Let’s face it, it’s easy to get sucked into the gloom and doom of the collector car market and prognosticate that nobody wants anything from the pre-muscle-car era anymore. Sometimes, however, you take one look at a car for sale and know immediately that blanket statements such as those just don’t hold water. That’s what I felt when I laid eyes on this Pastoral Blue 1953 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible. It’s actually a mild custom rather than a 100-point restoration, but its indisputable presence lets you know that it’s going to sell for a big number, and it’s being sold here on eBay in Cincinnati, Ohio, with (gulp) no reserve. The high bid is currently a fast-climbing $23,088 (although the seller reserves the right to end the auction early if a good enough offer transpires).
The mild-custom theme begins under the hood with a body-colored “Batwing” air cleaner from a later Cadillac feeding a dual-quad intake manifold, and the carburetors look like modern Edelbrock four-barrels. The engine also has neat finned Edelbrock valve covers. The car was painted seven years ago and has been stored ever since, so the seller, who is responsible for clearing the late owner’s estate, pulled the car out and got it running. He says it could probably use some tuning, but when it’s running well, it produces 210 horsepower from 331 cubic inches, and probably somewhat more than that, thanks to the hotter induction system.
The interior is in great shape, although some will wince at the aftermarket CD player cut into the dashboard. While Series 62 cars didn’t have wood trim on the dashboard and door panels, that was a feature of the Sixty Special and the Series Seventy-Five Limousines and therefore easily swapped over to other models. This convertible also has power windows and some auxiliary gauges beneath the dashboard for keeping track of the 331 up front. One issue to be dealt with: It “has a short hairline crack in the passenger door glass”; the seller claims that a new pane is available from “Caddy Daddy” for $165.
The rear seat is in fairly decent condition as well, and the pattern matches the illustrations in Cadillac’s sales materials.
The only downside of this charismatic Cadillac might be the rear view and its polarizing Continental kit. In my opinion, the 1956 Thunderbird is the only fifties car that should have one, but many collectors enjoy the full “Back to the ’50s” experience; it all comes down to personal taste. These fifties Cadillac droptops can still sell for big money, so it will be interesting to see what this beauty, although it has a few needs, will bring. Who says the fifties are out of style?
When I first saw this on Fast Finds All I could say is wow!!! Very nicely done. The only thing I’d do different would be the radio. Love the dual quads too. Cadillacs from the 50’s are always going to be popular. At least. I think they will. Love the wood on the dash too. Hope someone gets to enjoy this classic “Drop top Cadillac” ( to quote the great Jim Croce). This is just beautiful. Aaron, thank you very much for the great write up. I hope it goes for a good price for the seller.
dual quads? pass everything but a gas station.
Stopping for gas and having people come up to admire the car is part of the fun. With a car like this who cares how much gas it uses? If you can’t afford it, get a Ford Focus.
Beautiful car, I’m sure it will sell for a good number. I’m too much of a purist to get really excited about this, seeing one of these nicely restored to original condition would be impressive enough for me.
I’ll take two, gift wrap not required.
All I can say is wow! Just wow. What a beauty she is. From her Dagmar bumpers, to her Connie kit out back, she’s beautiful through and through. And for those of us who play music 🎶,
we can’t help but remember that
Hank Williams Sr. passed away in
a car similar to this one on New
Year’s Day 1953 while being driven to a show in Oak Hill, West
Virginia. I’ve seen that car up close and it does indeed resemble this car to a tee. But no
matter. It’s a fine piece of automobile that I would love to own. Sure hope Angel 😇 sees this one! It’s awesome 👍!
nice. sound like they just want it gone. take the money and run
I was a “Fifties Kid” and the epitome of class was a nice big Cadillac with a Continental kit hung on the back.Or a Lincoln or Chebby or any other car for that matter. I can’t believe there are people who don’t like the look. In the fifties cars were lowered in the back to make them look like they were very sleek and fast. The Continental kit lowered your car for you and with skirts it was moving while standing still. My second car was a ’57 Lincoln with a Continental kit. Longest car I had ever seen and it was beautiful. Never have seen another one though.Good luck with this sale and the price is just right I think.
Now ya’ll know I hate the colors blue or green. My 1962 Buick Electra 225 convertible was baby blue just like this car, as was my 1975 Cadillac Eldorado convertible.
