(first posted 9/26/2017) The 1959 Cadillac Coupe de Ville has gotten its share of attention on CC and at the Cohort, and in Classic Car magazines. In fact I have seen our featured car at local car shows in past years, so I have seen it up close before. Those photos are at the Cohort. You can go and take a peek – I will wait here . . . Now that you are back, having discovered that this car and its owner live within five minutes of me, led to an opportunity to discover more history about this fine example.
This Caddy originated in Arizona, where it lived much of its life. This included some 15 years in storage, which helps account for the excellent condition of the still original interior upholstery and carpeting. The current owner, its second, brought it to the Great Whte North in 2013, where he takes it on regular summertime drives. As he told me, he has this car to enjoy, and to drive. He likes how it performs, and its uniqueness of style and colour.
The engine is the 390 cu. in. 325 horsepower Cadillac V8, which was torn down and rebuilt in 2014 to eliminate some bothersome smoky exhaust. The car was repainted in its original colour, “Woodrose” after moving north. Twelve inch disk brakes were retrofitted onto the front wheels in replacement of the original drums. Other than that, the car has not been restored. The original AM radio is present and working, and the GM Autronic system is there and working.
For those not familiar (I had never heard of it), see the little rocket shaped housing on the top center of the dash. My understanding is that the system uses the sensor mounted there to detect oncoming lights at night, and automatically dims the high beam headlights if engaged. It then returns the system to high beam mode when traffic is clear. This was a one year option on the 1959 Caddy. In 1960, the name of the system was changed to Guide-matic, but it functioned the same. The Autronic eye was a $55 option when new.
Interesting on a large luxury liner as this, and having been originally sold in Arizona, it does not possess air conditioning. It’s quite a contrast to today’s cars where everything comes with AC, power windows, power brakes, cruise control, etc. Back in the late ’50s, I believe that options such as AC were available only to the most affluent of customers. AC would have set the buyer back $474 in 1959, or just over $4,000 in today’s money.
Our featured car has accumulated just over 116,000 miles and looks absolutely great. I had an opportunity to get a ride in it around the block to a good photo shoot location, which I enjoyed immensely. The power of the engine is evident in the vibration and loudness of the engine when running at idle. Even though my Chrysler 300C has more HP, the Caddy just seems to ooze of that raw power ready to be unleashed. It has plenty of torque to get it moving. Swinging the door to close it allowed me to feel its heft, and to hear that solid ‘clunk when closing. Being inside reminded my of another 1959 car fave of my youth – the 1959 Chevy. I got lots of seat time in the back of the batwing when I went for rides with my neighbours’s kid and his folks for ice creams.
I was surprised by the relative reduction in headroom in the Caddy. I am 5’10”, and I don’t think I had more than maybe a couple of inches to spare. The height of the ’59 had been reduced by 3 inches to 56 inches overall from the 1958 model. The ride itself felt long and floaty, as a 225 inch car on a 130 inch wheelbase would be expected to ride. The suspension is getting close to 60 years new, supporting over 4600 lbs.
When new, this car was priced at $5252 US. This is in the $44K range today, probably at the low end of what it would cost to put a new Caddy on the road today. They made just over 21,924 of this model.
I love the flamboyance, the styling (over the top as it is), the aircraft inspired fins and tail lamps, and just the overall persona of this car. It has a presence few others could aspire to. True, it represents the arrogance of Detroit design at the time, trying to one up the other guy with more flair than substance. To them, more was better. The battle between GM and Chrysler at the time pitted Bill Mitchell and Harley Earl against Virgil Exner.
I almost forgot – the flag on the front is on the diplomatic pole, for use in parades and such. I believe this Cadillac is destined for many more years of driving and showing.
A lovely example of a rare car. I regard these cars as a legendary pinnacle of 50’s styling excess, so much so that plenty of ‘regular’ people (how else can I describe non-car enthusiasts?) recognize this model.
I think, like the original 2-seat T-Bird, the ’59’s were recognized as being collectible only a few short years after being manufactured. Certainly that’s how they were regarded in the mid 70’s, when I first read about them. They were only 15 years old but revered as being special and unusual.
This particular example is wonderful and authentic without looking over-restored. I don’t think that front seat is the original material, though. It looks like a modern polyester broadcloth, when the original material was a textured nylon weave, as far as I know . But it certainly suits the car.
I don’t believe that these cars became collectible in the U.S. until the 1980s. Through the early 1970s, most 1905s American cars were viewed as either boring (early 1950s) or monuments to bad taste (this car, and others from the late 1950s).
The only 1950s American cars I remember people collecting in the 1970s were early Corvettes, two-seat Thunderbirds, Edsels (believe it or not), the Stepdown Hudsons and the 1953-54 Studebaker “Loewy” coupes.
I don’t believe that these cars became collectible in the U.S. until the 1980s.
Maybe not with “mainstream” collectors. The ’59 was bought by the hip/artsy set very early on, because of its status as one of the ultimate expressions of peak kitsch.
In LA in the 70s, I knew some very wealthy folks (heirs of the Max Factor company) who had a ’59 coupe in the back yard, as an object de art. And if you went to hip/artsy places like Venice, you’d see them quite commonly.
I think it went further than that too already in the 70s; it was already an icon and prices, especially for the convertible, were heading up. Not sky high, but the demand was there to propel prices upwards.
I’m sure Los Angeles was ahead of the curve, and definitely ahead of Pennsylvania.
Plus, the main influence around here has been the somewhat stuffy Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA) and its big Hershey fall show. The rule then – as now – was that a car had to be at least 25 years old to be allowed on the show field. These cars couldn’t be shown at AACA meets until 1984.
I remember these cars (and other late 1950s Cadillacs) popping up in MTV videos in the early 1980s. That is when I first really noticed them.
I remember a big kick up in “50s nostalgia” in the early 70s. Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley were big on TV and 57 Chevys and 59 Cadillacs started to get cool again for their kitsch factor. 55-57 Fords rode this wave for awhile but never reached the heights of some others. Yes, that stuff was not bringing big money, but folks were starting to appreciate them as future collectibles. SIA and other magazines got pretty popular writing on 50s cars then.
Exactly right! I was a classic car buff in the 70s, and cars from the 50s were the hottest thing going. The late 50s cars were already bringing top dollar. Early 60s cars were more attainable then. Back then (in the 70s), 50s cars were looked upon as very old! Now a car has to be over 50 yrs old to be considered sorta old!
