous year’s offering, but they still carry quite a bit of visual bulk. They are definitely not as razor sharp as the 1959 Buicks, and they still have a bit of a zaftig quality I find lacking in the Chevy, Pontiac and Olds offerings that year.
The short deck Park Avenue Sedans exaggerate the emphasis on the cleaner shape (and size, as all 1961-62 GM cars were clipped a little bit around the edges in an effort to emphasize restraint) that Cadillac tried out with their early sixties offerings. Some complain that the 1961-62 cars didn’t (or still don’t) “look” like a Cadillac: the front grille is too plain and every product with a Skeg fin (except the apparently perfect 1959 Pontiac) inspires a sizable contingent to proclaim them the most laughable frivolity in automotive styling.
For reasons I’ll never know, the 1963 Cadillac models started morphing back to the more chiseled interpretation of visual heft represented by the 1958-60 models.
Once you take a good look at a 1960 and 1963 Coupe DeVille side by side, it’s almost as if 1961 and 1962 didn’t happen. Most of the same elements have returned with more refined detailing. Out is the intricate detail that was attempted for two years; back in is the substantial bulk that more resolutely yelled “Cadillac.”
One can think of many reasons why Cadillac went relatively retrograde with regard to their cars’ looks during this period. For better or worse, the 1959 and slightly more restrained 1960 models were pretty iconic early on. Perhaps they were even considered definitive within the Cadillac design studios: something that sincerely over the top, attempting to be the absolute “most” is admirable in a few ways. I’d agree that no car better expresses zealous American societal confidence (whether based in reality or not) that we assign the 1950s in rose-tinted nostalgia than the 1959 Cadillac.
I’ve come to think the 1961-62 cars were “recession” Cadillacs. They were in a few ways more modestly flamboyant, far less so than their predecessors. Advertisements all of a sudden highlighted their value, either new or in resale (which is about the most practical concern ever bestowed on a Cadillac). However, as consumer confidence rebounded, so would Cadillac cars. The truly leviathan 1965-68 models were still in the planning stages as these went on sale; those models point to the future of bulk-sized luxury for no other reason than dollar-per-pound value.
Right now, as Summer gets into full swing, we aren’t really concerned with the consequences of consumption. The days are long, and there are plenty of hours to flit away. Perhaps Cadillac thought the same thing in the Early Sixties. Winter seems especially distant, and Cadillac likely couldn’t see the multiple storms and winds of change under all that light. There’s a fable in here to remember to harvest what’s really of value come fall, so you make it through the winter. It took many years of repeating seasons for Cadillac to understand that.
Poetry, man, poetry. 🙂
I believe the short deck ’61 and ’62 4 doors were known as ‘Town Sedans’. Very rare cars.
Were not those the ones produced when urban widows asked for a shorter car to make parking easier?
Yes, and there were complaints that long deck models were no longer able to fit in the garages of older suburban homes.
One of the houses I worked on recently had an old small garage, with an obviously added-on 6-ft deep half-height extension at the rear. I’m pretty sure it was put there to allow a longer car from the 60s or 70s to fit.
My favourite year for Cadillacs is 1962. It has the best looking front end styling I’ve ever seen for Cadillac. That being said, the 63 is nice as well.
What a lovely Cadillac even though it is suffering from a lack of inner fender linings and some parking dents. Say, you are pretty near Murilee Martin’s old stomping grounds, you finding anything good over in Alameda?
Alameda is a pretty good spotting ground. I think the metric with car spotting in the Bay Area is basically sticking to the working to middle class near-burbs or suburban areas of the bigger cities.
There’s plenty to be found in Alameda, but San Leandro, East Oakland/North Oakland, Albany, El Cerrito, Richmond, and even still places like Burlingame, Millbrae, San Mateo (as Paul showed a few weeks back) and San Carlos as well.
I see a lot of potential prospects walking the dogs in Redwood City.
