(EXPANDED FROM 12/16/2022)
Pointing to the exact moment that the brougham look gained traction in the U.S. is an inexact science. For one thing, this design approach, which mimicked the classic look of luxury cars of the 1920s and 1930s, never quite disappeared from American roads.
Even during the height of sci-fi styling in the 1950s, you could find hints of the neo-classical look in low-volume luxury cars. One of the first out of the gate was the 1953 Packard Derham, which featured an oval backlight and a leather roof covering (Hamlin and Heinmuller, 2002).
Then came the 1956-57 Continental Mark II, with its modern interpretation of a radiator grille, a notchback roofline and a “continental” spare tire. Although sales were below expectations, Thomas E. Bonsall stated that the car “was hailed as an instant classic by practically every news report” (2004, p. 57).
The Imperial also embraced major elements of the neo-classical look. This was particularly apparent with the 1960-63 LeBaron, which had an unusually small backlight for that time period.
Even so, one can point to when the brougham look emerged on higher-volume cars. Enter, the 1963 Cadillac. Although the Coupe de Ville two-door hardtop featured here was not a very original design, it did mainstream the brougham look in a way that its competitors could not do during the first half of the 1960s.
Cadillac’s shift was no small thing. General Motors’ luxury-car brand had championed sci-fi styling in the 1950s. Although the 1961 Imperial was arguably the most outrageous example of the genre, the 1959 Cadillac was the most iconic.
1961 Lincoln nudges Cadillac away from sci-fi styling
The 1961-63 Lincoln Continental pioneered the brougham look more than any other car of the early-60s (and it, in turn, was inspired by the Continental Mark II). However, the so-called “Kennedy Continental” made a much bigger splash among the automotive intelligentsia than with the buying public.
In 1963 Cadillac output hit an all-time record of roughly 163,000 units, which represented a whopping 78 percent of the U.S. luxury car market. That same year around 31,000 Continentals left the factory — which was only slightly better than its ungainly 1958 predecessor.
The 1962 Cadillac was a transition design. The rooflines were more formal and the overall vibe was less sci-fi. However, the front still had a rounded and horizontal look. Perhaps most importantly, the rear retained rocket-style fins.
1963 Cadillac was more angular — and understated
The 1963 Cadillac represented GM’s first big chance to respond to the 1961 Continental. Designers were clearly paying attention, because the Cadillac’s all-new sheetmetal had a much more squared-off and vertical appearance. This was particularly apparent in front. The 1962 models’ relatively flat and horizontal grille was ditched in favor of fenders that thrust ahead of a taller, bi-level grille.
Meanwhile, the hood was given heavy creases that began at the base of the windshield and tapered into a more sharply V-shaped grille. Cadillac stuck with variations on this theme for years.
The 1963 two-door hardtop’s roofline was given a more rounded shape similar to that of a convertible. In the photo below, note how far forward the base of the greenhouse begins relative to the trunk’s edge. This illustrates how two-door hardtops that had unique rooflines during this time period were given smaller greenhouses than their four-door siblings.
This particular car has a vinyl roof, which in 1963 was still relatively rare. Within five years a textured roof with an offsetting color would be all but required on any car emulating the brougham look.
The next photo shows how Cadillac began to adapt its traditional tail fins to the brougham era. Motor Trend pointed out that Cadillac “was one of the few ’63 cars that kept its fins” (1962, p. 90). However, Richard M. Langworth and Jan P. Norbye noted that their fins were “lower than ever.”
In addition, a tapered deck was replaced with a “massive rear end” dominated by “elongated vertical taillight housings” (1986, p. 250-251).
Note how the 1963 models had a raised portion of the trunk lid. That allowed the tail fins to slope farther down the body side while giving most of the trunk lid a squared-off shape.
Despite the boxier proportions, J. “Kelly” Flory Jr. suggested that the new rear end “looked very much like the exhaust area of a jet engine mounted at the end of each rear quarter panel” (2004, p. 210). This illustrates how maintaining some stylistic continuity with Cadillac’s sci-fi past was still a priority.
