Hudsy Wudsy

Of course, Doreen, you couldn't get a chuckle out of it without knowing what a '48 - '50 Hudson looked like without tail fins:

I can't believe that I remembered the name of the Chicago dealership, but it just came to my while went on to other things: "Courtesy Motors". I googled it found it right away. I'll include a link to an article about it. I'm sure you folks will get a chuckle out of the Hudson with the tail fins. Bleach, note that the fins, if they weren't bizarre enough on their own, also had additional moldings under the tail lights. Doreen, after you stop laughing at the tail lights, you may note (and recognize) the accessory rear bumper adornments. Geez, this guy must have been a character! http://home.comcast.net/~sarahdyoung/courtesymotors.html

Bleach, the Caddy tail light fins that I'm referring to used the stock Cadillac lenses, so they were identical in that respect. It's been too long for me to recall if there was additional trim added in the manner that these extra holes might indicate. It was a bizarre look, though, that's for sure.

I'm sorry, but the pics didn't follow along with the quote (from post 161)in my previous post.

I've studied these pictures for a while now and I think I might possibly know where this piece may have originated. I know that this is going to sound crazy to most of you, but here goes: There was a Hudson dealer in Chicago who did more business than any other Hudson dealer in the nation. His volume was so great that the factory let him get away with all sorts of eccentric promotions. He had "Cadillac" tailfins made to mount on some of the '48 - '50 Hudson Step-Downs that he sold new. I've only encountered Hudson's that were so equipped a couple of times over the years, and I'll tell you they were odd looking. I've never seen one of the conversion pieces off of a car, but I think that this is just about what I would have expected them to look like. Do any of you remember seeing Caddy fins and tail lights on a Hudson?

See my posting on the Chrysler/Mopar site. http://forums.aaca.org/f145/36-desoto-7-pass-sedan-600-a-375455.html

I came across this '36 Desoto long wheelbase sedan on Craigslist for Houston TX today and thought I should post it here for someone. I'll post it on the "Desoto" site, too, but I figure there's more traffic here. At $600, the car is dirt cheap. The owner didn't even make mention of the long wheelbase, so if the seats missing, he may not even know how unusual it is. I'd be curious to know whether the jump seats are still there. http://houston.craigslist.org/cto/4553113983.html

Here's a link to a Craigslist ad for a Graham: http://grandrapids.craigslist.org/cto/4486100280.html

I see someone bought it. I hope that they know it isn't for a Dodge. I'm pretty sure that it was designed to replace a '36 Buick, but it's too late now to tell the seller. This one was typical of the available after market grilles that JCWhitney and others sold at one time. The factory grille was cast, but the replacement one was a stainless steel imitation.

Not enough curve on the top. Even if these old cheapy grilles differed a lot from the originals, they did, at least, fit in the same space.

Someone is selling an a grille on ebay which they say fits a '36 Dodge. One look at it and you'll know that isn't the case. Sometimes aftermarket grilles can be a little puzzling because they are different enough from the originals in small ways that they throw you a little. I have repeatedly seen aftermarket '36 Chev grilles confused with '37 Plymouths (and vice versa), for an example. What do you guys think this one was intended for? http://www.ebay.com/itm/1936-Dodge-NEW-Grille-Grill-NICE-/111361854076?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item19edaf0a7c&vxp=mtr

Also, the deluxe models were named "Road King".

I'm pretty sure my info is accurate. It came from "The Plymouth Story". My very first car was a $20 bug-eyed '38 Plymouth back in '65. I've seen a lot of '38 Plymouths over the years and I would guess that less than 20% of them have the odd headlight placement. What I read indicated that they scrambled very quickly to solve the fairly obvious mistake and calm the dealers uproar. 1938 was a recession year in the midst of the Depression. The dealers must have been absolutely traumatized to have potential buyers show up to see the new models, only to leave laughing. I assure all of you that this isn't a case where lower production numbers made them more valuable in the least. The surprising thing about the headlight placement issue is that '37 Plymouths were quite balanced looking in that regard. The styling changes made to the '38 simply advanced the themes of the '37s for the most part, so it's anyone's guess as to how they could screw up so badly.

