Hi

Nice art work-ups of interesting ideas. The Lincoln version definitely is the most attractive of the group.

In fact, the Lincoln-based rear treatment would have been more attractive than what Lincoln actually built. Sorry to offend those who like those canted blades, but after the elegant, integrated 1956 design, 1957 was a real botch job. And that was after John Najjar toned-down the original direction which had even taller fins!

Steve

Hi

The '28 looks to be a '26 243 7 passenger Touring after comparing details in photos, I base that on the crowned fenders, six lugnuts and squared-off rear door bottom, I yield to those more expert if it's not. That unfortunate '38 Twelve may not be as far gone as it looks. If it is, it's still a valuable parts car to save others.

A couple of desirable Packards, hope they find appreciative conservators.

Steve

P.S. Boy! I'm goin' after that sweet '96 Neon! Truthfully, I had a '96 5-speed to commute in, reliable little car good for 38-40mpg on the four lane!

Hi

Yes, it's a shame one doesn't see more of these 2103 Super Eights, shame they weren't the majority of their sales volume for those postwar years. They were comparable in size, specs and price opposite the bread-'n-butter volume Cadillac 62 that dominated the segment. Unhappily, the 2103's were nearly invisible in a market saturated with Cadillac 62's.

Packard should have pushed the 2103 Super Eights has their standard bearer rather than the Clipper Six and Eight, limiting the juniors availability, much as Buick did to the Special in deference to the larger, more expensive (and profitable) Supers and Roadmasters. For Packard, it could have begun the change in perception of their cars as primarily medium-priced back to that of an exclusively luxury carmaker. If they needed additional justification, utilizing the limited material supply available to build higher unit profit models to sell into a raging seller's market should have been enough.

Steve

Hi Dave

PM sent. Now, I have to think seriously if I can accomodate this nice Patrician at this time. Sometimes, it's just a sweet frustration to search Craigslistings! So many nice Packards, so limited my finances!

Steve

Hi

This '53 Patrician got my attention, sure looks very good for the price:

http://worcester.craigslist.org/cto/3379278395.html

Seller notes it was recently driven on the Henry Joy Tour, anyone know this car or who the owner is? If you have a look at it, I'd be interested to know what condition it's in.

Steve

P.S. I don't care for that visor, would remove it the minute I bought that Patrician!

Hi

I love the Sport Sedan, though it seems more of a club sedan with more verve than the regular production design.

For a sport sedan design that fits the description better, check out the pictures of the '32 904 Sport Sedan by Waterhouse that Owen posted.

If you check my prior posting, you'll see my ideas of the configuration, more coming!

Steve

Hi HH56

I've noted the power window option on every '57 Clipper I've run across for the last 25 years, it's pretty rarely equipage. I parted out one with power windows twenty years ago, sold the set up to another fellow for his car then.

As to the price of the optional power windows, in the SDC Turning Wheels August 1993 article by Fred Fox detailing the 1957 Sedan and Wagon models, the options list gives the following:

"Power windows, 2dr: $54.00"
"Power windows, 4dr: $102.00"

Now, one would think maybe the power windows for two doors applied only to that body, not so. Shortly after reading the article, I ran across a '57 Clipper Town Sedan with power windows on the front doors only! The rear door windows were still crank operated. I thought this was an anomaly, knowing that S-P was desperate for any sale it could get, would build whatever was ordered. However, the more I noted the power window equipped '56-'58 Studebaker and '57-'58 Packard sedans, the more frequent that powered front/manual crank rear showed up. While all four powered windows is the most common of a rare option that powered/manual is out there too!

Steve

Hi

George Mason was a big man that must have loved bourbon and cigars. Seems as if in about half the pictures of him, he has a cigar in hand or smoking one. He looks every bit the part of a portly auto executive of the era.

Anyone else notice the '52 Nash styling is not much more than the prototype Metropolitan design scaled up to a large car size? The story, related by Bob Thomas in his book Confessions of an Automotive Stylist , who worked in Nash Styling at the time, was they had been developing a conventionally-styled prototype for 1952 in competition to the Farina effort. In his words:

"Ed Anderson's styling staff had now grown to about ten people and we were all waiting breathlessly for the Farina car. When it was brought into the studio, we were astounded. It was awful. The model was beautifully crafted but as a complete design it was terrible. From the windshield forward the hood broke downward and took the front fenders with it. The deck from the backlite to the rear did the same thing. The car was in three parts. Diving front and rear ends attached to a straight through body. I must say that the body and greenhouse were good. And, of course, it had the offset below the belt line with the vertical lines.
It was so bad that we put a cover over it and stored it in the corner of the styling studio. Now, we had to come up with proposal of our own."A similar description of events is found in A Century of Automotive Style: 100 Years of American Car Design by Lamm and Holls (required reading by any auto design student of the period, IMHO).

At that point, Styling and top management put the Farina design aside until Mead Moore of Engineering, who butted heads frequently with styling director Ed Anderson, convinced Mason to go with the Farina design or a version thereof. Sounds as if it was a revenge move just to make Anderson and his staff's lives miserable turning it into a crash program as an all-new Nash was scheduled for their 50th anniversary 1952 models.
So, Styling kept the Farina central body section but must have scaled up the Metropolitan front and rear clip configurations to make the overall design....something of a "cut-'n-paste" synthesis. This whole ugly episode resulted in a very late introduction of the 1952 Nashes called Golden Airflytes on March 14, 1952, well into the model year.

See, bizarre corporate machinations weren't just the province of Packard management personalities!

Steve

Hi

Well, take heart, most of the hard work has been already done to restore the car. Now, the next owner can reverse the damage by returning it to it's factory condition.

Darrins have very extroverted styling to start with, but this 'rodification' just pushes that over the knob a bit too far, from lustily appealing to cheap floozy!

Just my uninformed opinion, no need to get one's knickers in twist, as my mother used to say!

Steve

Hi

Somehow, I doubted it was a genuine Darrin. Those custom shops building such cars are all about the bucks, know that at prefectly restored genuine Darrin will always be far more valuable than any bastardized version ever could ever return for the effort. They're not about to lose a dollar just to make some silly point.

Now, how many ersatz Darrins were built by Packard Re-in-car-nation? I recall their advertisements in Hemmings at one time. I've heard or read that not only the convertible victoria but also convertible sedans were built.

Steve