The side styling received some of the biggest changes for 1963. The heavy sculpting of the 1961-62 models were replaced by slab-sided surfaces only punctuated with a mid-level chrome piece and a lower-body crease. The Lincoln’s influence is obvious but Cadillac’s approach was not nearly as austere — and bulky.
Cadillac coopts Lincoln without ditching its own look
The Cadillac’s styling during the post-war period is particularly interesting because it offered the most gradual changes of any Big Three brand.
Motor Trend (1962) summed up the value of this design approach when noting that, despite a reskinning for 1963, the “Cadillac leaves no question of its identity.” The magazine then predicted that the brand’s “taillights may soon stretch all the way up [the] fender, eliminating upper lenses.”
That’s exactly what happened in 1965, when Cadillac adopted even more squared-off proportions akin to the Lincoln. However, in 1967 designers revived the swept-back character line of 1963-64 models. The main difference was that taillights now stretched from the top to the bottom of the deck.
Given Cadillac’s remarkable success during the postwar period, I am surprised that more brands did not follow its strategy of gradual styling changes. Even Lincoln and Imperial tended to do the opposite, with mostly unimpressive results.
The 1963 Cadillac shows how good General Motors once was at coopting the best styling cues of its competitors while still maintaining its own identity. Here GM took a big step toward mainstreaming the brougham look, which went on to dominate U.S. styling well into the early-80s. Yet throughout this time period the Cadillac would never be confused with any other brand.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted May 29, 2018 and expanded on Dec. 11, 2020; Dec. 16, 2022; and Aug. 23, 2024. Production figures are from Gunnell (2002).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Bonsall, Thomas E.; 2004. The Lincoln Story: The Postwar Years. Stanford General Books, Stanford, CA.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Hamlin, George and Dwight Heinmuller; 2002. “America’s New Choice in Fine Cars.” In Kimes, Beverly Rae, ed., pp. 562-581. Packard: A History of the Motor Car and the Company. Automobile Quarterly Publications.
- Langworth, Richard M. and Jan P. Norbye; 1986. The Complete History of General Motors 1908-1986. Publications International, Skokie, IL.
- Motor Trend; 1962. “General Motors Corp.” Nov. issue: pp. 78-91.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Cadillac (1962, 1963); Imperial (1960)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Cadillac (1965, 1967); Lincoln (1958, 1963); Packard (1953)
To me the Imperial’s contemporary free standing headlights are a more overt reference to the 20’s and early 30’s.
The Coupe DeVille roof is actually a grafting on of the roof of the B body 4 door hardtop. The shorter roof on a longer body is what makes it look more formal.
DECG50 is so right here, as either “Motor Trend” or “Popular Mechanics” did a photo comparison showing a 3/4s photo of a 1962 Chevrolet four-door hardtop from the rear and a 3/4s photo of the 1963 Coupe deVille from the rear. Since all of this grating and finishing took place still within the confines of Fisher Body, it was an easy transplant. In my opinion, the roof, while not bad looking on the Chevrolet / Pontiac four-door hardtops, looked so much more elegant on the Cadillac coupes.
The greenhouse of the Cadillac two-door hardtop does not appear to be fully interchangeable with the Chevrolet four-door hardtop because the Cadillac’s backlight is smaller. Now, I suppose it is possible that the underlying structure could have been shared (although I doubt it because the two-door’s roofline looks like it slopes downward more). But even if so, the only reason it worked aesthetically was because the Cadillac had a longer wheelbase behind the B-pillar. Back then two-door hardtops routinely had a shorter greenhouse than four-door models.
The use of the B body 4 door roof is confirmed by Chuck Jordan: auto.howstuffworks/1961-1964-cadillac.htm. That roof was shorter than the ’62 Coupe Deville’s which was shared with the 4 light Sedan Deville.
