Talk:Buick Invicta

Stude62- your sources are in error. Buick Motor Division records, [i]Buick, The Complete Story[/i] and the [i]Standard Catalog of Cars[/i] will confirm: there was no Invicta wagon for '64- the last year is '63. Take it from a 15-yr Invicta owner. Likewise- there is absolutely no evidence or suggestion that Buick took the Invicta name from the long-defunct british marque. Other text is completely unfounded & conjecture. "public's inability to find meaning in the Invicta brand"- what is your source???? The Invicta was a trim, equipment & nameplate variation of the LeSabre, not a unique model line. The sales issue is largely immaterial and out of context with the fact that Buick's entire line was down in sales from the peak years of the Century: '54-56. The text as you have written it unfairly casts dispersions upon the Invicta. "Failure" is another subjective & unfounded allegation- the '62 Wildcat could have easily been an "Invicta" and done just as well. It was Buick's decision to change the nameplate, not the market's.

I also see no reason to have omitted mention of the Invictya Custom package- a nice, factual tie-in between the Invicta & Wildcat lines.

I await your resonse, pending re-correction.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by WQ59B (talk • contribs)

First and foremost, I amend my previous correction, you are correct that the final Invicta was a 1963 wagon, and for that, I apologize; I have been on the road, editing from West Virginia, and didn't have my resources available.

My source on the public's inability to find meaning in the Invicta (latin for unconquerable) name comes from three articles in Collectible Automobile, Wildcat, December 1988, 1961-1964 Buick full-size line, June 1998, and the most recent which was published April 2006. I also have access to internal Buick memos that discuss how private dealer polling of potential automobile buyers (1961) demonstrated that consumers were unsure of what the line offered that a fully loaded LeSabre couldn't. The name simply didn't resonate in the market place. Given the number of Buick dealers nationally, and all thing equal in 1961 (the second worst year for Invicta sales), each dealership only sold a few Invicta's per month compared to the number of LeSabre's and Electra's that each dealer moved off the lots. For example, Bucik sold Two Le Sabre 4-dr Hardtops for every Invicta 4-dr hardtop; Electras (both series) sold 10,000 more units total than the Invicta, and this is considering that 1961 wasn't a bumper year for auto sales.

The simple fact is that by 1962, Invicta's best production year ever, sales accounted for only 14% of total Buick output, decidedly lower than either the Electra (both standard and 225 lines) or the LeSabre. ::Furthermore, Buick had every opportunity not to use the Wildcat name when it rolled out the its bucket seat concept performance car - they could have called it an Invicta. But they desginated the model a Wilcat, placed it in the Invicta line up and after selling just 2,000 Wildcat's broke it out as its own series, while stripping the Invicta of everything but its low selling wagon, which in its final year sold just 3,400 units. The Invicta didn't fail because it was a poorly built car, it failed for the same reason that the Pontiac Ventura failed (and was replaced by the Pontiac Grand Prix, just as the Invicta was replaced by the Wildcat) - it was a car that was stuck in the middle of the marketing scheme that simply didn't offer anything that buyers couldn't get through a fully optioned lower line model.

As for your opinion that Invicta Custom should be included, by all means add it. However your implcation that its absense is in some way intentional, I can assure you that it is not.

Finally, please sign your talk page requests by typing four tildas ~~~~. This helps to stamp your signature and date of your post. Stude62 16:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

>> The CA pieces still take the Invicta's low sales penetration relative to the rest of the Buick line out of context with overall market trends. The wording places the blame on an implied deficiency of the Invicta itself, meanwhile Edsel, DeSoto and the entire medium-priced market contracted heavily from '58-61.

While the '62 Invicta had it's best sales totals and it's worst percentage, note that the '63 Wildcats' sales were lower still in percentage (12%). Surely this does not also imply a 'failure'? The '57 Century was only at 16% of Buick sales, '58 was 20%, '59: 19%, '60: 17%, '61: 15%.... sure, it's a minor decrease over time since '58 but in line with where the series (Century/Invicta) ALWAYS was in the Buick lineup- snagging the 15-20% who wanted something more than a LeSabre. If the Invicta is to be regarded as a "failure" based merely on sales percentages, the Century should be also... not to mention it's run (this generation) was even shorter: '54-58. Also, '62 was the first year one could get the 401 in a LeSabre, truely removing the one major draw the Invicta had over the LeSabre. The polled '61 buyers surely should've been aware of this.

I object to the wording (esp: "failure")- the 'big picture' does not support the opinion and the passage could be much better written.

RE the Invicta Custom- the allegation was not that it's absense was intentional, but that it's removal was.

