Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

IMHO I agree that the grille is hideous on this one. I do like the lights on the bumper bullets though- very cool, Kennedy-limo reminiscent.

George Hamlin wrote a lot about the postwar cars, but I find it strange that nobody ever noticed that Bill Mitchell borrowed the 55-56 styling cues for his popular Chevrolets. The 62-69 Chevrolet models, and the Buick Riviera all borrowed heavily from Teague's reverse slant front end. Of course Mitchell made up some cock and bull story about being bitten by a shark.

Quote:

Agreed. The horizontal '56 Clipper grille was simply an attempt to give a "wider" look and also to make an obvious model-year change in the tradition of detroit--change the grille and the taillights every year so they'll look "new."

The '55 Clipper had the best use of "cues" of any of the last generation of real Packards, including the seniors. I'd be very surprised if Teague did less than 90% of the final designs on all the '55s, and indisputably 100% of the Easter Weekend Surprise Cathedral taillight.

If someone wants to point me toward some real evidence otherwise, I'd be happy to see what they've got.

It's known that Creative Industries did work for Packard to meet special orders, and even signed some of their work (inside specially covered door panels, for instance). So what? That doesn't mean they created any of the designs.

Tim,

The '63-65 Riviera "clamshell" corner lamps and later headlamp covers were a styling cue picked up from the LaSalle. Reason being, Mitchell didn't know at first whether Buick or Cadillac was going to get the slick new body. Thank goodness Buick got it, but the clamshells were a very distinctive carryover for whatever reason!

Who said Creative Industries designed the cathedral tail lights instead of Richard Teague (whom I new)??? Where and who said that?

In fact, there were two churches in Michigan that inspired Dick Teague on the cathedral tail light. One of them is clearly visible today from a major highway... and you can easily see the Packard cathedral tail light right there.

As for what Creative did, sorry, but had it not been for them, The Request would not have existed... nor would the Panthers... nor would the Predictor have been able to make the auto show circuit (they repaired it-more than once- and maintained it). And Creative most certainly DID hand-construct the original cathedral tail lights in The Request... this is a fact. Constructing them is not designing them, although I am certain that Creative helped in refining the lens for production. I won't even mention their involvement in the Caribbeans and the 1957 "Black Bess" prototype. The "so what" part of Creative Industries is the fact that they were very important to Packard Motor Car Company during its existence in the 1950s. They did a lot more for Packard than anyone knows today.

Leeedy, those of us who were at the PAC National in Gettysburg last year were fortunate to have ample opportunities to examine the Request in detail. Indeed the differences between the production tail lamps and those on the Request, in terms of the castings and lenses, though minor, was quite apparent.

Yes, The Request cathedral tail lights are certainly different from production Packard units-or at least where when the car was built.

In fact, it was the hand-making of these lights that determined the actual placement of the production tail light's internally-mounted reflector which was based on an existing (at that time) bicycle reflector...Stimsonite #15 and #16. This reflector was turned sideways and electro-tacked inside the red plastic production lens (take a good look next time you see one loose). The fresneling in the red plastic Packard lens was relieved in the area where the Stimsonite reflector was mounted. Of course, this has nothing to do with the other reflector which was the hex-shaped unit mounted on the exterior casting of the 1956 models. Another story.

Anyway, I know The Request very, very well...ever since the car was new. I had friends who actually worked at Creative building this car. I used to see it up close and personal ever since it was built. So this stuff I am very certain about.

And as I said earlier, I also knew the gentlemen who did the first restoration on the car in Washington. I even helped them with some parts for the car when it was first being re-done. This was in the 1970s and I certainly have photos of me sitting in the car and standing with it taken back then.

I used to get into dispute sessions back in the 1960s and early 1970s with writers and books and others all of whom swore this car was destroyed by Packard. No idea where they got this idea, But I saw it at the LaSalle Hotel in the 1960s in Chicago. That fact alone made it impossible that Packard had it destroyed. The company itself was already long gone by the time I saw the car in Chicago. So PMCC destroying The Request would have been a neat trick-requiring a time machine. But it took several years until the car turned up in the Pacific Northwest before anyone would believe me.

Anyway, The Request is in good hands now and looked great the last when I saw it a few months ago.

The cathedral taillight lenses are unique in that the red reflections are also displayed all around the die-cast chrome of the taillight. It is a spectacular taillight and its visibility reminds me of a fresnel lens. Brilliant!

Quote:

I sure never did. Never saw this mentioned anywhere until you brought it up. What are you basing this question on? Is there a quote or misquote somewhere on this thread?

Here is what I based my comment on, in addition to the one in my earlier post:

Quote:

I'm just contending the Teague is the major figure in the styling of these cars, just as he was practically the sole figure in designing the (original, production) "cathedral" tail lights. Did he ever indicate otherwise when you new [sic] him?

I don't want to get off on the wrong foot, here, perhaps there is just some misunderstood communication. There are, of course, all kinds of people involved in what comes out of a styling department. I didn't mean to slam Creative Industries' work for Packard. My point was just that their involvement was in producing items, and I thought you indicated that their involvement somehow bolstered your opinion that Teague did not have final control of design.

People have often asked why I don't contribute more to these "forums"... here's the very reason why I don't. I have not posted in years. And will stop again right here and now. There is always a website weisenheimer or a bearing bully who'd rather pick senseless, pointless fights and hurl testosterone than choose to learn anything.