I had a 64 coupe de ville back in 88 and even then, when it wasn’t THAT old, I couldn’t drive it anywhere without somebody coming over to look at it. Peak Cadillac, that design was…
Great article and photography, as always. I would be happy with any of the years shown.
The Park Avenue sedans are my favourite of all Cadillacs. The proportions just look so right, and the lower fins have that perfect X-15 rocket look. Never knew they were called skeg fins 🙂
Imagine how Cadillac history might have been if they’d been a success….
Loving those sunset photos .
Yesterday I was looking at a ’69 Caddy Rag top that’s soon going to bag the Land Speed Record for the fastest Hot Tub……
-Nate
60s and ’63s are nice, but I love my skeg ’62. Doesn’t feel like recession but like a perfect blend of Earl and Mitchell.
+1
Mitchell hated the skeg fins. I read an interview somewhere, probably with Chuck Jordan, and he said the stylists kept putting them on and Mitchell kept saying “take those damn skegs off, next time your fired”. Harley Earl started them on the Firebird show cars. I agree that they look good. Also the ’63 and ’64 grilles are too bulbous for me. ’62 perfect. GM styling had a habit those days of always pushing forward but when they had a sales hit there must have been pressure to revive the look. Compare the ’65 and ’68 Chevy grilles for example.
Exactly, that’s what I said.
The Jordan Interview can be found here, Paul Niedermeyer already hinted to it:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1961-1964-cadillac.htm
The skegs, windshield, fins are a strong Earl signature, or at least approved by him, while the grille, headlight area, hood profile and the sharp edges are Mitchell’s marks.
For reasons I’ll never know, the 1963 Cadillac models started morphing back to the more chiseled interpretation of visual heft represented by the 1958-60 models.
It’s an issue I’ve pondered too. The ’61s and ’62s were clearly a bit of an aberration in terms of Cadillac continuity, and it is a bit surprising looking at a ’63-’64 how similar it is to the ’59-’60, minus the tall fins.
There was clearly a sense of moving into fresh territory with the ’61s. In fact, they were initially developed without any fins at all; just the skegs. Both Earl and Mitchell put a stop to that; too much, too fast.
Regarding the ’61s-’62s being “recession cars”: these were of course designed a few years before the ’61 recession, so it would have been a bit hard to anticipate that.
Would they have been sketched out during ’58 recession through ’59 though? Although the ’58-’59 recession didn’t hurt Cadillac as much as it gutted mid-priced to near luxury cars. But notably the Eldorado Brougham didn’t return, and the rest of the Eldorado line up was rationalized as well.
It’s weird to think of Cadillac, still, within reason considering itself the “Standard of the World” retreating a little bit and being “rational,” and I’m sure there’s plenty of evidence that gives the real “on paper” reasons the 61-62s turned out like they did.
I also wonder how much the lack of success of the “bridge too far” 1958-60 Lincolns had on Cadillac.
I did come across this when I was researching my ’61 Buick CC:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1961-1964-cadillac.htm
It’s an account by Chuck Jordan (and Dave Holls) about his work on the ’61. Jordan was promoted to head of the Cadillac studio in 1957, and the ’61s were the first he directly oversaw (Holls designed the ’59). Here’s a key line: “The 1961 model would be a clean-sheet design and my first chance to do a brand-new production car,” he remembers. “We all recognized it as a great opportunity, so we worked night and day. I mean I worked my tail off, because I believed in that car, and I also had the responsibility. I did a lot of the illustrations at home at night, because there just wasn’t time in the studio.”
It’s a good read that gives a lot of insight into the ’61. And keep in mind that other then the skegs and front end, a lot of the ’61 was already there in the ’69-’60 Brougham.
The recession had nothing to do with it. Back then recessions were much more frequent, but also much shorter. One couldn’t really plan around them. Rambler just lucked out with the timing of the ’58 recession.
Cadillac had to keep its eyes on the long-term.
