Re: 1952 Patrician - Derham or Henney?

Posted by 58L8134 On 2012/4/24 8:11:34

Hi Dave

Thanks for following up on this interesting custom, it's one of the most intriguing mysteries we've pursued of late. Vertification of the wheelbase and rear door length will be very useful. When you have the chance to photograph it again, try to get good images of the bottom of the rear doors as well since the deterioration might have exposed the lead seams of the mated panels. If the exposed edges are visible, a dimension from the front edge will settle how much as added

If the wheelbase proves to be 149", the frame shows no stretching modification and the body and serial numbers are early 1952, here's some conjecture how this car came to be.

Henney was in negotiations with Packard in early 1952 to add long wheelbase formal sedans and limousines as adjunct to their commercial line. Management sets a 149" wheelbase as an acceptable benchmarked to exceed Cadillac 75's 147" and Chrysler Crown Imperial's 145.5". Richard Arbib is assigned the task of developing various designs, this being one of the possibilities. As parameter, management wanted to utilize as many unmodified factory stampings as possible. He replaces the Patrician front door with the standard 200 Club Sedan unit, gaining 9", covering 136", then adding 13" to the rear Patrician doors. For production, Henney has only to tool inserts for the roof and floorpan, then either set up door stretching operatons or low-volume tooling to do so. All else is standard Patrician fare.
As appealing as this prototype is when finished, it seems to fit neither the bill to compete with the Cadillac 60 Special nor the competing limousines where the preferred configuration sets the rear seat behind the door section, the space for occasional seats being unacceptably cramped in the prototype.

Arbib has also ginned up the other design which utilizes the Junior rear quarters, unique passenger compartment doors, roof and floor inserts, and standard Patrician components B-pillar forward. The configuration is more in line with the market intent so gets the nod for 1953 production.

Thoughts?

Steve