Packard Forum Index » Post-War (1946-54)

what condition was the Mass. car in? did either car have the front metal town car front cover? I think I may know of who has one of these covers

Hi

I've wondered how those Monte Carlos were structured. Did Packard mount a Mayfair hardtop body on the convertible chassis to ensure rigidity? It would seem they might have done better to ship convertibles without the top mechanisms, mountings and narrowed seat structures but included a couple top shells and ancillary parts for Henney to modify and mount. Perhaps even the convertible top header and forward roof rails for the foreward canopy.

We'll keep our eyes out for a good Mayfair donor for the second unrestored car.

Steve

Quote:

There is no "additional insight" here that was not already published in the Spring, 1984 edition of The Packard Cormorant magazine. If we're going to credit "additional insight" then let's place the credit where the credit is really due: The Packard Club and The Packard Cormorant magazine.

All of the Panther information on the site linked came from me (whether it is directly acknowledged or not-and yes, got the emails). The site knows where it came from, even if it does not always say so. But this information was first published in TPC in 1984. This was the first time ever that anyone stood up and said exactly how many Panthers were built, who built them, when and where. And how they were modified and where. I would know since a friend of mine did the actual work.

And the original (and really only) history of Creative Industries was also written by yours truly and that appeared in the December, 1978 issue of Car Classics magazine which was widely distributed on news stands and via subscriptions back then. So this is not new information, nor was it ever hard to get. One can go back and read the original genuine articles... or you can read 2nd, 3rd, 4th-party re-hashes of that information that was already published 30+ years ago, but don't credit the source. It is frustrating to see one's hard work simply used by another with no acknowledgement or credit and then making it seem as though it came from the 3rd, 4th, 5th guy down the line when the originator (or at least the original published pieces that revealed this history in the first place) are not even mentioned!

The original published items included (among other things):

? Creative's involvement with the Panthers and the Request,
? How many Panthers were built and who built them
? How the 1955 tail lights ended up on two Panthers
? Creative's work on the Predictor

And for those musing about the original name of the Predictor, it was not "Projector" (which was only considered momentarily)... it was "Javelin"... yes-Javelin. Again, this information too has already been published in The Packard Cormorant Magazine in the history of the Predictor.

The site linked should place quotes and give credit for the Panther history inside story and other info listed, but it does not always do that-making it seem as if the info came from them. It didn't. This is all stuff that was published long before the internet, but yet gets repeated today on the internet as if it is a new discovery. It may seem to be new... but it just seems that way.

RE: the Monte Carlos... there was more than one version of the first Monte Carlo (based on late 1940s body). And the stage II Monte Carlos of the 1950s were Q&D jobs with nowhere near the engineering one might imagine. The question is, I knew of only two stage II Monte Carlos originally. But somehow there seem to be more than two of these around today...

Leeedy -

I can appreciate your frustration, but if you have a problem with not being credited for your contribution, I suggest that you take it up with the source that I cited - over five years ago - and keep working your way right down the line.

The photograph looks as if it would be out of place among the Monte Carlo's but the own dynamic of discussion in this thread mades to find this 22nd series Phantom version here. According to its source the photo was taken around a carshow in Paris 1947. Take note of the rather unconventional knobs to open doors and hood, well, to be conventional isn't the function of experimental cars. LIFE called the grille "mouth organ" and I'm well advised to withhold how I would call the roof.



[source: LIFE]

Attach file:

---

  (31.58 KB)

Hi Guscha

Those door release pushbuttons are the same ones used on '41-'48 Lincoln Continental coupes and cabriolets as well as '42 Lincoln Zephyr and '46-'48 Lincoln standard models. They look nice but functionally leave something to be desired. Any Continental you see has fingerprints on the paint from the door being pushed shut. Pretty hard to do without a handle to grab.

The Phantom's top configuration, with its removable forward canopy but stationary rear roof is called a coupe de ville. The style found more currency in Europe in the pre-war period with high-end coachbuilders. A variation was the three-position convertible victoria: 1)fully closed, 2)folded open over only the driver's compartment, and 3) fully open.

Beginning with Cadillac's introduction of the hardtop convertible, its Coupe de Ville, the term took on the meaning of simply a B-pillarless two door coupe or four door sedan with half-door construction.....at least for Cadillac. Cadillac utilized the term to its marketing maximum throughout the 1950's and 1960's.

Steve

Steve, thanks for the detailed explanation. I used Continental pics to illustrate the issue being presentend. With the grandios Mark II, Ford went back to the conventional door handle.
As to the roof, I'm unable to apreciate the look. In my opinion the roof looks incongruous in itself (to me a real imposition) as well as in the context of the car body. The very same door, the new body design opens, is closed by the roof designer. The body design looks forward to the streamline era, the roof design looks backwards to the carriages.
Sorry to those who like the roof design, no offense meant. Steve, thanks for shining a light on its historical context.



[image source: ebay: item number 111136150020]

Attach file:

---

  (12.69 KB)

Hi Guscha

Incongruity of the roof design truly is a stylistic mismatch. As you've probably known, Macauley's Phantom started life as a '41 Darrin fitted with the coupe de ville roof in place of the folding cabriolet top. It was wonderfully elegant in that form.

But, it became the armature on which future styling explorations were tried, leading to the 22nd-23rd Series production styling. The top was only area left untouched, looks very out of context in its final version.

Personally, I wish Ed Macauley had kept the Darrin unmodified, picked a 20th Series Clipper Super two door off the assembly line, worked their styling "magic" on it.

Steve

Steve, thanks for providing a deeper understanding.



sources
pic #1 - ModelInfo
pic #2 - freeshopmanual.com
Click to enlarge!

Attach file:

---

  (87.70 KB)

There is a lot of info about the Phantom being used as a styling mule in Neal's 48-50 Packard book, which I am reading now as I just got it for Christmas. Many pictures and descriptions, pretty interesting.