'62 Wildcat production was -according to internal BMD memos- 1,116 units.

Finally and again- the series' name has never been documented by Buick as having been inspired by the defunct British marque, and without such, the allegation is conjecture. It needs to be stricken. 4.250.150.131 02:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)User:WQ59B, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia's formatting guidelines - I find your paragraph darting difficult to read. Secondly, I never made the assertaion behind the Invicta name relating to anything. If you feel it needs to be corrected, then you are welcome to do so. As for the text in the article that the Invicta wasn't popular with buyers, you can disagree with me all you like, but the series name, aside from the one year revival of the Limited, was one of the shortest on record at Buick, to date, period. The simple fact is, consumers didn't buy it - had they made it wildly popular, then who is to say that Buick wouldn't have discontinued it. But consumers didn't buy enough Invicta's for Buick to see merit in continuing the package, and thats a historical fact. Do I think that the nameplate failed? Most certainly - Buick reused several model names, (Skylark, Century, Limited, etc.) but never Invicta, and history bears that out as fact. Stude62 03:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Further addressing the issue of Invicta sales, BMD factory records reveal the following vs. the other full-size Buick series:

Average sales penetration of Century ('54-58): 18.4% Average sales penetration of Invicta ('59-62): 18.6% Average sales penetration of Wildcat ('63-70): 18.8% Average sales penetration of Centurion ('71-73): 8.8%

Invicta's peak percentage of 22.8% exceeded the Century's best year of 21.6%. Only the '64 Wildcat exceeded the Invicta's best year with a 29.2% sales slice. Whatever the LeSabre or Electra were doing comparitively is immaterial.

Again; the Invicta's sales were right in line with the entire 'middle/performance' slot in Buick's full-size lines from '54-70; a figurative tie with the Century & Wildcat. By the way; the above figures do not include either the A-body or the Riviera. And if any nameplate "failed", it was the Centurion- only 3 model years vs. the Invicta's 5.

In light of this data, and taking into account that neither the 2nd gen Century nor the Centurion entries feature sales-related commentary, I am again editing the Invicta entry to omit the negative overtones regarding what is in fact it's excellent... or at least expected... sales performance.

I will check into wikipedia's formatting guidelines. -- WQ59B WQ59B 01:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be fixated on the success or failure of the Invicta. That isn't the point, the point is that verifiable information needs to be included in the article. The simple facts is that the series lasted from 1959 to 1962; 1963 for the station wagon. Including rumors about the reuse of the name Invicta can't be verified unless you provide a source that can be verified. Wikipedia doesn't deal with rumor, unless its qualified as an "unverified rumor". Speculation, can not be included in the article either because it is POV. Stude62 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am fixated on fact over unsupported editorializing. Previous entries included multiple POV references to the Invicta's sales performance ("failure of the nameplate", 'sealed fate', "public's inability to find meaning in the Invicta brand", etc) but the factual numbers do NOT support that subjectivity. If consistancy is not observed, the information then unquestionably BECOMES a point. The Century, Invicta and Wildcat series all sold at near identical percentages relative to the rest of the line: FACT. Either all 3 are "failures" or they're not. Calling only one of the 3 a "failure" is POV and comes off as speculative ("inability to find meaning ..."), regardless of an opinion poll. Even labeling the the Century, Wildcat and especially the Centurion --all slotted in the same spot in the Buick catalog-- as "failures" ignores the fact that these models all performed at a certain level over 2 decades- what the market would bear from Buick in that price range. Undoubtedly, the 186,xxx Invicta buyers 'found meaning in the brand'. Yes; the Invicta lasted 5 years; the Centurion lasted 3, so did 'Electra' ('59-61). It doesn't prove anything, but consumer acceptance relative to history does. Yes; Invicta sales were down heavily vs. the Century & Wildcat, but so were sales of the rest of Buick's models during this period. Relativity is key here.

I did not address nor re-include the future possible use of the Invicta name, but thanks for the reminder. WQ59B 12:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I see your point. But I do have to ask you, in future conversations, please keep your dicussion paragragraphs aligned. Its very diffcult to know where your comments start and end where you shift about as you do. For example, in the post above, your comments are made on two different levels. The paragraph beginning with I am fixated starts flush left, while the second paragraph starts follow a double indentation. This makes the posting look like two seperate comments, one from you, and another by an unsigned user. Generally the protocol is that the first to start the conversation starts at flush left, other parts of the conversation indent until such a point that the move back to the left makes sense. Again this helps other readers know what is your comment and what applies to others. Stude62 13:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)