131 Cadillac Eldorado Tourer (1956-63)

From Meccano Magazine for June 1956, Mr Toyman in his column covering the new releases for that month had this to say:Judging from my correspondence, there is an unlimited demand for models of the large stylish American cars, and now a further addition is being made to the range. ( Apart from the pre-war and post war 39 series of American cars that had been deleted by 1952, the Estate Car 27f (based on a Plymouth but never stated as such for some obscure reason), 132 Packard Convertible, 139a Ford Fordor, 139b Hudson Commodore and the 172 Studebaker Landcruiser were the other models in the American range.)The Dinky Toys Cadillac Eldorado Tourer, No. 131, is a really attractive miniature of this distinctive car. It is beautifully proportioned with plenty of detail, and is fitted with a miniature driver and a transparent windscreen. The Cadillac Eldorado is available in two attractive colour schemes, salmon pink with grey seats and yellow with red seats. In both schemes the wheels are stone coloured, and the bumpers and radiator grilles are finished in aluminium.The interesting thing about this model, is its selection. It is based on the 1953 version, that by 1956 had received a number of make-overs, including the loss of the distinctive grille with its solid, rounded bars. The 1953 first release of the Eldorado also had its smallest production run, so one wonders why it was selected. Although considering the 132 Packard released in 1955 was based on the 1951-52 version, I guess the 131 with its three years between the prototype and the model is better than the 132 with its four years between prototype and model. (What a difference it was compared with the earlier 39 series, when the models were almost entirely depicted as the 1939 year prototypes with July 1939 as their release to the eager young enthusiast!) A little about the prototype.After observing its Golden Anniversary with a little-changed fleet for 1952, Cadillac issued a flashy limited-edition convertible, the 1953 Series 62 Eldorado. Like that year's new Buick Skylark and Olds 98 Fiesta, it boasted features previewed on recent GM show cars: custom interior, special cut-down 'Panoramic' wraparound windshield, a sporty 'notched' beltline (below the side windows), and a metal lid instead of a canvas boot to cover the lowered top. The Eldorado was a special-bodied, low-production convertible. It was the production version of the 1952 El Dorado 'Golden Anniversary' concept car, and borrowed bumper bullets (aka dagmars) from the 1951 General Motors Le Sabre show car.(Dagmar bumpers, (dag- mar), is a slang term for the artillery shell shaped styling elements found on the front bumper/grille assemblies on several makes of cars produced in the 1950s, in particular the Cadillacs, an era recognized for its flamboyant designs and prominent use of chrome details. The term was coined by customers in direct reference to Dagmar, an early 1950s television personality well known for her pronounced cleavage. Dagmar's physical attributes were further enhanced by low-cut gowns and the shape of her bra cups, which were somewhat conical. She was amused by the tribute. This must be a first for the DTCA website, having pictures of a Hollywood actress gracing its 'pages'!!A striking piece, the Eldorado was a preview of Cadillacs to come, but only 532 of the '53s were built, largely because the price was a towering $7,750. Available in four unique colors (Aztec Red, Alpine White, Azure Blue and Artisan Ochre the latter is a yellow hue, although it was shown erroneously as black in the color folder issued on this rare model). (Just why Meccano selected Salmon Pink as the second of two colours is unknown, when the yellow was an almost identical match.) The car carried no special badging other than a gold-colored 'Eldorado' nameplate in the center of the dash. A hard tonneau cover, flush with the rear deck, hid the top in the open car version. Now for the name ELDORADO. It was chosen in an internal competition for a 1952 concept vehicle celebrating the company's Golden Anniversary, the name Eldorado was proposed by Mary-Ann Marini (ne Zukosky), a secretary in Cadillac's merchandising department and was subsequently adopted for the limited- edition convertible for model year 1953. This is the yellow that Meccano selected for its model. Interestingly, the salmon pink, or at least a very similar colour appeared in a later year's Eldorado.

Bruce A wonderful writeup on the Cadillac Eldorado, and I really like all of the collateral material you included: brouchure, photos of the prototype, the model itself, and even a little education on the origin of those 'dagmar' bumpers. It does make you wonder why Meccano chose a model several years old...it would seem their track record was usually very good about promptly releasing models. I wonder if they had intended to produce it earlier, then got delayed, then finally released. Same with the Packard.....likely we will never know why. Jan made some interesting comments on an earlier post regarding large disparity in width when comparing the Cadillac and Packard convertibles. The Packard is very wide, and in comparison, the Cadillac appears quite narrow. I believe Jan concluded that the Cadillac width was closer to reality, and the Packard too wide. All in all, a somewhat iconic Dinky model for the time, and very worthy of our attention.Regards, Terry

Sorry, somehow my post got entered twice, so I deleted the body of it. We should have the ability to delete our own posts, for whatever reason, especially when erroneous postings occur. Can anyone ask the webmaster about doing this???? Regards,Terry

Terry, There should be a 'DELETE' link at the botom right of your posts. Clic on it and on the next page, clic on 'SUBMIT'. Bruce, Great post about the Cadillac. There is not much to be added.