My original ’59 six window sedan de Ville and ’60 Coupe de illes both had a pattern weave, the convertibles had leather. This ’59 also has 70’s wire wheel covers.
Ah, a pink 59 Cadillac. Considered an icon of Americana, one of the most beautiful designs ever, a grand example of everything that defined the brand…
And it’s one of the few Cadillacs I can think of that I would rather scrap than own.
I don’t really care how “Iconic” it is, I hate the 59 Cadillac. It symbolizes to me everything wrong with late 50s American car design. Bloated, garish, over the top in the most gross way possible. It’s a mess of a design. A design that I feel was done much better the following model year. Some may say the 70s were the decade taste forgot, but for my money, with rare exceptions, 57-60 was the absolute nadir of car design for America.
And I wouldn’t harbor this hatred, if I didn’t hear people constantly say that it’s one of the most beautiful car designs ever and the most beautiful Cadillac ever built. I legitimately think that the majority of people who say that either have Nostalgia goggles on so tight, it’s cutting off the bloodflow to their brains. Or they’re just following the peanut gallery and parroting the opinions of others, because to say otherwise would be to somehow desecrate such a sacred cow that can’t be judged negatively.
If you want to like this car as an over the top expression, something that epitomizes the excessive vulgarity and lack of taste of 50’s car design, to like it in a “so bad, it’s good” kind of way. Then I can understand that, because it is just so over the top it has a cheesy kind of charm to it that I can see appealing to some people. But to call it a legitimately beautiful design. I just, no.
“But it’s iconic!” Yeah, so is Hotel California and Starbucks, and I think they’re overrated as well. Just because it’s iconic does not automatically mean it’s good. Taste is subjective, I understand that, but Iconography does not automatically equal quality, and hype and praise are just as negative influences for someone regarding a particular work as the actual work itself, especially if it feels undeserved or misplaced. The 59 Cadillac is that for me, and unlike the Escalade (Which I still don’t like, but have nowhere near the vitriol or bile towards it I had before), my opinion won’t change anytime soon.
That being said, I do appreciate your example. If for no other reason to see a well cared for survivor with over 100k miles. It is nice to see a car that well maintained and loved without being resorted to a garage queen that barely gets any miles. Also, I like those seats, those seats seem comfy.
While I can understand your observations it may be helpful to understand America, its culture, and its attitudes during the Fifties. America at the time was the only economic superpower as the rest of the world was still recovering from World War II. The designs of cars were a reflection of the nation’s well deserved (?) arrogance and swagger.
As a side note, I applaud the owner for retrofitting disk brakes. I can just imagine the difference.
Sure, and I understand that point of view, the context of the time periods is important. However, while I can understand that, I don’t agree with. Nothing exists in a vacuum, it has to be able to be judged by how it’s seen through future generations. Obviously, speaking as a 21 year old, I have very little context of the 50s, apart from the sterilized image that pop culture has presented it in. So, while I understand the context in which the 59 Cadillacs were created has something to with the appeal, if you take it out of the context and just look it at it purely as a design, it doesn’t work for me. To place it in a bubble and constantly bring up the time period I think hurts the argument, because if you have to bring up the period in which something was released in order to give it the praise that it’s accumulated, then how much does it really hold up on its own?
As an expression of 50s kitsch, I understand it, in fact, I can understand the appeal of it as 50s kitsch. But, to say it’s a good car design, is something I can’t abide by. Your argument is valid, the context and time it was released is very important to understanding the appeal. But, I believe that the time of its release should not be the sole factor for its status or reputation as an icon or a good piece of art, it should be able to be judged and critiqued fairly on its own merits, or in my case, lack thereof.
Joseph, you were right when I was trying to add context to its design, but it was not my intention to state this is or was a good car design. If only everything were designed with the thought of how it would be judged in future decades. Being 21 years old, you never had to experience the horrors of Disco! I knew it was bad then, and years later everyone now agrees with me!
I wasn’t trying to imply that you were defending the design itself, I was just trying to refute your argument. If I did imply that, I apologize, that was not my attention. But, I’ve seen arguments similar, and I’ve just never really been, I guess for lack of a better term, satisfied with that.
Besides, I know how it feels to experience stuff not caring how it might hold up. I remember plenty of stuff growing up that kid’s my age loved that I never got, now ten years or so later, no one talks about that stuff anymore. I’m sure plenty of the stuff that people my age like that I don’t will fall into the same trap.
I pretty much agree with this sentiment. To me, the ’59 Caddy verges on grotesque. Even in its time the ’59 was thought in some circles to be overdone. The ’60 was a big improvement on the basic theme. However, in a few short years the regular Cadillacs would reach their styling peak with the clean and elegant ’65-’66 models. What a difference.
Out of curiosity, Joseph, from one Cadillac fan to another: which Cadillacs designs do you like the most?
Like Tonyola said, the 65-66 Cadillacs I find very attractive.
I said before that my favorite model was the 67 Eldorado, and I still find that true.
The 57 Eldorado Brougham is another I like, because it does successfully what the 59 fails at, being over the top without going too far.
I like the big Cadillacs of the 80s, the Brougham style ones, but that’s because that’s what immediately pops into my head when I think of the brand, in the context of the 80s, they seem very outdated, even though the basic design is much cleaner than what came before.
The 79-85 Eldorados hit that perfect blend of downsized modernity with traditional touches, and I think it works well.
The 92-97 Seville is another one I like.
I like the 92-02 Eldorado, but like I said to Paul, I’m not under any pretense it was a great design and I can understand if people don’t care for it.
The 93-96 Fleetwoods I like, but I totally understand people saying they’re outdated and bloated, and compared to the Town Car of the same era, it’s no contest.
I like the 75-76 Cadillacs, as well as the 75-78 Eldorado, but I am under no delusions those were good designs, I like them as 70s kitsch and understand if people find them overweight and gross.
I do think the Allante was a very good design, it was just everything else that made it not so good.
The 69 Cadillacs are another favorite of mine, but again, I can understand if people don’t like them.
The Art and Science designs I have a hard time with, as looking at them, even only 5 years after they were released, they seem very dated. That being said, I do like both the XLR and the DTS (The DTS however, again, I can understand the resentment and hate for the design), the 2016 CTS V is where I think the Art and Science look has reached it’s apex, and, as much as I hate to admit it, I do sort of like the Escalade. However, with regards to the Escalade, it’s very specific, it has to be a 2015 or newer, it must be an ESV, and it has to be white. Any other combination, and it just seems off looking and tacky.