This makes little logical sense since cars were styled several years in advance, but in my then young and impressionable mind the trimmer elegance of many early ’60’s cars (’61 & ’63 Fords, ’60-’64 Lincolns, ’61-’63 Pontiacs – and the ’61 & ’62 Cadillacs as well) were always associated with the style of the Kennedy years. So I tend to see the leaner, crisper ’61 & ’62 Caddies as ‘Kennedy Cadillacs’.
A stretch, I know, but zeitgeist issues are always interesting to speculate on :).
Nicely written and photographed Laurence. I too am a fan of the ’63 though I have a slight preference for the ’64. I never liked the front ends on the ’61-62 and agree they looked too plain. For some odd reason the 1960 models are starting to grow on me.
I remember then, and I still think so now, the ’61 Continental instantly made the Cadillac look fussy and old fashioned. You can debate the sales numbers all day long. Cadillac came in to the era with much greater sales momentum than Lincoln or Imperial. There were also how many Cadillac body variants and trim levels compared to just two?
I have lately, maybe because of CC, more appreciated the 1961 GM cars and the trimmer look they had compared with what came before and after. Pontiac is my favorite. Still, I’d take the Continental over any ’61-’64 Caddy.
The return of the ’58-’59 cues to the ’63 and ’64 is just what I love about them and why they remain my favorite Cadillac, at least in the fantasy world where all parts are available. They have those classic looks but are a good bit less of a rocket ship parody, thus they represent the moment Cadillac touched pitch to me. I love the ’75-’76 for sheer magnitude and the ’80-’92 for its classic formal look and because it is the Cadillac of my youth, but the ’63 and ’64 have my heart.
I will take a convertible in blue or red and a 60 Special in black.
Between the 1963 and 1964, I like the 1964 more, I could never get with the little round parking lights on the 63’s where in 64 they filled that whole area with a parking light/cornering lamp. I also liked the 1964’s “hidden” Guide-Matic eye location on the forward edge of the left hand fender.
I see styling continuity between the 1959-1960 and 1961-1962, the line that starts under the headlamps and flows into the front wheel well is a continuous theme from 1959 through 1965, they broke it up in 1966 when the cornering lamp became separate from the grille extension it was hidden under before. The only thing that stands out on the 1961-1962’s is the skegs, which are a pretty cool short lived styling feature. I like the 1962’s a little more than the 1961’s, but I find them both to be very pretty cars.
The ’61 tail lights don’t work for me. Too related to the ’60 tail lights that I also didn’t care for. The ’62 seems to really pull the look together.
Good write up and I agree with many of your observations. But, I’ll go on record that the ’62 skeg Caddy is one of my favorites.
I like these too because they seem like the “logical” place to go from the ’59 and ’60. The skeg finned ones are nice (hell, I like anything that’s an old Caddy landyacht) but just don’t “fit” aesthetically, at least in my mind.
Always enjoyed watching the maxi 59 fins year by year slowly fade away until the final mini fins on the 64.
The picture of the guy on the skate board is a work of art. If CC were to commission a 2015 calendar of some of Lawrence’s many good pictures, I would place my order now.
The X-15 rocket plane appeared in 1959. It was a very big deal at the time. X-15 flew into outer space twice, and still holds the aircraft speed record of 4520 mph.
Take a good look at those downward pointing rear fins. Don’t you think they made an impression on what GM stylists were drawing in 1959?
1959’s Firebird III had little “skeg” fins too. It looks like they put all possible fins on one car.
When skeg fins are kept in check and kept on a body’s lower half, I think they can be a nice addition to a car’s look. And indeed, the 61-62s look great to me, esp from the front and sides. My lukewarm reaction to the rear has nothing to do with the skegs and more to do with the other tail fins (dorsal?).
I must admit to not knowing too much about Caddies made before the ’70s; thanks for the lesson, Laurence.
I guess the weirdness at direct rear has a lot to do with the upper “traditional” fin still being vertical, while the skeg is diagonal. They “could” have bent the upper fin outwards to create some symmetry, and gotten a rump visage similar to the 1960-61 Chryslers.
Very nicely photographed, and a great write-up as well. The ’64 has always been one of my favorites, and it’s just details away from these 63’s.