Thanks, Bruce, for the fine contribution. We like more like these! Discussing the Cadillac Eldorado two thoughts always come up with me. First is the colours I don't like (I know, there is no accounting for tastes), second is the too narrow appearance of the model. Nevertheless I have one, in order to avoid an omission in the Dinky collection. On the other hand we have the companion, no. 132 Packard Convertible. I like these colours better, but on the contrary this model's width seems to be too big. I did a little photographic experiment by enlarging the width of the Cadillac and by shrinking the width of the Packard, 5% each. You can see the results below. In addition to Bruce's pictures of the Cadillac I have added a photo of the real Packard below, which I made a few months ago, surprised about the much narrower appearance of this real vehicle. Here they are: The real Packard in the Brummen Classic Cars Museum. Packard and Cadillac by Dinky as seen from above, comparing widths. Both models, frontal view. Cadillac width plus 5%, Packard width minus 5%, which look much better in relation to reality in my opinion (I have not tried to restore the mutual models' size interrelation, that may deviate a little bit now) . Kind regards, Jan

Thank you Jan for your most appreciated words. As time permits, I would like to embark on something similar for the 132 Packard, although there is already an open thread, as well as other models in the American Dinky car range. I will be replying to your interesting comparison post on the dimensions of both the Eldorado and Packard 200/250 Convertible later and it will have quite a surprise for you! As mentioned in my first Post this is the unique piece of Cadillac Eldorado history

dinkyfan wrote: 'Bruce A wonderful writeup on the Cadillac Eldorado, and I really like all of the collateral material you included: brouchure, photos of the prototype, the model itself, and even a little education on the origin of those 'dagmar' bumpers. It does make you wonder why Meccano chose a model several years old...it would seem their track record was usually very good about promptly releasing models. I wonder if they had intended to produce it earlier, then got delayed, then finally released. Same with the Packard.....likely we will never know why. Jan made some interesting comments on an earlier post regarding large disparity in width when comparing the Cadillac and Packard convertibles. The Packard is very wide, and in comparison, the Cadillac appears quite narrow. I believe Jan concluded that the Cadillac width was closer to reality, and the Packard too wide. All in all, a somewhat iconic Dinky model for the time, and very worthy of our attention.Regards, Terry' Terry Many thanks for your most appreciated comments on my Thread on the 131 Cadillac Eldorado Tourer. I thoroughly enjoyed going through my accumulated stuff and sharing it with the wider community. I will be posting a new comment on the dimensions of both the Cadillac and Packard and a little more on those unique bumpers shortly. As for the long delay with Meccano releasing it, that Post may very well provide the answer. There is no doubt about it, the 131 is a fabulous model, and it was one of my favourite Dinky Toys when I was growing up, although I could never understand why my father bought the salmon pink version! I would have much preferred the yellow one! I 'procured' a 132 Packard through some means with my neighbour, but it was never really one of those models I liked, probably due to it having lost its windscreen; its absence making the model even wider than it really was. Thanks again for your comments. Regards Bruce

Hi Bruce, the photographic comparison trick was just a visual impression. 'Somewhere, sometime', perhaps on TMT, I made an exact calculation, but I cannot find it at this moment. Kind regards, Jan

A very nice Dinky ! Here are mine : Cheers

janwerner wrote: 'Thanks, Bruce, for the fine contribution. We like more like these! Discussing the Cadillac Eldorado two thoughts always come up with me. First is the colours I don't like (I know, there is no accounting for tastes), second is the too narrow appearance of the model. Nevertheless I have one, in order to avoid an omission in the Dinky collection. On the other hand we have the companion, no. 132 Packard Convertible. I like these colours better, but on the contrary this model's width seems to be too big. I did a little photographic experiment by enlarging the width of the Cadillac and by shrinking the width of the Packard, 5% each. You can see the results below. In addition to Bruce's pictures of the Cadillac I have added a photo of the real Packard below, which I made a few months ago, surprised about the much narrower appearance of this real vehicle. Here they are: (I HAVE DELETED THE PICTURES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FOLLOWING AS THESE CAN BE VIEWED ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS THREAD) Cadillac width plus 5%, Packard width minus 5%, which look much better in relation to reality in my opinion (I have not tried to restore the mutual models' size interrelation, that may deviate a little bit now) . Kind regards, Jan' Hello Jan In regard to dimensions, Meccano actually got it wrong with both cars but more so for the Packard Convertible. It will surprise you to know that the Eldorado was 200mm longer than the Packard, 5608mm (220.8 inches) versus 5408mm (212.8 inches) and was actually 60mm wider than the Packard, 2035mm (80.1 inches) as against 1975mm (77.9 inches). In fact, Meccano got numerous things wrong with their rendition of the Eldorado. The model appears longer and narrower than what the prototype actually is, and this can possibly be attributed to what Meccano used as a guide. If you will note the artists

Hi Bruce, what a huge body of information! Thanks. The promotional pictures are also wonderful and spectacular. Just one (old) photo of my example, which shows the red rear lights. In my opinion both do occur: with and without. Still, I have always had some doubt if these are later embellishments or not. What's your opinion? Kind regards, Jan

Hello Jan My example from my younger days, complete with a fractured windscreen has red tail-lights, and I know I never added these. From what I have learned, one finds many with red tail-lights but more without any embellishment. I am trying to determine if it was a period thing, although I cannot recall exactly when I received mine. I must photograph mine and then post it here. Does your box have any rubber stamps on the inside of the main end flaps? Is the box original or a replacement as it has the yellow end spot. Thank you for your kind words. Most appreciated. Kind regards Bruce