Also the 48 Cadillacs are really good designs.
And like I said in my original comment, I like the 1960 Cadillac, because by removing a lot of the chintz of the 59 model, it manages to let the more basic shape shine through more clearly and the end result is much more attractive, less chaotic, and less unbearable to look at.
Interesting comments. While I don’t love the looks of a ’59 Cadillac I find it bearable; I find the ’60 Cadillac ugly, esp. the tail end.
Purely from a ‘looks’ perspective I’ve grown quite fond of the 1974 Caddy over the past few years. I used to find it un-attractive yet now I like its appearance. I just can’t get in to liking the appearance of the ’60 Cad.
Completely agree. By 1959 Detroit’s jet-and-space-age car styling had become a parody of itself, Cadillac being perhaps the most egregious example of such styling falderal gone mental. People love these cars mostly because of what they represent: a more innocent time in the USA when we were full of confidence and optimism, literally shooting for the stars.
No one is berating you for your opinion, so why do you feel it necessary to go out of your way to berate others for their opinions?
At my core, I agree with Joseph’s statements almost to a letter, but I still love this car for exactly what it is: a representative of a time long gone in a country long ago changed. FWIW I also have an inexplicable fascination and love for the ’74-’76 Cadillacs. There’ll never be another vehicle built out of the set of priorities that either of these examples were built from. So they ARE special, even if they’re ridiculous, which yes, they are.
The older I’ve become (44 now) the more the ’74-’76 Caddy’s appeal to my eye. I like the look of the ’77 model Cad as well . . . but it’s too small on the outside!
Joe, of Eldo..I agree100%!! This car is hideous in my mind. The WORST of the space/jet age styling.GM wasn’t the only company doing it. Chrysler products tried there best to be as outrageous as possible. Ford was a little more subdued. But even Rambler in ’59 had fins.
Joseph,
I can’t imagine who you’re hanging around that calls the ’59 Caddy “one of the most beautiful designs ever. etc..” You need to upgrade the quality of the folks you hang around.
From the day it appeared, the ’59 Caddy was seen for what it was: a monument to garish, flamboyant excess. Which was very much part of the popular culture of times. Along with a whole lot of other garish, over-the-top architecture, interior decor, and other design elements of the times.
The ’59 Caddy became an icon not because “it was one of the most beautiful designs ever”, but because it represents peak kitsch, of a very kitschy era. Hint: there’s a big difference between kitsch and beautiful design. But maybe some of the folks you hang around with haven’t figured that out yet.
BTW, I could say some of the same things about your Eldorado, but I won’t. 🙂 But the Brougham Era has nothing on the Googie Era.
It’s not so much people I hang out with, rather stuff that the internet has been parroting. I do a lot of reading internet car lists, so obviously that’s not exactly a good judge of quality, but curiosity often gets the better of me. Whenever there’s a list of “best car designs ever”, sure enough, the 59 Cadillac is on there. Not as an acknowledgement of 50s kitsch, which I totally understand the viewpoint of, and like I said, I can understand people liking it for that reason, but they say it’s a legitimately good design that was everything right about American cars. That viewpoint I just don’t understand, even though I know it’s the internet and you have to take everything written on it with a grain of salt, it still irks me.
“BTW, I could say the same thing about your Eldorado, but I won’t”
Paul, I am under no delusions that my Eldorado was one of the best designs of the 90s or even one of the best Cadillac designs ever. It’s I design that I personally like. If you disagree with me, I more than understand why. Trust me, it’s not a design that translates well for everyone who looks at it.
I never read those lists… err, well, I’ve read, past tense, enough of them to predict every subsequent one I come across. I feel like a lot of the contributions on those lists parrot a lot of the entry’s from other lists, so while I’m sure they have their own opinions of best/worst thrown in they also need a lot of quick and easy filler. You can’t get much of a broad opinion on these either, since most lists don’t have comments unless they’re part of some social media feed.
Thank you. I don’t feel quite so odd now.
I understand the attitude, the social attributes, the thinking of the time – I lived in a Chevrolet dealership at that time, fer chrissakes! But I absolutely hated that car when it came out (even as an 8-9 year old). I thought the 59 Chevy was a huge step back from the 58, and can remember in absolute detail dad’s 58 Impala, but have no idea of what he drove in 59. I do remember mom’s 59 Brookwood wagon, mainly because it was the first station wagon in our family.
In my eyes, GM binned it very badly in 59-60. If anything, the true seeds of GM’s eventual destruction were planted with these cars. The “whatever we do is right” arrogance was truly on display here, ready to grow into the weed that eventually choked the company.
And the 59 Cadillac (and 57 Chevrolet) being THE icons of The Fifties? Let’s not go there. Two incredibly overrated cars.
For the record, I loved (and still love) the 59 Buick. That was the only design that they got right.
Ah yes, ’57 Chevy: the model year that mighty GM made their top-selling car look like a ’56 Plymouth. Not that this is so dreadful, they could have done worse than to be looking over Ma Mopar’s shoulder.
IMHO, the purest design of the ’55-’57 Chevys was the ’55. That was the one that looked like it should have been Dinah Shore’s car. It had less clutter than the ’56 and ’57s, too.
Here is one in bright “Let’s go to Florida.” colors of the era.
I was still a wee lad in the late ’50s, and I was most impressed with Cadillacs. For me, the “true” Cadillac was the ’56, and would remain so well into my teen years.
I had a thing for “go to Florida” colors, too. Michigan winters will do that to a kid, even though he likes to play in the snow.
It appealed to the time, and based on a majority approving of the way it appeals to them, it became iconic. Another beauty from this time is Marilyn Monroe. She is considered iconic, yet if ones views her in context to today’s stars, she is too short, too stocky, too curvy for today’s mainstream taste. Today’s icons are taller, thinner, more athletic, and as such, Ms. Monroe would probably have a tough time getting into the movies today looking as she does. The point is, tastes change. History judges things as iconic based on group thought, not hard data. Everyone is not mainstream, and everyone has their own likes and dislikes. JoE, you are just as right to not like it as anyone else is to love it to pieces.
If I recall correctly, author Thomas Bonsall claimed that a fair number of designers liked this car because they regarded it as a “pure” design – one that reached the production line with relatively few alterations from the original concept. (That doesn’t necessarily mean that it is beautiful.)
It was also clean for the day – there wasn’t much chrome on the sides, which was quite a change from the 1958 Cadillac.