I have done enough auto history research to have come across quotes that prove to be inaccurate. So while Jordan’s are interesting they don’t address an obvious problem: The Coupe de Ville clearly has a smaller backlight than the Chevrolet four-door hardtop. It also looks like the C-pillar itself is a bit narrower. I grant you that I’m working just from photos, but these are not small differences. How do you explain them?
Just to be clear: I would not be surprised if the size of the greenhouse is the same. I just don’t think that the sheetmetal is interchangeable.
It was common in that era for luxury brands to weld in a fill panel to make the rear window smaller, giving it a limousine look. For example, look at the 1962 Imperial LeBaron versus the lower trims. It’s the same roof, but the LeBaron has a smaller rear window.
Given that the Coupe de Ville was fairly high volume, would it have made sense to weld back sheetmetal around the backlight? I’m not an expert on production processes, but I wonder whether the same basic stamping tooling was used but it was modified to accommodate a smaller backlight.
Per an article titled, “Cadillac Shapes Up: The Story of the 1961-64 Models” as printed in the June, 1996 issue of Collectible Automobile. The author, Michael Lamm quoting Cadillac designer Chuck Jordan:
“The 1963 Cadillac had more of the substance, the solidarity, the presence of the 1959-60 production models,” contends Jordan. “We never wanted to make it as heavy in appearance as those earlier cars. We were after a leaner looking Cadillac; lighter. You’ll notice that in 1963 and ’64, we went back to that smoother, more solid shape, and the more regal, snooty front. I think the ’63 was the best of those cars.
We started working on the 1963 models by first doing the Coupe de Ville. Well, I had an idea one day when I saw this new four door hardtop they were working on at Chevrolet,” explains Chuck Jordan. “I said to myself, ‘Hey, why not put the Chevrolet four-door hardtop roof on the Coupe de Ville . . . mount it physically on the Cadillac lower and see, because of the Cadillac’s extra length, if the Chevy sedan roof doesn’t make a good Cadillac coupe’. And boy, that was it. That was it. We couldn’t afford another upper, but with that shorter four door Chevrolet roof, nobody ever caught us. And it looked great.”
I believe they used the roof panel as a start, then added new c-pillars and backlights.
A few years later Chrysler did a reverse, where a 1966 Chrysler 300 2 door hardtop roof wound up being repurposed for the 1967-68 Plymouths, alongside the delta-shaped C-pillar roof shared with Chrysler and Dodge.
Also, Packard Derham, not Durham. Chrysler also had a similar Chrysler Imperial padded roof sedan in 1950, and town sedans will a division window like the Packard in 1953 and 54.
Interesting article Steve, thanks.
Speaking of Brougham, wanted to provide a shout-out to Derham for keeping the pilot light on post-war. CCCA hosts an incredible online catalogue. Pull up the 1950s Cadillacs to see some really interesting designs.
https://cccamuseum.org/Explore/Archives/Archive-Viewer.aspx
I am guessing that Harley Earl and Bill Mitchell led the G.M. stylists down the primrose spaceship path starting with G.M.’s answer to Chrysler Corporation’s operational 1950s gas turbine cars: The 1953 Firebird I, the 1956 Firebird II and the 1959 Firebird III for those respective Motoramas. Then there was the front-engine 390 cu.-in. V-8 automatic rear transaxle 1959 Cadillac Cyclone with the black Dagmars for the radar. But the styling trend fire that G.M. tried to light were the rear fender skegs for the 1961 and 1962 Cadillacs: Totally unnecessary and thankfully they were gone for the 1963 and later Cadillacs. Lower fender skegs rank right up there with Continental kits !
By the way, if one looks carefully at the 1953 Packard Derham in the above advertisement, except for the rear window, the grill details and Jim Nance’s “bull-nuts” taillights, the Packard resembles a 1954 Pontiac Star Chief in profile. No wonder Packard was a dead brand before the merger with Studebaker.
It is true that “31,000 Continentals left the factory in 1963, which was only slightly better than its ungainly 1958 predecessor.” However, it is important to note that all of the 1963 Continentals that were built consisted of only two models, the hardtop sedan and the convertible sedan. In 1960, the year before the Continental was radically redesigned and reimagined, there had been a total of twelve models over three lines, the base Lincoln, the Premier, and the Mark IV.