It has to be a certain shade of blue in order to be acceptable and baby blue is not it.
Other than the color, this is a nice car, but im not crazy about the “mild” customization. I dont care for the wood trim, the CD player in the dash. That should always be hidden in the glove box. There are no pics with the top up. I do like Continental kits on certain cars and it doesn’t look horrible on a ’53 Cadillac so I guess I would keep it.
With the engine modifications I wouldn’t call it a mild custom but more of a resto mod.
The last picture in my writeup shows the top up.
Thanks Aaron, I guess I was so busy looking at the Continental kit I didn’t even notice the top was up.
Look at that “ smiling grill”. Nothing like it! Beautiful.
Hi Angel 😇! Glad you got to see
this one! It’ll make a great print
once I get all the wind chimes re
hung and cleared from the top of
my freezer LOL. Long time no see. Are things getting better for you? After all you told me, I certainly hope so. And yes, I can
see us tooling around in this car!
Decent music 🎵🎶 wafting from
the speakers. Kinda like the stuff
I sent you when I found it on YouTube. And yes dear, I STILL wanna hold your hand 👌!
Ahhh, what a wonderful dream 😍 that would be
And the more I think about it, the more it’s getting close to my nap time!
.
Im still trying to get the first print. I havent forgotten about you.
I know that dear. I still have them
here waiting for you. One day, everything will go your way and you’ll have them for your car room. I was working on a ’54 4-door sedan print before the weather here went batsh*t crazy and I had to stop working on it. It’s painted Ocean Blue with a white top–about this same color
here, only a bit darker. And yeah, it’s parked outside my store 🏪 too. You get a front and rear view
with this one and that’s probably
how I’ll do this one too, provided I
can still find these pics here or find the ones on E-bay and keep them somehow til I’m ready to use them. Does anyone know how I can save them?
Wish this were a 1954 Coupe DeVille (without the Continental Kit!)(and WITH the original Cadillac A.M. radio). I never liked the 1950-1953 Cadillacs and Buicks.
I, on the other hand, LOVE the 1940s and early 1950s straight eight Buicks!
Me too! Here’s my ’53 Special.
Gil Davis, you misunderstood me a bit, I fear. I very much LIKED the 1948-1949 Cadillacs, and the 1949 Buicks especially, as well as the 1954 models of both Buick and Cadillac.: It was those 1950-1953 years that did not particularly thrill me. When the sleek new 1948 Cadillacs and Futuramic Oldsmobiles first came out, they were smooth and exciting. Buick followed in 1949, as well and Chevrolet and Pontiac. But in 1950, Cadillac and Buick got lumpy and bumpy and frumpy, and they lost that winning sleekness they’d had before. Cadillac’s 1950 version changed almost none through 1953, until the all-new 1954s made them stunning again. As for Buick, the 1950 wasn’t so bad in retrospect, though it was one huge let-down from the 1949 model. Buick did not change all that much, from 1950 through 1952 (except for losing that very vulnerable damage-prone “waterfull” grille after 1950; but the 1953, attempting to “square-off” somewhat, just did not appeal to me at all. But I saw later that it had tried to anticipate the 1954 re-style on the old body, a move which did not work very well at all, in my view. So you see, it’s not the era itself that I was addressing; it was those particular model years on those G.M. makes. Otherwise, 1953 was a high point for me with most cars (except for Chevrolet, which did improve for ’54). But a great number of cars were at their best styling in 1953 (Mercury, Chrysler, Plymouth, Pontiac, and Studebaker, to name a few)
Aaron! Wow, that car is gorgeous! I think it’s time for an “What’s in Aaron’s Garage” article!
Thanks, SG. That article would be a too-long cautionary tale. :)
@Harrison Reed
What is it about the 1953 Chevrolet that nobody likes? But they all say the 1954 was better. They were essentially the same car. The only difference was ’53 had round parking lights set into the grill and ’54 had rectangle parking lights moved under the headlights.
1953 had three taillights on each side (a running light, a round brake and turn signal light and a back up light below that. The 1954 had two lights per side. Red on top, white on bottom. The ’53 had a large horizontal front and rear emblem on the hood and trunk, the ’54 it was much smaller. Those are the only differences detail wise that I know of. Pops bought Mom’s a 1953 150 in black. Very basic.