Kudos for mentioning Bonsall!
Marilyn Monroe is not ‘curvy’ by todays standards she is what we call ‘skinny fat’ these days.
She is basically what happens to any thin attractive woman that sits around eating a little bit more food and not ever lifting any weights or even doing yoga.
Sophia Loren = curvy
Salma Hayek = curvy
Kim Kardashian (natural) = curvy (with all the work)= cartoon curvy
Scarlett Johannsen= curvy (when she eats)
Just like how the performance of cars today is WAAAAAY ahead of the ones back in the day the same can be said about the attractiveness of people. The good looking fit people of today are on an entirely different level for the most part.
Ah yes, plastic cars with exciting stimulating stats and plastic people with endless conversations about yoga and diet, so fun. Thank god we’re remaking and rebooting all the original films of the past with today’s pretty people, it’s so much more realistic!
Every once in a while, XR7M, you just shut down the internet for me. This is one of those times. +1!
I’m no great fan of ANY of the 1959-60 GM offerings (although Buick wasn’t as garish as the others, either year) OR the 1957 – “Suddenly, it’s 1960!” – through 1960 Chrysler Corp. offerings (as one motor mag wag cracked, “Suddenly, it’s 1957!”). Funny, that in the race to wretched excess between GM and Mopar, Ford quietly updated their 1957-58 offering for one more year with a taller windshield and a bit more interior room…and outsold both its competitors. Rambler had another strong sales year, too. Apparently, the motoring public had had enough of the glitz and the kitsch and just wanted a good, solid car that was a value for the price.
GM got the message in a hurry. Mopar, apparently, not so much.
Growing up we had a ’59 Chevrolet and a ’59 Rambler, both were station wagons. The Rambler was a better car and it was kept for 7 years as opposed the the Chevrolet which was gone in a couple of years. They were both comparable equipped cars 6cyl, radio and heater. The only difference was the transmissions, the Chev had a 3spd OD and the Rambler had the first automatic transmission that my folks owned.
Well-reasoned, Joseph. Though I don’t agree with your opinion, I admire the thought that went into your defense of it. The ’59 defiantly crossed the line between high-style and good taste, and the anti-establishment part of me kinda likes it for that.
I hate no cars.
They are all interesting. They are all neat. They all can get and hold my attention. Camry? Sure. Model T? Of course. Nissan Versa in beige? Yup. I like them all.
Why not?
And all cars are products of their time, context matters. (it matters for everything) The 59’ Caddys could not have happened without the US winning WW2 and being the only major Western power to come out in better shape than going in. A huge wave of confidence and optimism is reflected in that car, its fins, and the layers and layers of chrome.
Is that wrong?
Is the 59’ Coupe de Ville “garish” or “kitsch”? Who knows? Taste and style are utterly subjective and individualistic. What I like you don’t, and vice versa. (Nissan Versa?) I suppose if you want to judge cars and their time periods then you can label them anything you like. Of course others will label your favorite cars that, either your contemporaries or the people of the future. Everyone likes to think they are smarter, better educated, and as a result have superior taste in everything than the Philistine masses of inbred losers who built and drove the most horrific car pustules ever made back during the _____era.
I just enjoy cars.
Very well said, Heath. To me, the most interesting aspect of studying history (automotive or otherwise) is putting things or decisions that are currently unpopular — or even reviled — into historical context. Things that seem inexplicable will suddenly make more sense when looked at dispassionately through the lens of an earlier time.
Whether outlandish or dull, every car is the product of its era, and I love digging up the stories of how such cars came to be.
Great photos Moparlee,
The Envy is strong with this one.
I have ridden in and even driven earlier Cadillacs, and later models from the 60s as well, but never one of these.
I particularly like the interior with GM’s late 50s subtle (from 2 o:clock to 4 o:clock) tilt range of the gear selector lever. Never too high, never too low, always within a gentle arc of range. My 59 Ford’s shift lever looked like a well pump handle with a swing range from 1 o:clock to 5 o:clock, and the shift lever rod sat exposed on top of the steering column. Stingy Styling Sacrilege!
These 59 Cadillacs do inspire a full range of emotional extremes, but as someone who loved cars long before GM dealers took the paper off their showroom windows in late 1958, the entire fleet of this year were always high on my love list.
One could identify most late 50s and early 60s cars from a long distance away, not just make, but certainly year, and sometimes model as well. Try that today, even close up, especially if someone is hiding the front grill badge.
Is similar styling a bad thing? Not necessarily, but does it make the heart beat faster? Not necessarily.
And this one has front disk brakes. Bravo.
Thank you for this uplifting sight on a foggy Tuesday morning.
What a great observation about that short arc for the shift lever. This is one of the things I loved about lever-shifted Mopars of the 60s-70s, and you remind me that my 63 Cadillac had that same sort of feel as you note here.
You are right about some of those Fords with that really big shift arc. Those always irritated me too.
Speaking of shift levers. When the Imperials lost their push buttons after 1964 the ’65 and ’66 Imperials had a distinct feel to the shift lever, they felt exactly like a Rolls-Royce lever. I doubt most Imperial or Rolls owners would know this. I happened to transition from a Rolls sedan to my ’66 Imperial. No, it wasn’t mine, but my aunts car, driving her on a two week vacation. (Her Corniche convertible lever felt the same) It has a solid distinct feel, even though the Imperial was carried out with less than Rolls precision. The first time I shifted to 1 on the indicator it never moved from there again, (well, it did once, was fixed, then broke as soon as I did it again) Apparently the first owner had never shifted to 1. And the fact the entire shift mechanism and part of the column fell apart, including shift lever falling on the floor (admittedly at 300,000 miles) To fix it, the tranny shop had to use Cadillac and Lincoln parts. It shifts fine again, but now feels like a Cadillac shifter.
I’ve read about and seen photos of the one Raymond Lowey owned when new. He modified the front fenders to hinge open at the top seam and created dual storage bays in the wheel wells!
Very interesting remarks and a wonderful example of the car that epitomizes the fifties, especially in the arch type color – pink. i spotted the lack of air conditioning right away wen I saw the pod on the dashboard with Cadillac fascia instead of louvered vents. The high-beam, low-beam automatic control was, to the best of my knowledge, introduced on the Cadillac in 1956. Unfortunately, to this day this has not been made standard on all cars, which it should be for safety to oncoming drivers who struggle with high beams in their eyes. Great toy. Thanks for showing us this fine example. OH, did you notice? There is no place on the exterior of the car where the word “Cadillac” appears. Everyone who saw this behemoth on the road back then instantly knew that it was a Cadillac and GM proved it.
