Notifications
Clear all
Forum 43
22
Posts
10
Users
62
Reactions
1,427
Views
Topic starter
30/05/2025 1:37 pm
@graeme-ogg You are most welcome Graeme! BTW, the US dealer I got mine from was only promised 4 of them.
Christopher Moroni and Tony Perrone reacted
02/06/2025 5:26 pm
Mine arrived today. I'm super happy with it. Mine is #3, as if that matters. Typical outstanding paint and assembly by Stamp. I love this color.
05/06/2025 7:07 am
And mine arrived today. It is a very nice model but, perversely, my first thought straight out of the box was that it looked just a little bland, and maybe needed a bolder colour and the usual cliché of a contrasting roof. But then I realised that it's the first model of a '59 Cadillac that made me understand why sober-suited, short-back-and-sides, conservative middle-aged types would ever want to be seen in a car that looked like a combination of a jet fighter and a jukebox. It actually manages to look quite restrained and dignified in this colour, and not as wild as it usually comes across.
And viewed purely as a model, it is beautifully done and flawlessly finished. Glad I went for it.
This post was modified 10 months ago by Graeme Ogg
Graeme.M. Ogg
London U.K.
05/06/2025 12:06 pm
I agree with your comment about the color making it look dignified. The more I look at mine the more I like it. It's very stately looking.
05/06/2025 1:30 pm
"It actually manages to look quite restrained and dignified and not as wild as it usually comes across."
The 1959 Cadillac has been my favorite car forever and I've espoused the virtues of its design language for decades. I've NEVER understood it's "bad (design) rap." With the exception of the '59 Fleetwood, park ANY '59 Cadillac next to a 1958 Cadillac and THEN tell me, with a straight face, which one looks "crazy." 😯 🙄
Harv Goranson and John Merritt reacted
05/06/2025 4:39 pm
Well, in terms of sheer chutzpah, and as a no-holds-barred styling exercise in its own right, its "design language" is right at the top of the charts. But given the Cadillac customer profile (as I described it above) I've always been surprised that senior GM management didn't decree than even in an extreme styling year like 1959, the Cadillac offering should be somewhat more sober and restrained and . . . well . . . dignified, rather than making it perhaps the most outrageous offering in the GM model line-up. That doesn't mean I'm knocking (or mocking!) your admiration for these cars, they just seemed so out of keeping with the low-key, sophisticated, non-gimmicky image the typical Cadillac owner of the day might have wanted to project."It actually manages to look quite restrained and dignified and not as wild as it usually comes across."
The 1959 Cadillac has been my favorite car forever and I've espoused the virtues of its design language for decades. I've NEVER understood it's "bad (design) rap." With the exception of the '59 Fleetwood, park ANY '59 Cadillac next to a 1958 Cadillac and THEN tell me, with a straight face, which one looks "crazy." 😯 🙄
Or maybe it just gave them a glorious opportunity to let their hair down (which might have been difficult if they were strictly "short back and sides" folks.)
Graeme.M. Ogg
London U.K.
Christopher Moroni reacted
05/06/2025 5:33 pm
"I've always been surprised that senior GM management didn't decree, even in an extreme styling year like 1959, the Cadillac offerings be somewhat more restrained. They just seemed so out of keeping with the low-key image the typical Cadillac owner of the day might have wanted to project."
Two things:
- 1959 Cadillac designs may have "cheated their way through." Harley Earl was retiring in the late 1950's, and rumor has it that the "younger designers" took advantage of this. Certainly Earl knew what was going on, but apparently didn't care much.
- 1959 Cadillacs sold well - "sky high fins" were status symbols, something to show off. Quickly, however, the flaunt-factor faded. By late '61 Cadillac knew they had to change course.
Page 2 / 2
Prev