Packard Forum Index » General

O_D, you are to be complimented on the work you are doing on the identification numbers. Please remind me what the column titled "Ranges as a % of Total Production" is telling me. Thanks

(o{}o)

Thanks JW, I appreciate it. It's beginning to seem like this work is going to be my lifetime contribution to trying to unravel a bit of Packard history. First just let me note a clerical error in the chart - the latest-known 1954 numbers should of course be enclosed by the brackets.

The %-age column is obtained by taking the total number of body dash numbers (highest minus the lowest) and dividing by the number of cars produced in that year. If customer demand and production were as predictable as sunrise and sunset we might expect the total to always be about 100%. Those cases where it over 100% make for some interesting study. First of course it could be from someone mis-reading a number but I've tried to eliminate that by asking for confirmation or photos of seemingly spurious numbers. In many cases of a total of over 100%, the explanation appears apparent when looking at the raw data; most often it would appear that blocks of numbers were set aside for some specific model (for example, for RHD cars) but not all of those bodies or cars were built and thus a portion of a block of numbers were set aside but ultimately not used. In another case, 1939, it results in part from leftover 1938 Twelve bodies being finished as 1939 cars. In the case of 1934 it's a really odd reason - a single vehicle - a 1934 Eight RHD phaeton (and # 1001 at that) built at the Canadian plant but with a body dash number in the early part of the 1935 range and far higher than the next highest-known 1934 number - if only walls could talk!

1932 is among the most interesting to analyze. We know the Light Eight and the Twin Six were introduced first, the Deluxe and Custom being introduced a bit later. And sure enough the first very large block of #s is for the Light Eight. And although the Light Eight didn't sell as well as Packard's expectations they must have outsold the first block of numbers as until just recently, there was a second block of Light Eights which were then the highest-known numbers. Again, not illogical. But just recently I received data of 5 1932 Twin Sixes by Dietrich and they have now become the highest known 1932 numbers - I find it kind of curious that they'd be dead last.

1940 is another curious year, for about the first half of the year the cars had no thief-proof numbers; most had the end brackets with nothing between, some didn't even have the brackets.

Lots more interesting tidbits - depending on what questions might come up I'll try more explanation. Incidently, did you have the opportunity to read the two published articles in TPC - I thought the attempts to present some data graphically was interesting and I may do more of it.

O_D, thanks for that most comprehensive explanation. I now recall from reading the articles that you covered this topic. I thought the graphing you did in the article was most illustrative and the clustering made your observations more clear. When do you think you will do a follow-on article? One tidbit, the note at the bottom of the table - should it not read 'change' instead of 'chance'?

(o{}o)

When do you think you will do a follow-on article? One tidbit, the note at the bottom of the table - should it not read 'change' instead of 'chance'?


JW, I'd like to have a couple of "eurekas" or at least several interesting hypothesis to make an updated publication interesting - I'm not there yet so at the moment it's just keep collecting data and seeing what it tells us. Thanks for noting the typo, I'll correct it.

Correcting typos and a modest update to the chart originally shown in post #40.

Attach file:

---

  (102.36 KB)

OD,
Do you have this one?
ebay.com/itm/Packard-dash-1936-35-37-/26 ... Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr

So my '55 400 is still an odd ball given its out of sequence thief proof number!! Why me ?

Kevin, you're not quite alone, there are three others like yours that are entirely out of sequence, 222509, 222593 and 223446. Also one 1955 400 which is completely blank. Curiosities indeed - I wonder if an explanation will ever surface.

Owen - Here is the info from my 1948 Deluxe Touring Sedan - Serial number 2262-3445 , Thief-proof number 749076 , Briggs number 2262-3425. I will get the motor number later if you want it - Thanks for your work -

Thanks John. The motor number would be welcome additional information as long as you believe the motor is original to the car.