Dad’s ’63 Lincoln had the factory-option auto headlight dimmer with the “gun” on top of the dash. Though the sensitivity was adjustable via a knob on the back of the gun, the system never really worked quite right – often dimming or not dimming at the wrong times. Occasionally it could be fooled by streetlights and storefront lights.
My ’62 Cadillac convertible had the auto dimmer and seemed to have a nasty temperament it would dim the lights for an oncoming car, then when they were about five car lengths away it would hit high beam, blinding the other driver. On the way to San Francisco (every weekend, ’66-’67, flower power, Haight -Asbury, ) I always took the 505 shortcut from I-5 to I-80. That damn headlight dimmer would hit high beam—low beam–high beam –low beam constantly from the bright paddle marker reflectors. KLACK KLACK,KLACK KLACK, CONSTANTLY, until one night I back handed the dimmer and knocked it off the dash. Later, I fixed the appearance, but left it non-operative.
The Autronic Eye feature was introduced on 1952 Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles as a option.
This is a great example of a classic which is not 100% original but the modifications (disc brakes, new seat material, paint) are tasteful and done simply to keep the car from becoming a garage queen. I doubt they hurt the value one bit and dare say that adding a decent, modern aftermarket A/C unit wouldn’t be a bad thing, either.
A wonder to behold, then as now. We’ve all seen this car, from time to time, throughout our lives. Now, giving it a fresh look, something pops out at me: the surprisingly short greenhouse, compared to the overall length and (especially) the wheelbase. Note how far ahead of the rear axle is the rear seatback. Legroom in the back was sacrificed, apparently, to achieve a particular look — a long, long trunk lid ? A diminutive passenger compartment, emphasizing the overall length of the car ?
Perhaps that’s what the luxury coupé has always been about ?
As to the styling, it is noteworthy that the surfaces of the body that are not chrome-plated are very clean — “sanitary,” as the early custom-car builders would have it — and unwrinkled. I am reminded of the hat story: a great aunt and her sister went into a millenary shop in Milwaukee, a century ago. The aunt, after looking at the merchandise, said to the assistant, “Tell me, why are the most expensive hats the plainest ? No fruit or feathers on these,” she said, pointing to the high-priced finery. “Madame,” said the clerk, “you pay for the restraint !”
True, the mid-sixties Cadillacs were beautifully restrained — the vertical tail-light had found its home, by then ? — but this ’59 can still teach us something about design. Just one detail: the same grille texture, a surprisingly architectural one, is found at both ends of the car, a very rare occurrence in the annals of auto design, I’m sorry to say.
While I know the ’59 Cadillac has been historically overexposed, I couldn’t help but stare in wonder at one that I saw in the metal at the grocery store the other day. I mean, if you like outlandish late-50s styling, the ’59 Cadillac is the ne plus ultra. The ’59 Imperial had a more distinctive roofline and similarly large fins though, although I dislike its front.
That being said, both were better looking than the ’59 Lincoln. And for all its wild fins, the ’59 Caddy has a rather clean design. The coupes at least. But all of them could have done with a better roof.
I agree with you. At the time that the 59 Cadillac’s were new I liked them. But the fins on cars were of no purpose except a styling feature. By the mid sixties the fins were gone. But for those who like fins, the 59 Cadillac is the ultimate, but I think is best in the convertible and coupe versions.
I like the hardtop sedans with the wraparound rear window. That body style, in my view, is the ultimate expression of GM’s 1959 cars.
Having owned and experienced ’59 Cad DeVille 6 window, and convertible, plus ’60 convert and coupe, ’57-’59 Imperial coupe and other styles and Lincoln and Continental ’58-’60 convert. coupe and sedans, the Lincoln and Connies had vast room inside, any direction you looked, the Imperial was close behind, the Cadillac had less rear foot room, but more than most cars in ’59. These are BIG cars, look at someone driving them and they look like children, the front seat back looks to be nearly up to the dash. they had enough length to do the design with room to spare. I often had five people in them comfortably.
“Swinging the door to close it allowed me to feel its heft, and to hear that solid ‘clunk when closing. Being inside reminded my of another 1959 car fave of my youth – the 1959 Chevy.”
I chuckled to myself when I read those sentences. There’s a reason you were reminded of a ’59 Chevy; Paul did a nice piece that explains why:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1959-cadillac-coupe-deville/
Many CCers know this, but in GM’s rush to create “all-new” ’69s in response to Chrysler’s ’57 “Forward Look,” ALL of the ’59 GM cars used the same front door within a particular body style!
Love the article you cite here, BuzzDog, and thought the same thing when he mentioned the doors. Heck the entire greenhouse on the 59 Caddy Coupe de Ville is identical to the 59 Chevy Hardtop Impala.
I’ve always liked that comparison shot (shown below) of Paul’s XB and the ’59 Cadillac from that article. The Caddy looks like a 3/4 or even 5/8 scale diecast model in this shot. Isn’t the Scion XB a small car? Other than length (and wheelbase), the big Cadillac looks positively tiny….
Oops…’59s, NOT ’69s!
That’ll teach me to post replies from the elliptical…
While I consider these Caddys ugly, I don’t hate them. (Though I do hate pink!)
At least there’s a certain flow and harmony to the styling on these.
I also think we’ve reached another peak in ugliness with most of today’s bizarre, organic, fish-mouth, lizard-eye, and gnome-like car designs – some of which could actually be improved with a set of tail-fins!
Happy Motoring, Mark
One I found in the wild many years ago:
1959 Cadillac, E. Blackwell St. near Fania Roofing, Dover NJ, 1990.
While there is a part of me that wants to join Joseph of Eldorado’s pile-on to the 59 Cad, seeing one in this unusual color and in this fabulous original condition softens me. Plus, as an alum of a 63 Fleetwood, I feel a kinship to this car because it was the first year for the 390/Hydramatic combo that was in my car.
For those wondering why the Autronic Eye/Guidematic disappeared, let me help. My 63 Cadillac had that and I tried and tried to use it. It worked just fine – for what it was designed to do. You left your lights on high beam but it would switch them to low beam when it detected oncoming lights. So far so good.
