Packard Forum Index » General

John, I don't think PAC or PI did any research - they just printed the list that PMCC published. When they print the color charts or interior options they haven't done any research either. They just publish what PMCC stated. So if what you are trying to contradict is that data, you need to disprove what PMCC did, not what either of those clubs did.

John, I'm not doubting your ability nor your research--you have spent a lot of quality time in those volumes and I'm impressed with the depth of your knowledge. My post was merely a warning that there is always someone out there who likes to play "I know more than you do" and will argue how many automotive angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I'm not doubting your work in the slightest.

I suspect Randy may be right. I'd wager PMCC had a PR dept that is every bit as adept at spinning facts as todays are. There was probably one little something they did that would allow them to be first at something related to the piston and therefore make the claim.

A close parallel in my own profession is large company A which used to be absolute leading edge. Their large checkbook now allows them to buy or license technology from others and put their name on it. PR spins that little fact into "Large company A is at the forefront of development" and in a few years, Large company will be remembered for inventing such and such, not for buying it.

Same thing happens with distillers and brewers. Some modern multinational conglomerate buys up single malt distillery in Scotland or a brewer in Germany and instantly can advertise they have been in business for 300 years! Th Hudson's Bay Company which I worked for always had a banner stating "Incorporated May 2, 1670" The company is now owned by a businessman entrepreneur in Georgia and doubtlessly the same banner is used in advertising.

Randy & HH56:

The Packards List wasn't composed by any PR man hired by PMCC. The list compiled in an article written by a Roger T.
White some distant relation to G.L. Weiss an early employee of Packard and major share holder at one time.

The fellow when it comes to the Packard First list that he compiled did not know if his A$$$$ was punched or bored when it comes to automotive history.

Some other comments coming later

John F. Shireman

John, was he just gathering facts as given to him by Weiss and J.W.? How do you know he wasn't paid? When did the claims first appear? Were they strung out over a period of time, or put in a list form by someone other than this Weiss relative? When did the list by White first appear and was it just a compendium of facts that PMCC had issued at various times over the years?

Randy: Lets just back up a little bit. You made the statement that the clubs meerly reprinted what PMCC had published.

Please answer me just when did PMCC published the Packard First List. Also if you think that White was paid by PMCC
please state what reference material you have read to confirm that fact. If you think that every claim made on that list is true so be it. However as much as I love Packards, and admire what Packard did, half of the claims on that list are bogus. I want Packard truly commended for what they actually accomplished. That should also be the goals of both major Packard Clubs, which in some cases they aren't doing.

When I posted this in the first place I never intended for it to go in this direction

John F. Shireman

John, I don't know if White was paid or not - you said he was not, I merely asked how you knew that?? I would like to see the original Packard-first list although that may be difficult now. Did some of those claims originate with their ads? That would be nice to know. It seemed to me that you just wanted to make negative comments about those clubs. I feel neither club has a lock on the truth, but since you cited White as the originator of that list, what do you base that on? I don't know - I'm just asking. It just seems you always take a negative swipe at the two clubs, the one in particular even when they are not the reason for your displeasure.
Again, without getting clubs or personalities into it, where did Packard's claim of being first with something start? It would seem that ad copy would be a good starting point.
Randy

All -

Sorry I didn't get into this lively thread sooner, but I've been busy trying to wrap up month- and year-end crap at work and working on another article for the Cosworth club.

I suspect that whatever issues have bubbled to the surface here go back to an annoying thread from the past at the AACA's Packard DF. The author found a list of Packard firsts buried in the History section of PAC's website, under the title of "Company Genesis" - a piece credited to "Roger T. White, descendant of G. L. Weiss, Co-Founder". It seems that the only reason for presenting the matter for discussion at the AACA Packard DF was to keep adding to PAC's list; when presented with info that contradicted items already in the list, the author of that thread just danced around them. Apparently he was hoping to make some sort of inroads with PAC and or/its webmaster, when most of us were posting at the ACAA's forum to get away from clubs like PAC. Yet, I really had to wince when one of the AACA site admins copied the thread to a more public area, where the list got shot full of holes.

As such, I take it that John (Packard53) has been referring to the firsts cited by PAC at their webite. That list is obviously patchworked (and poorly so), and I strongly suspect it began as some corporate spin. Many years ago, I'd seen a similar, but much shorter list published elsewhere, but cannot recall the source (perhaps SDC's Turning Wheels. However, I distinctly remember seeing a piece offered by John Conde, in one if his list of factory Packard literature and photos for sale, that mentioned Packard firsts; I believe it was published in the early 1950s.

Although I take pride that my favorite Packard has some engineering/production firsts, it's not why I own one. It doesn't matter to me whether its PMCC or PAC, twisting words to embellish one's positions only dectracts from their credibility.

Guys, isn't it time to put this thread to bed? It turned into an ugly monster the last time it was initiated, frayed a lot of nerves and generated some really bad feelings. This is supposed to be a fun place to enjoy our hobby and exchange useful information.