Packard Forum Index » General

Mr. Cooper after reading your article I am afraid that I have to disagree with one major part of your article you wrote in 2004.

What I disagree with you about are your statement about the Packard Grille. The basic Packard grille design was introduced in 1904 with the introduction of the ModeL.
The grille design was borrowed from the French auto maker
Mors. Which I might ad that Mors employed Charles Schmidt
until hired by James Packard in 1902.

The design of the Packard grille wasn't changed in the early years of Packard because it kind of looked like the RR grille. The reason that Packard grille changed over the years is because of the changing Packard body styles and hood designs over the following years after the 1904 introduction.

John F. Shireman

I guess I missed something, who is Mr. Cooper and what article is being discusssed here?

Dave,

He is reffering to this Article:

packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/article/view.article.php?c3/304

I thought it was this guy: Mr. Cooper

With doing some quick research this is the information that I came up with on the the PACKARD PELICAN.

During the early 30's Earle Anthony jokingly said to Packard
executives that they had designed a cormorant instead of a PELIGAN. At Packard referring to the PELIGAN as a cormorant
became an in house jest at Packard. By 1938 Packard's advertising department with out management's ok published an accessory catalog for the 17th series offering a cormorant hood ornament for $10.00.

In 1949 Packard VP Milton Tibbetts issued a memorandum to the executive staff noting that the original designers had intended that the bird be a PELICAN and that is what it should be called. By 1953 everyone at Packard had finally agreed that indeed that it was a PELICAN.

So once again we have a nationally published auto writer that doesn't know what he is talking about. I guess Milton Tibbetts was just one of those person who just didn't like Packard's.

The recent article that was posted in here written by Mr. Cooper and the information he put forth, just isn't worth the paper it was written on.


John F. Shireman

Dan was curtious enough to share his article with us. Nothing wrong with having a different opinion about the subject matter. But let's just make sure we act like gentlemen when we do.

I think John F. Shireman should write a book on all of his Packard knowledge. It would fill shelves. Your contributions to Packardinfo.com have proven very insightful. How about it John?

The heraldic crest of the name Packard includes the pelican so one would assume that the hood ornament would be a representation of that species. The cormorant is a much more elegant looking bird (though no less voracious in its eating habits) however, which made for a more asthetically appealing bird shape. I cannot imagine a more unlikely bird shape than a pelican to sit atop that most elegant of radiators unless it is a penguin. All in all I found the article interesting and a worthwhile read notwithstanding John Shireman's somewhat pedantic critique. With his vast knowledge John should indeed write a book on Packard.

The Adonis Hood Ornament that Mr. Cooper referred to stating that it was only used by Packard for one year in 1931 might be just a bit off the mark.

The credit is given to Edward McCartten as Mr. Cooper stated.

Patent for the Adonis hood ornament was applied for on November 7th, 1928 and the patent was issued on October 8th 1929.

Packard introduced the Adonis hood ornament in 1929 on the Sixth Series Packard and discontinued use of the Adonis hood ornament in December 1932.

John F. Shireman

I appreciate John's help in isolating some additional facts concerning the statements made in my article. I especially appreciate the information on the Adonis use, as I remember being somewhat disbelieving of the notion that a hood ornament of that obvious cost in development, should have been used for only one year. But what research I was able to employ at the time revealed no use outside that one year, so I questioningly qualified my statement as, "apparently" used for only the one year. I do wish John would quote his sources a bit more thoroughly, as this would be appreciated even more than his already helpful remarks.

And as for the name of the hood ornament that has caused so much furor for the marque, it certainly is within the rights and privileges of any and all car companies, to redesign the shape of one bird, better matching a second species, and call it by the name of the former if they so choose. But I certainly agree with Clipper47 on the relative beauty of the two species. A true representation of a pelican sitting on that hood would have been perhaps more of a laughing stock than a compliment to the proud and worthy automaker. (When you mentioned the penguin, Clipper47, I pictured a miniature Danny DeVito in costume, standing out on the hood.)

And again I wish John would be so kind as to quote his sources, as he states that, "By 1953 everyone at Packard had finally agreed that indeed that it was a PELICAN." I can only respond that original intentions aside, the finished product spoke quite loudly for itself. And the name that it shouted out through its unqualified grace and elegance, was not "pelican." Granted, we could all get together in some pub and commit to calling a shaggy mountain goat a racehorse, but that just wouldn't make it so, now would it?

As for the grill shape, I did find a representation of the French make with a similar shape, but only after the article was originally published. What I did not know was the very interesting bit about the employment status of Charles Schmidt, having worked for both companies at the time of the apparent borrowing of the grill shape. That is quite interesting, and I do appreciate that information, John. Really. No, really. A source citation would again be appreciated, though.

And as for my credentials, I have had personal hands-on knowledge of four Packards, including a '52, a '48, a '37 and a 1918 Twin Six. What I really expected on this message board, was a criticism of my remark about the trailing off of overall quality over the years. That response usually comes from owners of late model Packards, who perhaps have less knowledge of those earlier versions, which became the ultimate statement for quality workmanship and elegance, as the best of the best. They truly were just that, exhibiting a level of workmanship the world will never see again.