In city, suburban and 2 lane highway driving it worked reasonably well. Interstate highways, though – your lights were always on bright and oncoming traffic on the other side of the median was constantly flashing lights for me to dim my own. So it was a complete fail on interstate highways at night. Plus it was always shining into the rear view mirrors of the cars ahead. It was not a good car for making friends on the road at night. Lincoln had a similar system but I think all of them went away after the late 60s.
Ford never really gave up on this feature. I had it on my 1987 T-Bird. The sensor was mounted to the rear view mirror.
Now Ford offers the system in a lot of their cars and it is designed to dim when it senses a car in front of you. so you are not annoying the driver in front of you with high beams
+1… My 5.0 ’88 LX ‘Bird had that feature, but my ’88 Turbo Coupe did not.
I have to agree with JP on this one, as my auto-dimmer worked exactly as he described the functionality of the one in his Cadillac… cool idea, but poor execution.
A buddy of mine that I was following once in that car said when we got to our destination, “Why did you keep flashing your high beams at me?”
From that point on I avoided this feature, unless on a really dark rural two-lane, which, as JP said of that situation, worked reasonably well.
I had no idea that these were available all the way back in the 50’s. When I got my ’88 T-Bird in 1990, I thought, “Wow, what cool new technology.”
I am surprised your turbo coupe did not have this. Those were some of the most feature packed of the T-Bird line. My 87 base T-Bird (3.8l v6) had it.
However come to think of it, my 1988 Cougar which had all the toys offered in 1988 did not have this feature.
Go figure
My ’88 LX was loaded up with all the goodies (or so I thought). Combing over the owners manual page by page, I only found one option it did not have… the thing that remembers 2 or 3 drivers seat positions. Either I couldn’t find that control, or it just simply did not exist on my car.
As to the Turbo Coupe, this car had a cloth interior (whereas my LX was festooned with leather). It had a manual, although one could argue with it being a T-Bird, a manual transmission would be the oddity, and thus optional. Power Seats on BOTH sides on the LX, but the TC only had a power seat on the driver’s side (IIRC).
The LX was the better road car, but that TC sure was fun to drive.
I’m not quite so sure they went away that early. Cadillac still had some iteration of this system at least through most of the 70’s. As an example, I can distinctly recall becoming infuriated way back around 1991 when I was in the home stretch of a journey from Boulder Colorado back to NJ. I was winding along Eastbound Route 80 in far Western PA in the dead of a mid-January night when the car behind me kept inexplicably flashing its highs and lows. Ultimately I slowed enough to give it about 5 minutes to catch up and pass me, to find that it was an older guy in a 74-78 Eldorado, clearly with cruise control set just a few MPH slower than I’d had the one in the GTI set, with his auto-dim feature set at likely its highest sensitivity (his lights flickered from high to low at reflections off guardrails if the eye detected them while entering a curve). Very annoying indeed.
Cadillac now has an auto dim system which works fairly well, and can be turned off when it doesn’t. The one on my CTS seemed to get confused by reflective road signs more than the one on my newer XT5.
I don’t know how to explain this exactly, but I love this Caddy exactly because it is so wretchedly overwrought. It was a symbol of the times. I was five when these appeared, and I remember when one of our neighbors came home with a new Caddy (I don’t know what model; I was five). Our family car (a 55 Chevy Station wagon) seemed so…so… humble and plebeian, I guess, like we were pulling our farm cart with a cow and he’d came home with a new gray horse. The Caddy just exuded corn-fed-middle-class made-good somehow. It really was a car to proud of, and everyone in the neighborhood was (sincerely) impressed. I guess the feeling of the times was that everyone was doing better and better and MORE everything was just around the corner in the foreseeable future. Why some of our friends even had color TV’s! Our family didn’t yet but we knew that we would in a few more years.
It is a feeling that seems absurdly naive in our current times, and so much so it’s impossible to explain – like trying to explain how you feel that first time you learn that someone (a naive high school girl?) thinks you’re wonderful. Top of the world, Ma! And things can only get better from here!
Of course, that feeling couldn’t last, and by 1961 when that same neighbor came home with a black Imperial, the Caddy already seemed a little like the big prize from a carnival game, while the Imperial seemed much more sophisticated with its modern-art “we listen to Jazz”; “I don’t like it but I guess I need more education”design look.
Still the afterglow of confidence lasted until the beginning of the 70’s in America when the words “economical, practical, and safe” started to enter our vocabulary.
A bit of a ramble, for which I apologize. As I said, I don’t really know how to explain it. Guess ya had to be there.
Did anybody notice that this ’59 is sporting a set of late ’70s wire wheel hubcaps?
Those old Cadillac rims had a very deep offset and the original wheelcovers were very deep too. I suspect that the changeover to disc brakes required a wheel change, which likely involved wheels not compatible with the original-style wheel covers.
Love it or hate it, 1959 Cadillacs did not age well. By the mid 60’s they stood out and looked old and dated. They eventually became iconic.
Am I the only one on here who knows the origin of “Hardboiled Eggs and Nuts”?
Hint: Laurel and Hardy.
———————————————————————————————————
Irony…Harley Earl died in 1969, just as his chromy, finned wonders from the ’50s (once loved, now scorned) were stacking up in the junkyard, getting crushed.
I picked up on it a few months ago, while watching “County Hospital” from 1932 – same year as their only Oscar, for “The Music Box.” Both movies still leave me in hysterics, even after watching them for 55 years. 🙂
Yeah, but wasn’t “planned obsolescence” kind of the point of radically changing automotive styling every few years? “That car you bought just a couple of years ago now looks dated compared to the new ones. You’d better trade it in before the neighbors start to think you’re some kind of cheapskate.”
Actually, I seem to remember reading somewhere that Volkswagens (pretty much the exact polar opposite of a Cadillac) generally had higher resale values than American cars because used ones didn’t look “old” because the basic styling never changed.
Cadillacs had excellent resale value during the 1950s and 1960s, too.
Part of it was styling consistency – despite the regular changes, Cadillacs always looked like Cadillacs, because they retained certain, immediately recognizable styling cues. Part of it was superior reliability and more consistent quality control.
Come on, It’s just an old car. It was designed to be sold to buyers that were eager to drive the flashiest thing on wheels. Good taste didn’t enter into the equation. It was the apex of this sort of design, as the next year this design was stripped of the excess glitz and the true contours of the body can be seen. The short cabin, long tail is what’s left of the fighter aircraft inspired proportions. I don’t think the car is beautiful from a design standard it’s just eye popping and in your face. Kind of like an elaborate Victorian house, it’s amazing to view though you probably wouldn’t want to live in it. But it does sum up the era.
