Jump to content

Highlander160

Members
  • Posts

    360
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Highlander160

  1. Some folks love this one. It makes me nauseous but...
  2. Thanks very much for the info. I had a feeling it was right but we sometimes need more than that. I've only seen the car twice and from what I recall it looks quite handsome in that material. You're right trimacar, the proper materials and details are always best. Thanks also for the link. I've gotten to know Eric Haartz over the years and in the last 2-3 years he's a "must see" at Hershey. You may already know he's somewhat expanded the selection of correct materials for different eras. Now I'm anxious to see this thing with a full set of curtains installed. Why do I have a need all of a sudden to watch an old 30s gangster movie?
  3. I know that in 28, especially in the more individual or high end cars, there were top materials that would differ from we've all come to expect. So, my question is what was the generally used material on a Pierce Arrow? Were all models canvas (Haartz) or were there some with the long-short rubber based stuff similar to Fords and other production makes? We have one coming in and it's an "organic vinyl" type of material. It will need side curtains and I need to know if the coated stuff is acceptable. If it's wrong I need to make a top for it as well. Thanks in advance.
  4. Thanks to both above on this part of my response, but yes, it was never offered on any LeBarons that I'm aware of. To be a bit more charitable, for lack of a better term, those of us in the game full time can actually spot new coachwork no matter how faithful it's been represented. In many cases it's because all of the known cars are well known and new ones just appear from time to time. Nothing wrong with new coachwork IMO if it's correct and faithful and not represented as anything remotely authentic with exception to craftsmanship and final presentation. This car doesn't meet any of that criteria. Nobody to blame or pick on here, it's just the way it is. I hope I didn't ruffle any feathers.
  5. Sorry dude, I'm in total agreement with the overall opinion on this car. As far as "proof" that it isn't, well that's backwards. I know it was said above but "proof that it is" is more logical than any other idea. Never ever have I seen vintage body wood held in place with urethane or silicone. Even if it was redone, hack quality at best. Also notice the overlapped steel in the cowl. Looking at the original cowl from keiser31, you can clearly see the OEM weld process. Some were a resistance type of weld in a fixture, some were done by artisans with an oxy/'cety torch then metal finished. As far as that door gig to the rumble seat, never done on any Chrysler Imperial roadster that I've ever seen. I don't mean to sound hateful or overly superior here, it's just not anywhere near what was done on cars of that caliber, frankly by ANY builder let alone LeBaron. If I were asked to speculate how this car came to pass, I'd guess that a Plymouth or smaller Chrysler cowl was used as inspiration many decades ago. The rest rolled on in less than OEM standards and perhaps back in it's day it had a small degree of eye appeal based on size alone. For what it's worth, I've worked on 3 Imperials over the years. All 31s, a Waterhouse Conv Victoria, a Lebaron spt phaeton, and a LeBaron roadster. Nothing on this car shown has the proportions or fit that any of those had. I also spend my days restoring classic era Packards and other makes. I've done this gig since the early 70s in my teens. Good luck to the owner on the sale. He has an anomoly from back in the "replicar" days. And again, don't take my response as hateful, as you said above, it is what it is.
  6. Very interesting topic. New coachwork, as I refer to it, should be an endeavor that pays respect to the early craftsmen and designers. The very few OEM examples are seldom seen at times. When you do, clearly you know it if you follow histories and numbers. That aside, let's talk about the missing "pedigree" of new coachwork. I feel it's now an example of today's craftsmen and enthusiasts. While the design may be the only thing copied, the art form of construction and related restoration is something to be admired. That means the builder/restorer needs to be as faithful as humanly possible in every detail. Let's assume there's other bodies built by someone other than Fran Roxas. Which body is worth more? The better one. The more authentic representation. The balance of the car treated to the same love and attention to detail lacks only the history of ownership. Now it has it's own place in time and should be a tip of the hat to Mr. Dietrich, and a tip of the hat to the restorer. Value is something that really should be removed from such an aesthetic undertaking. Whether you write the check or swing the hammer, it just doesn't happen unless you're all in. I never considered new coachwork as "fake" or "faux". It's paying a substantial tribute and the ability to enjoy something that may simply be unavaiable. Is that so bad? I also agree that in organizations like AACA and CCCA, authenticity and heritage is a sincere percentage of the cars displayed/judged. I also think that any new coachwork version could easily be judged as tight as the gennie but in it's own class. Same paint, same leather, same materials, same drivelines. I don't think any of them should ever be "cast off" at an organized event. Just my opinion. I'd drive one in a heartbeat...
×
×
  • Create New...