Packard Forum Index » Pre-War (1899-1942)

Good points made in both the above posts. To use the explanation of no known history or photos of a specific car could be a valid one however this would seem to be a once in a century/ lifetime occurance. It seems to me a correct restoration should replicate the particular vehicle as it came new from the factory. To take a car of known history and add all options available , plus one off color combos and special features it should be disclosed as such. Is this done to bolster the importance of the car or its value? This would serve to devalue the cars truly delivered this way.
That being said , I am also ok with less rare examples over restored or done to taste so long as the car is not misrepresented someone in a sale.

My interest is to keep this discussion friendly and informative to all involved. I live this sh..uh, stuff, every day. My perspective and personal challenge is to make everything I do as authentic as possible. Has anyone ever seen an original car with a cut and polished frame? Yeah, neither have I. Ever notice that the pick marks from the metal finishers were still visible under the fenders? Not hateful divots, just little marks from their hammer and dolly work. Ever seen fingerprints on the back of garnish moldings? Such stuff intrigues me to no end, and in moderation can go a long way toward the mindset of the company and it's employees. As to rare or once-in-a-lifetime finds of cars restored with little known history? Actually the bulk of my experience. More these days with cars done in the 70s and families who don't get that the amateur photography can be just as important as the car's title. I've had the pleasure, and perhaps privilege, of watching this craft mature and get amazingly accurate. There's still that "thing" from decades past where frames are polished and modern leathers are used, late model pearl and firemist type paints, and to me those cars stand out like elementary school erections, and should be just as embarrassing but they never seem to be. At the end of the day, again from my perspective, it's the client that makes the final decision. Once I present how it should be and the information to back that up, well then professionally I'm out of the loop if they pick leather from a 2003 Cadillac and a color from a late model Toyota. As to considering that certain changes add value, today's buyer says no. Wrong paint can cost in excess of $20K to make right on a classic Packard. Then there's the thought that if they had no respect for the car's pedigree or street cred then where else was it "cheaped out"? I prefer to add value by being sincere to a car's roots, by using the same discipline and craftsmanship that the original builders did. My "skin in the game"? It has to show when someone walks up to see the car without ever lifting the hood or opening a door. Like many things, you know it when you see it, but I'll let you in on a big secret too. It's CHEAPER to do it right the 1st time and it lasts longer. Added value? That's what I'm talkin about. This has been quite a topic, but I apologize if some of these thoughts derailed it some. Our favored marque was selling some of finest cars ever produced while many were standing in bread lines or wondering where their next dollar was going come from. Logic would clearly dictate, that within reason and period availability, they would cater to the odd taste or specified desire to get the job done, especially when you consider that you could buy 4 Ford Tudors for the cost of an 1100 sedan. Maybe only 3 if you optioned those Tudors to the max, but you get the idea...

These photos were submitted to me by email to post here in support of this discussion.

Additionally, whether correct or not I have seen a Harrah-restored 36 Super Eight convertible with the optional "chassis in color" (red) and the rings and background around the Packard Super Eight lettering on the caps were both the same red as the chassis. Of course as it was a restored car that says nothing about originality.

I've also seen one Twelve with black cloisonn? and no lettering on a car I believe was unmolested.

Attach file:

---

  (89.49 KB)


  (160.97 KB)


  (34.75 KB)

I'm on the road out west right now and enjoying the fine roads outside of Michigan. Running 85-90 with bursts to 100 mph for passing. Texas just voted more money for even better roads.

Anyway, I have the same pictures David posted of the Rollston Town Car. But that is a black out car.

I've seen lot's of original 32-34 twelve cylinder cars with plated radiator shells and lots of eight cylinder cars with the popular plated shell and shutters option. Most of those are being painted over. But I have never seen an original 32-34 eight cylinder car (with the exception of a Waterhouse car) with a painted shell and plated shutters. The closest thing I've seen is in the accessory catalogue which is an air brush job.

As for the hubcaps, if somebody has Automobile Quarterly Volume 1, number 4; there is a color picture of Paul Lamb's original 34 Su8 in it. I lost my copy, but if his hubcaps were gray then I will shut up. I'm willing to concede the two recessed ribs may have been painted fender color because that paint is so often missing, while earlier cars with original hubcaps have black.