I’m wondering about the engine noise you noticed – did the owner remove/modify the exhaust (I think those had mufflers and resonators, iirc)? I mean, I can see the modded tailpipes but wasn’t sure abt the rest
2 years ago I bought All original 1978 Coupe Deville bronze exterior with brown leather interior 17K original miles 425 4B engine. With all books and owners manual . Almost showroom condition! I always liked the downsized full size GM B bodies starting 1977. Attached is photo of my 78 Caddy
Nice Caddy, Alan. Tasteful Broughamification there with those real wire wheels and not just wheel covers. I would’ve loved to have been able to afford those wheels for my ’73 LTD that I had as a teenager.
In a sort of CC Effect, I spotted a car last Friday (a modern large white import luxury or near luxury sedan – I can’t believe I don’t remember what kind of car it was, being a car guy and all – maybe they really DO all look the same today – or my memory is just going ;o) that sported those same tires. Inner gangsta white stripe with a thin yellow stripe and thought WOW those tires are really nice! If I were reverting to my Broughemian ways of my youth, I’d HAFTA get those tires. What are they?
Rick, I think those are Vogue Tyres- a friend has a similar set.
https://www.voguetyre.com
Yes they are Vogue tires were installed by seller prior to my purchase!
Lucky you! They look really nice on that car.
My ’62 convertible had Vogues with wider whitewalls, stiffer ride but more control.
I was moderately entertained by the look of the 59 Cadillac, when it was introduced in late 58 and I was just 7. My father, though, brought home a new 59 Bonneville, I also remember my paternal grandfathers reaction, though. He was a long term Cadillac man. Bought new every couple years. Had a 57, He had a dislike for overwrought fins, thinking them silly and when the 59s appeared, he had had enough. He kept his 57 until 1961, and then he traded it for a new 61 Buick Electra 225 6 window hardtop. And he stayed with Buick, thereafter. His last Buick was new 71 Electra. Even with the toned down fin look as the 60s wore on. He refused to consider another Cadillac. Maybe he just liked his Buicks.
As a child my favorite movie was Ghostbusters so there will always be a nastalgic element to the 59 Cadillacs to me. I think in the context of 1959 it may have been actually relatively reserved and clean from it’s peers(Lincoln and Imperial) and if you can look past the fins and some of the trim it may be, dare I say, an elegant design.
What a nicely preserved survivor, glad to see it has an appreciative conservator who also has decided to enjoy the car by driving it too.
The only legitimate way to judge the design is in the context of its times, not only what else was on the automotive landscape but also the social and economic outlook that informed opinions then. Correct or not, it was a period of unbounded optimism, of bravado that the U.S. was king of the world, could do no wrong, we were the good guys with only high-minded ideals. Our economy was the envy of the world and all other countries should strive to emulate us. A heady time, the 1959 Cadillac was the automotive embodiment of that ethos. It is only of its time, any other interpretation only tries to explain it beyond of that in context of later eras that have no relevance to it. Appreciate it for the brief time and society it represents.
Humorous to hear anyone refer to it as “beautiful”: dazzling, brash, over-the-top, yes, as it was intended to be. “Beautiful” like a hotel designed by architect Morris Lapidus; texture, color and detail in dizzying concentration. Earl’s mantra that the viewer should find details to entertain the entire trip around the car hold true.
I remember another issue with the auto-dim system from Caddies from that era. SNOW!
My dad’s 64 sixty special used to flash its lights at every snowbank it saw. It would drive him crazy in the winter ?
The best winter trip used to be coming back from an aunt’s late at night. We used an old dirt road as a shortcut and when it had been plowed the lights would dim from the reflection of the hill, go hi-beam at the crest and immediately dim as it came down to the next one.
This would usually continue until ten year old I couldn’t contain my laughter and threats would be made that either the car or I would be going up for sale the next morning!?
The ’64’s moved the dimmer sensor to the trim strip on the front part of the left front fender. So one couldn’t kill it on the dash.
On my grandmother’s ’72, the sensor was behind the grille.
Ah such an iconic car. To me these embody the late 1950’s with its futuristic looks and presence.
That said I am not real big fan of them. I think it would have looked attractive if they lopped off the fins.
An object does not have to be attractive or tasteful to be iconic.
As a watch collector, one of the most collectable watches out there is the 1950’s Hamilton Ventura Electric watch. It is iconic and futuristic. However I hate them and find them ugly looking and one will never enter my collection.
When I bought my ’59 six window Sedan De Ville in aqua mist, (at 17 years old), I was curious about how the ’59 would drive compared to the extended deck ’58 DeVille 4 door and ’58 convertible. I had a test route I took cars over, first a climb from the valley floor (268 feet) up the hill (3 miles later, 3000 ft) then down the old road with bumps, dips, pot holes, rises (where cars get airbourne, three times in 4 miles) . The Cad had A/C and I headed up the hill, floored. The speedo buried and stayed there up the 7 % grade. So far, so good. Head down old road hill, accelerate to 65 mph. This car had factory coil springs. Through bumps the chassis set up a rhumba from side to side with some up and down movement, then the first dip. WHAM! the car bottomed violently and nearly rebounded off the ground. I had never been in a car with the suspension going four different directions at once (move your hand up and down plus turn it side to side at the same time, thats the motion), the rise! Airbourne! WHAM!, WHAM! WHAM!!!. Three rebounds after the first landing. The road is uneven there, the suspension bottoming and rising to the top of the suspension, swaying wildly on the corners It’s steep downhill and the brakes are heating up. God! Glad it’s got seat belts. Second rise…five rebounds, can’t get it slowed down, look at the speedo, 85 mph. Rise three, can’t count the rebounds. I would guess every bit of dirt and undercoat has left the chassis. Oh, Christ! not taking his name in vain! Praying! The last dip is far worse than anything past. In a sharp curve, people have died here! Brakes are faded 102 mph! WHHHAAAAMMMM!!! and rebound skyward in the middle of the curve. Holy F__K!!! I had the wheel turned the right direction for landing, but slightly, if the suspension will hold, might make it! It landed with a great scraping sound full length, but with massive lean and horrendous tires screaming, it hangs on to the pavement! Three more inches would have hit gravel, and past that a five foot deep ditch, the Cad would have rolled …five…maybe six times, like the ’59 Ford that killed three teens the week before.. I proceed to seven mile lane, which for some reason is 14 miles long. No side road access, unlimited visibility for miles, the tach was hooked up already, and it’s still working. 