Re: Pre War Service Index Groupings
Posted by BH On 2011/5/22 17:55:04
Brian (BDeB) -
I was trying to think of these in terms of chassis, but it feels odd to be cutting coverage, and so much, within some of the given years rather than between years. This was a great period of transition, and Series designations seem almost useless when looking at chassis. Unfortunately, there are some key parts books that we don't have in our collection, and our Service letter coverage starts to fall off, again, prior to 1938, which might help complete the picture.
So, I turned again to the Buyer's Guide.
Langworth notes that the Twelves were completely redesigned for 1937. Further reading in the chapter on Senior Eights showed that the Super Eights were as well that year, but except for the 120, the rest of the Eights ended with 1936. Then, the Super Eight was redesigned, again, for 1939, but Langworth goes on to state that they may have been too close to the Juniors. All that seems to explain why the Super Eights are covered Twelves, starting in 1937, but then covered with the 1935-41 Juniors, starting in 1939, and 1942 non-Clippers.
Yet, just as I began to think that this was gonna bring us back to following the parts books, I had an idea. As compelling as it is to cover all Twelves as a single group,
what if we treated 1932-36 Eights (except for the 120) and 1932-36 Twelves as "1932-36 Seniors" and all 1937-39 Twelves and 1937-38 Super Eights as "1937-39 Seniors"?
Meanwhile, though designated as Ninth Series, Langworth indicates that the Light Eight (900) was wrought from 6th-8th Series Eights. So perhaps the Light Eight can be covered with Eights, as Owen_Dyneto previously suggested, but with the earlier Eights,
Taking all that into account, together with your support for separate coverage of the 1939-42 Super Eights and JW's suggestion for separate coverage of the 1935-37 Juniors, consider the graphic, attached below.
Thoughts? Anyone?
Attach file:
(44.59 KB)
I was trying to think of these in terms of chassis, but it feels odd to be cutting coverage, and so much, within some of the given years rather than between years. This was a great period of transition, and Series designations seem almost useless when looking at chassis. Unfortunately, there are some key parts books that we don't have in our collection, and our Service letter coverage starts to fall off, again, prior to 1938, which might help complete the picture.
So, I turned again to the Buyer's Guide.
Langworth notes that the Twelves were completely redesigned for 1937. Further reading in the chapter on Senior Eights showed that the Super Eights were as well that year, but except for the 120, the rest of the Eights ended with 1936. Then, the Super Eight was redesigned, again, for 1939, but Langworth goes on to state that they may have been too close to the Juniors. All that seems to explain why the Super Eights are covered Twelves, starting in 1937, but then covered with the 1935-41 Juniors, starting in 1939, and 1942 non-Clippers.
Yet, just as I began to think that this was gonna bring us back to following the parts books, I had an idea. As compelling as it is to cover all Twelves as a single group,
what if we treated 1932-36 Eights (except for the 120) and 1932-36 Twelves as "1932-36 Seniors" and all 1937-39 Twelves and 1937-38 Super Eights as "1937-39 Seniors"?
Meanwhile, though designated as Ninth Series, Langworth indicates that the Light Eight (900) was wrought from 6th-8th Series Eights. So perhaps the Light Eight can be covered with Eights, as Owen_Dyneto previously suggested, but with the earlier Eights,
Taking all that into account, together with your support for separate coverage of the 1939-42 Super Eights and JW's suggestion for separate coverage of the 1935-37 Juniors, consider the graphic, attached below.
Thoughts? Anyone?
Attach file:
(44.59 KB)
This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=77366