Re: [HSS] Classic Car Club of America "Full Classic" List

Unknown

hudsontownsedan@earthlink.net wrote:

>

> I recently pointed my browser to the web site of the Classic Car Club

> of

> America, where they maintain a list of cars that they have designated

> as "Full Classic" (TM) cars. On that list, I found they have

> designated

> the 1929 L-series models (the long-chassis cars) as "Full Classics "

> --

> but not any other Hudsons from 1929 or any other year.

>

> This seemed a curious way to parse the 13 models in the 1929 line, so

> I posted a note to a relevant discussion topic suggesting that at

> least some of the 1929 R-series Hudsons should merit consideration. In

> a

> reply from a member of their Classification Committee, they

> exhibited incomplete understanding about the Hudson line.

> Generally, the respondent took the view that all L-series Hudsons were

>

> coachbuilt (not true; Hudson built two of the five L series) and that

> except

> for the Landau and Victoria Sedans, all the R-series were made

> in general production (also not true, as Briggs made three of the

> nine R-series models). Thus, it apparently seemed reasonable to them

> --based on what they knew -- to use "L Series" as a shorthand for

> "coachbuilt."

>

> You can view the dialogue at

>

> http://www.aaca.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=20&t=000253

>

> I'm going to keep pushing gently to get them to expand the inclusion

> of Hudsons...starting first with the other coach-built '29s (which

> seems to

> be the best point of leverage) and if successful, then seeking to

> bring

> in some models from earlier years.

>

> Their criteria seem to exclude highly successful mass-produced cars,

> no matter how good their quality. So I think it's fruitless to try to

> get the Standard Sedan, or the later TerraPlane (as examples, into

> the club. Too many were sold.

>

> If anyone else on this list would like to join the discussion at

> CCCA.org, please feel free to do so. You have to join the list to post

>

> a message, but you don't have to be an AACA member. You can view

> the list without joining, if you prefer.

>

> I think it helps us all if our Hudsons are given greater recognition

> for their high quality and style.

>

> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

> Lew Phelps

> Pasadena, CA

> 1929 Hudson Town Sedan

> http://home.earthlink.net/~lewphelps/hudson_29

Good on you Lew for flying the flag on behalf of Hudson. Although I

have one of the "Classic" Hudsons I have never bothered with the bastion

of snobbery which I consider the CCCA. I believe that the Hudson

bodied cars in '29 were equally "Classic" as far as collectibility is

concerned. It seems that rarity and appearance seem to be the main

consideration of acceptability. For instance, I know most Auburns

qualify as classics, yet when compared to a Hudson many Auburn models

are very ordinary cars indeed, and some quite inferior in construction

and performance. I know that in terms of construction and design,

the '29 Hudson Steel bodies are infinitely superior to the custom bodied

models. My '29 7 pass. sd. would be like a matchbox in a colllision

from the side or rear, with wood framing and alloy panels tacked on the

exterior. Give me a genuine Hudson body any day, in terms of strength,

and ease of maintenance and especially re-construction. The B.& S.

bodies sure look nice, but that is their only redeeming feature. There

is no difference in quality or design between the short and long

wheelbase Hudsons, so why the difference in classification, if not for

snob value alone? Yours biasedly,

Geoff.