0-60, about 9.5, keep going 100 in 24 seconds. 25 mph per 1000 rpm It just makes it to 5000 rpm. 125 mph. I took it to my shop. let it cool. Then detail it to the hilt, it still looks like a ’59 Cadillac after the test ride. It hung on and saved my ass, even though the porpoising as it traveled down the road was a concern, and the four different directions it went at times, all at once. Several years later my ’66 Imperial does the same test, 140 mph at the top of the hill, 100-120 mph all the way down, rock solid handling with no fuss, that’s why I like Imperials, among their many luxuries. BTW the six window ’59 cost me $75. The ’58 Cadillacs I had handled more securely and I preferred the style, but the ’59 could be a comfortable work car. I beefed up the shock mounts (I had on the ’57-58’s also) and put much heavier shocks on, and better tires. The ’59 was not as comfortable as the ’58’s with higher seats. I have often driven fast and hard, in tight situations I don’t care what the car looks like, I just want it good enough to still look the same after the drive. The fins, as always, give the impression a car is too close in the outside mirror, and are very visible for parking. I like them at night in the inside mirror. I got used to the ’59 and when a convertible became available for $375 I bought it. I thought the looks were ok and thought about whacking several feet out of the length of the car to get a Baby Bird size car, but it was cherry and I kept it detailed. I was amazed most everyone loved it. People commented all the time how lovely it was, when I still preferred my ’58. I drove the ’59 on the cruise when I DIDN’T feel like racing. With most of my cars, friends would goad me to race until I did, nobody pushed me to race in the ’59 Caddy. Which was strange, my ’58 and ’59 Continental convertibles and Imperials, they pushed to race, and my cars did well. The Cad was a second to second and a half slower than my others, so I just relaxed and Cruised ( my 2 ’57 Cadillac convertibles had much the same effect) Some cars I’ve had, I can’t walk away without looking back at them. My ’63 Electra convert, my ’64 Riviera, the ’57 Plymouths, my ’56 DeSoto, the Imperials, the ’58 Cadillacs, but the ’59 did not affect me that way, the six window was a pleasant work car, the red ’59 convertible i would glance at, but more thinking if I forgot anything than looking at the styling, which for me was also strange because I did look back at many of my cars. I did use the ’59 convert in parades and events because I didn’t worry if it got dinged. I drove the six window to L.A. during the summer to visit friends, it was a comfortable trip at 85-90 mph. First I went to Steve’s place, to stay a few days. He lived in an older home with parking in the rear alley. I had the Cad parked nearly against the fence. We Barbecued, and talked into the first night. Next morning Steve came in and said someone had hit the Cadillac. It had been hit on the left front fender which kinked it about the middle of the wheel, in about four inches. It didn’t hurt driving. Days later I was headed to Wills place. He wasn’t home from work, but his live in Candy was home. She asked if I could drive her to the store for food, her ’56 Ford Fairlane Victoria was laid up with tranny problems. I tossed her the keys to the Cad. When she came back she was upset. A car ran a stop sign and sideswiped the Cad (and kept going), it started at the middle of the passenger door, through the rear door and half way through the rear fender, the skirt was gone, and the side trim was gone from the door back. I told her don’t worry about it, (she’d put the bent skirt in the trunk). Over two weeks I visited friends and headed back for Steve’s for a couple of days before heading back. Floored on the on ramp in Pasadena I heard a bang, like a blow out. There was no room to pull over so i had to go to the next exit. The engine was not running smoothly. I limped to Steve’s in Burbank. Steve’s a mechanic. He pulled the head on the side with a bad cylinder, there was a broken piston. I told Steve I didn’t want to put money in it. He said let’s pull the piston and close the valves. He had it done in short time. Of course it still wasn’t running smooth. Let’s pull the opposite piston Steve said, and did it. The Cad ran smooth, now a V6. Two days later, up the Grapevine at 70 mph with the A/C on, all the way up I-5 home. The right rear hubcap flew off near Kettleman City exit. I kept going. I could have fixed it, but had no desire to. a few days later I sold it for $15 to a woman who needed a around town car. She taught her two sons to drive in the seven years the car ran, Finally it snapped the timing chain. The body was very beat by then. The ’59 Cad convert went when I was thinning the herd.. By then I had a white ’60 convertible (Cadillac) with black leather and top, which handled better and I liked more (but it could still move 4 directions at one time).
These are the auto equivalent of a 6’5″ drag queen at a church. Yeah – everyone will stare, and kids will be delighted. They attract and revile at the same time. They are as subtle as an eye gouge.
I saw a stunning 1959 Cadillac Fleetwood on its 50th anniversary at the Chicago Auto Show, presented by Cadillac. Red. Couldn’t be shinier. Every inch an eyeful. A convertible, letting viewers to fully see the interior design and instrument panel. It was absolutely over the top in every way.
These were auto melodramas, every stereotypic gew gaw gleamed in outrageous excess. If the 1959 Cadillac was a movie it would have starred Mae West, RuPaul, Cher, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford in a remake of “The Posidon Adventure”.
GM in 1959 – with this car – said to America, “Made you look!”
lol…I want to see that film!!
What’s interesting about the Cadillac is that, while it is ultimate ’50’s excess’, it still hangs together well as an overall design. I’d argue that the 1959 Lincoln, just as excessive, maybe even more kitschy, was nowhere near as thoughtful a piece of design and therefore now communicates little to the modern eye (I know there are some ’59 Lincoln appreciators here, so not all will agree :-).
If there’s genius to the 1959 Cadillac, it could be that some very talented designers decided to do a ridiculously excessive car, and they did it really, really well.
Raymond Lowey customized his ’59 Cadillac. Do you think that it was an improvement?
I actually think that rear was quite an improvement.
Ahem! Autronic Eye was available in 1952. Here is the ad for it.
I enjoyed this shoot. I had seen the car previously at a show, but then when I learned where the owner lived, we arranged to meet up, and he gave me good detail on the car since it had been in his ownership. He had some other classic cars also, but stored overseas. Getting a short ride in the car was cool, allowing me to get a brief vibe for sitting in a long low car like this. The roof was lower than I had anticipated, sitting inside.
The owner himself couldn’t really describe the Autronic eye to me, so that involved a bit of on line reading.
I saw the car drive by my home a few more times, but the fellow has since moved away.