Packard Forum Index » General

It seems to be a well-known fact that it's a reproduction body. As I said, even Gooding pronounced it in their online auction verbiage. "built for Bill Harrah"

I'm not sure I'd call it a clunker. It looks like a really nice car to me.

Jim Hollingsworth's station wagon is shown in his book on 1940 Packards. There's a photo of his dad standing in front of his 1940 120 SW and a similarly composed photo of Jim standing in front of the 1940 180 SW he put together, I'm guessing from his dad's 120 SW and a 180 chassis.

The Harrah 160 version is beautifully restored and, as a 160 owner, I can tell no expense was spared. I think it's a little misleading for Gooding to say this car was "build for Bill Harrah," as if it were a special ordered car from Packard, and as Harrah himself had shops that could build a Pebble Beach winner from a piece of rusted out frame, and did. He could cast rare pot metal pieces, identification plates, even rare manifolds. I've heard there are some tax and regulation issues that apply to building a new car that don't apply to restoring one, where Mr. Harrah walked the line.

To be honest, this SW should be presented as "Imagine if Packard had built a 160 or 180 SW, here's how it might look, with air conditioning," not "This is an extremely rare car." The station wagons were utility vehicles. Fancy Super 8 leather upholstery wasn't part of that idea. They were made to be practical, thus 110 and 120 engines. And the body builders had to buy a car to start. They would have to build a wood body and resell it at a profit. Would the chassis be a 110 or 120, or a 160 or 180 at twice to three times the price? The video points out how impractical this particular car is, that it's kept in a jewelry box, which, as you know, is not my thing. The wood looks like it has a thick coat of urethane clear on it. I don't think water would bother it.

After spending all that money to create what a 160 SW would look like, the dash is painted in color harmonizing with the leather interior. I know, choosing the colors and interior is a guy's one chance to do interior design. It's so tempting when you think your taste is so much better than Packard's or the trendy colors of decades past that you have to change it. Hard to resist. But as the ladies say, Resist. The dash should be wood-grained. I know, Dutch Darrin changed out dashes, but body builders didn't. It wasn't practical. Just an added unnecessary expense they wouldn't recover. Like air conditioning. Darrin's value add was Jazzy, not Practicality.

I feel for this guy. I want to give him a big hug (not this month or next, however) for buying this car and preserving it meticulously not as a car that Packard ever built, but as one that Bill Harrah created as a museum attraction at his casino. That is still a very worthy goal and researching exactly where and how each part of the car came to be would be well worthwhile and interesting.

Well said, Joe. I also agree that the Gooding text is very misleading.

Quote:

But the owner said more then this.

"...This is how the air conditioning was either put in the trunk or in the back..." -> he said.

I don't disagree that the owner of this car isn't HEAVILY touting this car as authentic. We all know better.

AND that wood looks absolutely ridiculous.

Good afternoon...Just out of curiosity...what do you guys think that a non factory 'Semi-Packard' such as this one is worth? The average person at a car show would not have the slightest idea that this machine is not a true Packard! Ernie in Arizona

Hey Guys, couple of things.. IMO, 'woodys' are an acquired taste. I personally don't care for them as I find they look too 'chunky' (and I'm a wood guy) and there is something about all that wood plastered to the side of a metal car that just looks wrong to me. Having said that, I understand and totally 'get it' that there are folks out there that think they're wonderful. My question(s) are this: that wood looks pretty nice to me, so 'FOR A WOODY' is this not a beautiful job OF the woodwork?? West, you say it looks hideous and Tim is calling it a clunker, yet it's being featured at a Concours d'Elegance and LOOKS pretty flawless in terms of the detailing. It sounds like there are 'issues' with who built it and for whom, but just as a stand-alone '40 Packard, I think it deserves significant credit. One thing I really didn't like was the bare plywood inner door panels; they look cheesy and lacking in detail. Chris

Yeah and that AC unit in the back restricts me from hauling a sheet of plywood.... So I'll pass.

Quote:

The wood looks like plastic because the finish is so thick and has been sanded baby's-bottom smooth. It should look like wood, with grain pattern showing through the varnish. The problem is that it just doesn't look right.

In regard to your comment about wood plastered to the side of a metal body: in this case the body is 100% wood.

Thanks for your reply and comments, West. When I made the remark about 'wood plastered to the side of a metal car' I was referring generically to the average woody out there such as Ford's iteration and others. To me, it just doesn't look right. I did not realize the extent of the wood on the '40 Packard. Chris.