It says something that Lincoln was able to maintain and grow the brand while cutting the number of offerings by more than 80%. At the same time, they established a tradition of not making change just for the sake of change every model year. Over the decade of the 60s, that would lead to greater sales and a reputation more defined by classic and lasting design rather than shifting styling gimmicks every year.
Granted, FoMoCo didn’t have the resources to spend that GM did, particularly on a brand that generated relatively few sales. But they did an admirable job remaining competitive with the philosophy they developed during this time period. They remained unique, aspirational, and developed a justified reputation of quality with a warranty that was the best in the industry. Lincoln’s offerings were a unique and readily identifiable alternative for those who didn’t want to purchase a Cadillac, for whatever reason. (Perhaps only because all their wealthy friends did, and they sought something different.) The Imperial, meanwhile, morphed back into being an upgraded Chrysler, devoid of any unique attributes worthy of the once great name.
Imperial always had that problem. Until it was hived off as a separate brand in 1955, it was a Chrysler model for decades, and didn’t get its own sheet metal until 1958. In the 60s, my father still called them “Chrysler Imperials” as did a lot of people. The running joke was Imperials were something Mopar executives and dealers could drive to the country club.
Regarding Lincoln’s sales in the early 1960s – not only did Lincoln dramatically pare back its line-up, but it also retreated to the top end of the luxury segment. The Continental competed with the top-of-the-line Cadillacs.
The lack of a two-door hardtop also hurt Lincoln during these years. The Coupe de Ville was one of the most popular Cadillacs during this era. Lincoln would not offer a two-door hardtop until the 1966 model year.
How to design a luxury car, American-style.
But hark that trumpeting! There’s an elephant in the room.
Those fins.
To my non-American mind, what dated the Cadillac more than anything else was their dogged insistence on retaining the tail fins for so long when the rest of the automotive world had either moved on or never gone that way in the first place. Not that fins were a bad thing, but they really looked out of place in 1963. They said Old. They said Carryover. Everybody else was moving on to a more horizontal emphasis. The Europeans. The British (except BMC). The Japanese. The rest of the design is all smooth horizontals and clean lines, and then – wham! We’re back to the Fifties again with a massive band of chrome topped with undercut fins.
Now I might have a different viewpoint if I had seen Cadillacs on a daily basis. Or even occasionally. And I totally get that they were something of a heritage design cue, but really there comes a time to move on, guys. Virgil Exner was not the one to be emulating here. You only have to look at those wacky Imperial headlights to see that. Cadillac needed to find a new look at this point, not become stuck in a rut. And they almost had it. In the early days of Harley Earl, Cadillac used to be near the forefront of automotive design – and respected all the more for it. Other prestige brands may have had better engineering, but Cadillac nailed the visuals.
Another thing that annoyed me about the ’63 Cadillac was the front wheel cutout, which seemed abnormally low. Or, comparing it to the Chevrolet, maybe it’s that there are so many character lines in the metal above the wheel arch that make it look low. Once again, I understand that the headlight ‘peak’ flowing back down the fender could be seen as an homage to the ’59, but just look at the ’63: you have the fender top, the crease and shadows from the headlight peak, then you get a highlight from the headlight’s mid-point, then you get that chrome strip at the top of the wheelarch. That’s just too much going on. It’s too busy visually, all those horizontal creases and highlights place too much visual mass and emphasis above the wheel. Cadillac handled this area much better in ’61-2.
They did well in getting rid of that dog’s breakfast of fins and skegs from the ’62, but they should have gone further, IMHO, and ditched the fins entirely. Or moved straight to the ’65’s rear, which would still have looked Heritage (or Brougham if you like) rather than Modern in a rest-of-the-world sense.
Beginning of Brougham? Maybe. But I’d rather have a Continental. The ’61 especially has an ‘otherness’ about its styling that makes it a standout in any company.