Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

No problemo, Owen!

Even the best can make mistakes, but I'm all for correcting the info when we have reliable factory documentation to back it up.

Quote:

For the Executive, I guess, so far, there has been a reference to original production figures, contained in a document, that appears to have a signature page originating from a Packard source in 1951, but which also includes the typed caveat mentioned earlier: "Your suggestions toward improvement or expansion [of the list] will be welcomed."

Perhaps this referred only to corrections to improve the figures for very early models, where records may have been difficult to verify. Or perhaps it referenced possible errors or omissions in 1950's models, as the Kimes book cited regarding their decision not to quote figures for production by model in '54-'56.

I wonder why the cover remained unchanged, stating the dates 1899 to 1951, if an addendum had been made for the last 5 years of production?


Quote:

I guess then that accepting the generally agreed upon figures is a matter of belief, too. A lack of contrary evidence proves accuracy?


Quote:

And continue to believe that it's not, if you wish.

I hope the discussion gets beyond belief through popular consensus. It makes sense to find several examples of published data, and what sources they can cite for their figures, before agreeing that what's always been considered correct and has been copied several times is in fact correct. Especially when a person who had access to basically everything available in existing Packard archives in 1972 decided the definitive data did not exist.

I'd like to get my hands on another Kimes-edited book: The Standard Catalog of American Cars from 1946 to 1975. While it's not Packard-specific, I'd like to see what Packard V8 production figures, by model, she eventually decided were accurate enough for publication, and what primary sources are cited, if any.

With the cheapest used copies going for $129, and better ones for over $300, and no new copies available... not likely to find out soon unless I can locate one at a library.

.

I have that book, but it will be a couple of days before I can look it as I have those books buried in the office as we have a ton of stuff storied in there right now since we a remodeling a room here in the house.

Guy wrote:I wonder why the cover remained unchanged, stating the dates 1899 to 1951, if an addendum had been made for the last 5 years of production?

It seems simple enough to me. They started that compilation in a loose leaf binder because you can see the punched holes at the edge of the sheet. All they had to do was add a page or pages at the end of the production year. Why go back and retype the cover pages every year? They said they would just add the info from each year and they did. This was not a board room document but a record kept inhouse for those people who might require the information. The suggestions for improvement sentence only states that if someone sees the need for additional info, such as a referral to interiors for example, they could ask that info be included. I know if I started something like that I would ask for suggestions or enhancements, much like BH does to enhance this site. I don't see any great question here - only documentation from 56Executive, who is known to have much original documentation. I have copied the pertinent sentences from the document because it was a little difficult to read.

This record is intended to provide a complete official
compilation of frequently needed model, body type, specification,
production, serial number and retail price identification informa-
tion relative to Packard cars.

It includes all models and body types since the beginning
of production in 1899 to date. After the close of each calendar
year, information for that year will be added.

Is there any documentation (for each individual car) that provides VN, Utica engine number and transmission number ??

e.g. Suppose 56xx-1200 and 56xx-1300 also has trans serial numbers that differ by 100 and Utica engine numbers that differ by 100. Then we can assume that most likely the cars were built consecutively and not out of sequence. Probably some exceptions would occur of course.

In the absence of bona fide factory doucmentation, sometimes all we have is the consensus of popular belief.

Packard production figures have been cited in several marque-specific books over the decades. Among the many paublications and papers left in a box in the trunk of my Caribbean (by the PO, from his membership with PI back in the early 1970s) was a single sheet of some very basic specs and production figures on postwar models. Credit for that compilation was given to George Hamlin. Yet, I don't recall anyone specifiying an absolute source in any of these instances.

When I ran into conflicting numbers in researching content for the Model Info pages for 55-56 and 57-58, I generally opted for the number that appeared most often. I tend to take third-party info with grain of salt. Also, each time information is transcribed or retyped, there's a possiblility of making a mistake. Heck, I am a damned lousy typist, myself.

Now, someone has come forth with the closest thing we've seen to prima facia evidence that disputes some of the figures, as published, and we can correct some errors, here.

The two figures that I corrected appear to be errors of transposition. They could have been made in a moment of dyslexia and could have been missed by readers suffering from same.

However, it's a minor point that wouldn't the selection and enjoyment of of one's own Packard.

Quote:

It would be nice if they did, but other than the VN, the copy of the production record I have for my Caribbean shows nothing of the sort.

It makes me wonder if there was some other log that kept track of VN, motor, trans, and thief-proof numbers. Hard to say whether such a complete log, even if it existed, survived - like some of the other material that has been popping up.

BH wrote:
"When I ran into conflicting numbers in researching content for the Model Info pages for 55-56 and 57-58, I generally opted for the number that appeared most often."

Seems realistic to me. Just out of curiosity when u found conflicting production numbers, how much did they vary???? If less than 5% then can we really call it conflict of any significance???? The number u choose to use based on your analysis at the time would be fine by me.

My point to others that question the current production figures we accept is that we are dealing with TOTAL YEAR production. Regardless of source ANY numbers could have slight variance even among original factory documents. So what??? THe factory could make a mistake too between internal documents of the time.

At some point we have to accept the researchers analysis as bible and run with it.

Should some particular car or group of cars tend to contradict the accepted production figures then that would address researching the car, NOT the production figures already accepted.

I suppose one could use total production figures and divide by number of production days for that year and come up with a good range of days that any individual car was built based on VN. But that would only be a plausibility calculation.

The numbers as presented so far by Owen, BH and 56Executive* are bible to me.

* edit: I corrected a typo error i made previously.

As to approximating the date as mentioned in the last thread, I'd think my question posed earlier would be relevant, as to whether a given model's production was more or less at a continuous steady rate, say for example 20 Clipper Deluxes, 15 Clipper Supers, 8 Patricians, 3 400s and 2 Caribs on an typical day, or built in batches, with all Patricians being built for a week, say, then not made for a spell. Any indications how the factory operated in that respect?

The 1 or 2 pictures I've seen of the 55/56 production line shows a mixture of models following each other down the line, as best as can be seen. I suspect the Caribbean convertibles were taken off-line at some point perhaps for convertible top work and there is some hint that they were ganged into several campaigns. Firm data, none that I'm aware of. For example, look at 56executive's data on the completion dates of the last batch of 5699s.

EDIT - But if you paid for a copy of all the build sheets you could probably reconstruct each day's production by model quite accurately.