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

If anyone knows anything about this car I'd very much appreciate hearing from you. It was on eBay some years ago, if anyone knows of a way to search past eBay sales and perhaps recover whatever details were given, I'd like to know that as well.

Many thanks.

http://www.packardclub.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1519

I'm going to say Henney based on the 1953 offering:

Thanks for your thoughts, Kev. Perhaps so, though it has a perhaps 15" shorter wheelbase. Another reason to suspect Henney is that, after Packard gave up LWB cars after the 23rd series, Henney tried to convince them (unsuccessfully) in 1951 and 52 to return to them. As has been suggested by Robert Neal, perhaps this way Henney's way of trying to entice them with something less than the full 149" wheelbase as used in 1953 and 54. Packard had no similar wheelbase (133-134")since 1939 though they did have a 138" in the conventional-bodied cars in 1941-42.

Obviously what I'm looking for is definitive knowledge of the car - although the photo is apparently dated, the car did (as I recall) change hands on eBay within the last 5 years so there's reason to believe it's out there somewhere.

I'm no expert on coachbuilt Packards, but not so sure I'd make that connection to Henney based solely on their 53-54 Corporate Limousine and Executive Sedan models. Those bodies look to be made from the front of a stock four-door sedan and the rear of a club sedan, with the rear door fabricated from a coupe front door and the front window frame of a sedan rear door to get that big rectangular side window opening. You'll see similar approach taken with limo conversions of countless brands in later years.

The car in question does appear to have custom-built doors based on the conventional front and rear four-door sedan units, but stretched. Yet, the roof and backlight (rear window) appear to have treatment similar to what was used on the 53 Derham - that is, some sort of cap, with entire roof covered in osme sort of fabric/vinyl/etc.

Usually the Derhams always had the padded roof treatment done to them.

Roofline looks like a Derham.

Hi Owen

All I have to add is conjecture for what it's worth. I can think of no cars in the postwar years of Derham's operation that they stretched the wheelbase. Their stock and trade was customizing of sheetmetal and trim, partition windows and application of padded formal tops in tan Haartz cloth.

As far as how the coachbuilder created it, if one covers the image from the B-pillar rearward, it looks to use the production two door sedan front door. The rear door is unique, stretched by splicing together sections from two shells. The trunk looks to be standard length and a tad proportionally short. The 133" to 140" wheelbase range sounds reasonable. As Henney was their primary coachbuilder, I would opine that Packard channeled a customer order for this unique and highly desirable formal sedan to them.

I recall seeing it offered on Ebay 5-6 years ago and dearly hope it is now in the restoration process. As it stood, it was badly rust damaged so a solid donor Patrician and additional component parts would be required to complete a restoration. Note the Phoenix Craigslist listing which demonstrates Patrician ready availability for such an effort.

Hopefully someone with hard facts of the provenence will weigh in.

Steve

Now that you mention it, the front door does look like a stock unit from a two-door club sedan - good catch!

Makes sense, then, that a club sedan body forward of B-pillars could have been spliced to the rear half of a Patrician body. The stretch between the B/C-pillars could have been accomodated with extra roof and floor metal from either donor shell, but it would take a second set of rear doors to complete the sheet metal work.

Steve, thanks for your thoughts, and what you suggest is entirely plausible. And thanks also for confirming that you also had seen it offered for sale on eBay in that time frame, I was beginning to doubt myself and wondering if it was just the photo that was for sale.

If you reduce a similar side projection of a stock 52 Patrician to a common dimension like hood length or wheel diameter, and then scale the length of the driver's door window pane against the vent window, it's quite apparent that the front door is longer than a sedan door. It has been suggested that this increase might have been to accomodate a side-facing rear jump seat - clearly the wheelbase is too short for conventional jump seats.

I keep hoping someone recognizes the car and comes forward with current info, not only am I interested but so is Robert Neal who is now working on his new book on the 51-54 Packards. In fact that's where all this started - he and I exchanging thoughts, photos, etc. A true coachbuilt 50s Packard is so rare, it's hard to think it's fallen into obscurity.

I just heard from Robert Neal who has unearthed some newer (but not current) info on the car from an offer for sale a few years back. No VN or thief-proof #s, but a frontal view that shows the grille was updated to 53/54 senior. No data on who did the coachwork though Derham is suggested. The story also states the belief that the car was built for the President of Champion Spark Plug.

Just a few of the several pictures; the condition is deplorable, beyond practical restoration to all except the most dedicated restorer with deep pockets. And as had been suggested previously based on the lengthened but still shorter than the 53-54 limo wheelbase, a sideways fitted jump seat can just be seen.

UPDATE: Just received a couple of additional photo (#s 50 and 51) from Stuart Blond. And though we still don't know the coachbuilder or the thief-proof number, we now have a vehicle number in the 1952 Patrician series. A rumor associated with the car was that it had been fitted with a Packard V12, though given the height available under the hood, that is simply impossible. There is a underhood photo that accompanied the others, showing a 327 engine w/4-bbl Carter.

Attach file:

---

  (75.92 KB)


  (89.84 KB)


  (74.50 KB)


  (42.79 KB)


  (27.67 KB)


  (33.73 KB)