Article nothin’! Scotty, you guys should give this guy his own column! And while everyone on the writing staff are top notch, you get more of the “every guy” vibe when you read one of Aaron’s pieces, it takes you back to the days of Rod & Custom Magazine where guys like Jim Jacobs, Tom Medley, Bud Bryan,
and many others, wrote in an informal style that aimed their content right at the reader. Not only did they inform, but they entertained you as well. It was one of their articles that gave me
balls enough to drop a 350 mouse motor into a late ’50s Jaguar 🐆 sedan with no trouble at all. And who doesn’t like the ’53-’54 Chevys?!! Of all the cars GM built at that time, Chevy and
Pontiac looked the freshest of the bunch. With the ’53s, you got
a great family car that came with
a touch of Cadillac in the grille and turn signals. My Mom had a
black ’54 210 4-door sedan with
3 inch white wall tires and a set of those flipper hubcaps on it. To
a nine year old car nut like me, I thought that was the greatest thing since sliced bread 🍞! And
on top of all that, the radio 📻 worked too! I got a good dose of
music 🎵🎶 because of that. Gary Carlson’s Top 50 show on
WHOW out of Clinton, Illinois was
to die for. Four hours of the best
old country music every Sunday
from 2 til 6 PM! And after that, there was WJBC in Bloomington
that rounded out a young fella’s
education by playing all types of
music 🎵🎶. They played everything from Louie Prima to
Tony Bennett and beyond. Real music, not that God awful crap they pass off as music today. But enough of this. Scotty, you bring some pretty weird stuff to the barn, so how ’bout bringing a
vintage guitar 🎸 here for folks
to comment on. I’m sure that there are other folks than me who
love the feel of an old guitar in their hands and the way it plays.
In fact, I collect old guitars and have four of them now. A 1955
Harmony Hollywood, a 1957 Framus 551 studio model, a 2001
Fender DG 11 flat top, and a 2004
Alverez 12 string flat top. Still looking for a ’73 Harmony Grand
Master though. The ultimate in
archtop guitars. Those archtops
had enough punch to be heard in
the back of a room WITHOUT being amped or miked. But I digress. Love stopping by because I never know what I might see. Keep ’em coming!
Very nice of you to say, Ken. Thanks!
To Angel Cadillac Diva and Ken Carney: I liked the 1949 Chevrolet when it came out, and the 1950 even better. 1951 and 1952 were okay. But I did not like the 1953 all that much, when compared against some of the other cars of that year. Yes, it was a major facelift that brought Chevy fully into the 1950s — it just did not “do it” for me, somehow. But in 1954, when they left the sides essentially unchanged, but improved the look of the tail-lights, and cleaned-up that awkward grille, that made all the difference — even though they essentially were the same car, particularly from the side. I have opposite feelings about Pontiac: 1953 was a beautiful improvement, and is on my “favourite 1953s” list. And Pontiac did an excellent job of adapting their traditional trademark “look” onto the all-new body of 1955, I thought: the 1956 Pontiac “refresh”:was a let-down from the 1955, in my view. The 1955 Chevrolet was a stunning change from 1954: I didn’t know right away what it was when I first saw one in the early autumn of 1954. And I LOVED that GRILLE! (too bad that they went more conventional for ’56).
Ken, I heartily agree about “that awful crap they pass-off as music” these,days! And it assaults your sensiblitities in every store you walk into! My prime years in popular music were 1946-1954 (though I did adapt to rock-n-roll in the 1954-1956 years, and I generally liked most of what I heard up to and into 1963, before the relentless “girl-groups” and Motown settling on a formulaic “Motown Sound” which (to my ears) got very old very fast! Motown’s earlier records had variety and imagination (When was the last time that you heard “Jamie” by Eddie Holland?) — and the earlier Jackie Wilson and Marv Johnson hits were actually Motown, though they appeared on Brunswick and United Artists respectively. But the Supremes and Four Tops established a sameness that never left. And I’d had enough of the Beatles within about the first five minutes! Back then, they were covering American hits from not long earlier, doing amateurish re-makes of them, and I never understood what all the fuss was about. Eventually, by about 1968 and 1969, I simply shut the radio off, took out the 78s of my youth, and enjoyed those! I still do (smile).