So find me some pictures and you win. But by golly I don't have any.

The two top pictures David posted seem to support painted rings, but the third picture looks like someone did that with a brush. There appears to be paint on some of the letters. The second photo also has what looks like stray brush marks on the ribs.

The rings and background of the lettering on Paul Lamb's '34 Super Eight were black at the time it was photographed for the AQ issue.

"The two top pictures David posted seem to support painted rings, but the third picture looks like someone did that with a brush. There appears to be paint on some of the letters. The second photo also has what looks like stray brush mark on these ribs."

Your statement about the brush marking goes with my theory that the PIN STRIPER was the one who painted the caps and this could b why u c hubcap on some light colored cars that have vendor black paint.
STRIPER was not busy they painted the caps.
STRIPER was busy they did not paint the caps.
BUT IVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE

BTW: Cars ive seen with the caps painted also have the luggage rack emblem painted - also called out in the parts book to Spec Color

I think it's great that David found the Automobile Quarterly picture of Paul Lamb's 34 Su 8.

The picture was taken over 50 years ago in either Kodachrome, Ektachrome, or Kodacolor.

For the record, Paul bought the car new in 1935. It was his third or fourth new Packard and it was so good he kept the car as his family jewel. It was a convertible victoria with a Dietrich body plate and was never restored, repainted, or whatever. It also had a darker than normal shade of green paint on the motor which I have seen on the shelf N.O.S. senior Packard parts with the same color. So variations of Packard green did exist as Turnquist said. However, there were better preserved cars out there to use as sources and I don't call into question the present popular Packard paints.

So the issue is, why would Packard be putting special paint on its cheapest models like phaetons and not on a Dietrich bodied victoria?

As well, where are the specifications for this stuff?

I know there are exceptions. For example, chrome shell and shutters was a popular option on both eights and twelves and I have never seen any written sales material documenting that. But the photographic record is clear and I have seen lot's of original cars with that option. Including a sedan Paul Lamb had that was beautiful original.

I've seen lot's of Twelves with original plated shells that were destroyed when the paint shop took a grinder to them as well.

Paul also had a 34 Su8 business sedan with front door panels trimmed in leather and that was original. I have seen that option on a 42 Packard Formal Sedan where the rear door panels were trimmed in leather. So I suppose people can go ahead and put cloth door panels on a phaeton and call it original.

I know for a fact that some of this stuff is being made up.

No real undisputable evidence but it would appear than the green engine enamel used by Packard 1934 and earlier was a bit darker than what they used later.

Paul Lamb's 1101 by Bridgeport is also worthy of mention, not a chassis sale but converted by Bridgeport from an 1101 coupe as I recall; it's now in the Marano collection. "Ace" type wire spoke wheel covers are an uncommon touch though they are illustrated in the 1934 Eight catalog, though they were not on the car when Paul owned it. Photo by this writer.

Attach file:

---

  (37.48 KB)

SO BACK TO THE CLOIS COLOR

Found this KODACHROME photo
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S4JLCpsxT4k/VB4PQ8ssK1I/AAAAAAADW7s/46tjN5noHU4/s1600/1934%2BPackard%2BTwelve%2BAll-Weather%2BTown%2BCar%2Bwith%2Bcustom%2Bcoachwork%2Bby%2BRollston.jpg
of a ROLLSTON that shows Black Clois Emblems

This B&W i believe shows Black also
http://41.media.tumblr.com/8b9ff61527911fb0355fac80ef919fdb/tumblr_npcokcaqgv1rez27qo1_1280.jpg

So was this ROLLSTONs trade mark?

I've never found any definitive evidence to invalidate Turnquist's assertion that Packard green varied except to say that after the 120 was introduced the material became more uniform.

The senior cars always seem to be less uniform.

There are a few of super low mileage cars floating around out there and perhaps there are color photos somewhere of the motors because three of them are in Turnquist's book. Those pictures were taken before the paint was being reproduced. That is to say those pictures would be over 50 years old and prior to any historical fabrications.

One thing to know for anybody painting a motor is that the results vary depending on the primer being used. Using a dark primer will yield a darker result. The enamel seems very responsive to the base.

If the people waging these engine paint wars would take a look at some of these other issues maybe they wouldn't exist. Engine paint is a lot les destructive than taking a grinder to a radiator shell.