This coupe is an early ("bug-eyed") '38 Plymouth. People laughed at their silly bug-eyed look so much that the dealers threw a fit with Detroit. Plymouth quickly modified the headlight position by moving the headlights back 4" and down 2". It's possible that I have that backwards (sorry). Anyway, most owners of early '38 Plymouths don't even realize the difference until it's pointed out to them. Here's another early model: Here's a model built after the first few weeks:

Here's a Craigslist ad I came across for St Cloud, MN. Maybe there's something here that one of you can use: http://stcloud.craigslist.org/pts/4456958175.html

540K, This subject, to me, is all about semantics, and little more. All of my life I have heard people assert that "this" is best, or "that" is best in all manner of topics. I've gotten very sick of it, indeed. Yes, I do believe that a great percentage of that 318 million people make a lot of silly judgments based on vague impressions, unexamined biases and general lack of life experience, exposure and education. I'm resigned to that and feel that they are welcome to their opinions (no matter how ill conceived!). It's simply when they proclaim their opinion as definitive that I rankle. I wouldn't pay a bit of attention to any of it, if they would only clearly state their opinion that these things are their favorites. However, to assert to me that something, no matter what it's nature is "best", is to tell me that my opinion, which, like most folks, I generally take pride in, is of no importance. If, in fact, I were to create a list of automobiles that I think are the most beautiful, I would state, first and foremost, that these are only my opinions and would confine my remarks to the subject of beauty only and do so while encouraging others to express their opinions regardless of mine. That's when the true joy of discussion and opinion exchange begins. That's when we open our minds to the thoughts of others and continue to grow and refine our own tastes. It's fairly clear that my remarks on this subject touched a nerve with you. And, yes, I probably am a snob who views the author of this list as a cretin, but I wouldn't have said a word on the subject if the word "BEST" was never invoked. I'll add that my list would include many of the cars that you, yourself, have included on yours. I admire your fine, cultured, carefully conceived and acquired taste! I'm truly sorry that I have offended you.

Americans often settle for a sort of "gut reaction" to art and design. We're somewhat quick to judge and frequently confuse our vague impressions of an object with the beauty of an object. The published list of ten cars here seem to have some commonality, but I think that it's merely the writer's vision of "sleekness" and some attitude about perceived "power". Neither of those really have anything directly to do with beauty. You don't have to look any further than the gull wing Mercedes to know that. It takes time, study and exposure to develope a critical eye. Symmetry, balance and proportion can be very subtle values that ,honestly, not everyone can get a real handle on. Even if one develops some or all of the visual skills of an artist, there's no guarantee that anyone on earth will care what you say about a subject -- it's still just your opinion! It will always be just one persons viewpoint, and subject to disagreement. I know one thing that we do all of the time in all sorts of ways is proclaim things to be the best (no matter what the subject), when we should really just be content to say we feel that this or that is our favorite. The creator of this list of the "Ten Most Beautiful Cars", simply is unequipped to make any broad statement about the relative beauty of cars. They should be embarrassed to think that anyone would care about their opinion!

Here's a link to a Craigslist ad for a '38 60 Special that for sale. Lots of parts for $800, or an ambitious restoration of a desirable car: http://fortsmith.craigslist.org/cto/4429639965.html

Here's a little Craigslist BS to put a smile on your face: http://fargo.craigslist.org/cto/4442979267.html

Here's a link to a Craigslist ad I came across for a Graham: http://nd.craigslist.org/cto/4430638998.html

I guess that I wouldn't feel the need to paint it, either. I don't think that it looks "shoddy" at all. The original paint simply looks like it has been graced by time.

Nice looking Pontiac, tin. Good proportions and simple, clean lines. Do you see a paint job for it in the future, or are you going to keep it as is?

Another angle:

Depending upon your age when you start this project, you might just make it in time to get some use out of this '40 Ford hearse: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-Other-na-1940-ford-hearse-very-rare-project-/171310494632?forcerrptr=true&hash=item27e2e6b3a8&item=171310494632&pt=US_Cars_Trucks http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/ev4AAOxy7nNTWXu~/$_57.JPG

I see it's sold, now. I'm just curious to know if my occasional small efforts at posting little "finds" like this one are ever of benefit to anyone. Is there a remote chance that one of you bought it?