wayne sheldon

One of those Packards I mentioned. Made me want to cry. It had belonged to a friend of mine for about thirty or more years. He had several '20s Packards in very original condition and liked them very much. And he drove some of them quite a lot on club tours. He passed away about fifteen years ago, and most of his cars went scattering about. Some I knew where, most I didn't. About ten to twelve years after he had passed, this one showed up again. I don't know where it had been, but it was just about how it had been years earlier, and sold again (price not disclosed). Then it started making the rounds, "For Sale" websites all over the net. Clearly, it had been acquired by someone looking to make a few dollars. I do not know what they paid for it, and to be totally blunt about it, I hope they lost their shirt. It began being offered at about $25,000, with a lot of fancy talk about how incredible and rare it was, and "you will never find a better one!" (Frankly, it wasn't THAT nice.). The usual quick buck gold-digger type of stuff. After awhile, it ended up on ebay. "Reserve not met" for about a year, as the reserve was dropped lower and lower. It was on and off, then on again ebay for about a year. Eventually, they put it up at No Reserve. The last time I saw it listed? The final ebay listing said "sold" for slightly under $10,000. I really wish I could have bid on it, and had a way to actually pay for it. I would have loved to have that car for that price. I do not mind people making some money on cars like that. But I hate to see them pushed for three times their real worth with glowing descriptions playing loose with the facts. I fear that whoever bought it initially from my friend's estate probably lost money on it. That largely due the the economy and the markets for these wonderful cars isn't as good as it used to be. Someone else wanted to double their money on an investment they not only did not care about? But also did not understand.

Compared to most of the cars I have restored! (When I got them!)

Interesting car I would loved to have had some years back. But now? I can't consider anything that needs that much work done (either restoration or proper preservation). And, considering that in recent years I have watched not one, but two, late '20s Packard sedans in similar original condition (running and driveable) eventually sell for under $10,000 each? Also a few mid '20s Cadillacs in nicer original condition that couldn't sell for around $20,000? The market just doesn't say those rough sedans are worth big bucks. I think it is sad. I love the sedans of that era, and like them in preserved as original condition.

We now must dub thee apprentice wizard master of the vacuum tank! Soon to be Master Wizard Master of the Vacuum Tank.

The distributor looks like a Remy, the name before Delco and Remy merged. I don't recall exactly when Delco and Remy merged, but I think it was about 1926 (okay, I just googled it, Sept 1926, some sources say 1927). I remember this because my '27 Paige has all Remy electrical devices, and I had heard it was from after the Delco and Remy merger. Some parts continued to leave the factory with the Remy name for some time after the merger. I actually do have an exact replacement distributor for my Paige with the Delco-Remy name on it. I wasn't going to not get it just because of the name. A Paige distributor is a little tough to find if you need one. So that should help to narrow down the timeframe for the engine.

The model L Lincoln was a marvelous work of engineering in its day. I have never owned one, but have quite a few friends that have (or did have) them. I have also driven one for quite a few miles myself. One of my longest time best friends had one (big seven passenger sedan) for nearly forty years as his one special antique car (the one I drove several times). Another of my best friends has a beautiful five passenger sedan, with its original steel disc wheels (a rare option on Lincoln). I was also very fortunate to have known Jack Passey for many years (my dad had attended college with Jack's younger brother Bill). Jack seemed to love his Lincolns most of all. And they seemed to always justify his passion for them. Big, fast, powerful, they were more reliable than most cars of that era, and a pleasure to drive. What more could you want in a classic era antique? I don't claim to be an expert, and certainly Jack's expertise showed me how little I know about some of these things (Jack really was a marvel himself!). However, is that first OP sedan photo a Judkins? Mostly when I have seen a Judkins, it has been a coupe.

Is the first picture the actual truck before it was taken apart? Or some other truck? The first picture appears to be of a somewhat restored truck, not a true original condition truck. Pictures of your actual cab and other things would help a lot!

I have never worked on Kingston tank/pump, or any of a few other brands of vacuum type fuel pumps, only the Stewart Vacuum tanks. Those I have had a few cars with. Most have given me some trouble. Most gave a lot of good service once a few age bugs got worked out. I don't know about the specific issues a Kingston may have, but as it appear to be similar in concept to the Stewart, I suspect they are similar. The flapper valve on your tank is quite different than the Stewart. It is more complicated, but could be better, or not. I like the Stewart's simple flapper valve. However, the concept is the same. And in reading through all the comments, I see one detail that needs to be clarified. And this would be true for both the Stewart and your tank. That flapper valve, and its fit, is more critical than would be expected at a quick glance. More than simply not working efficiently if the flapper valve leaks (even a tiny amount)? If the flapper leaks at all, when the upper tank valves switch vacuum into the inner tank, leakage will cause the inner tank (upper chamber) to suck gasoline back up from the outer (lower) tank. IEven a small leak can make it become the path of least resistance as the gasoline is only a couple inches away as opposed to the gasoline tank about eight feet of small tubing and two feet elevation difference away. Even if the leak is minor enough to not actually lift the gasoline in the lower chamber up? It may be enough to cause the gasoline in the lower chamber to NOT drop into the carburetor. Gasoline doesn't drop into the carburetor, engine starves for fuel and dies. Vacuum ends, fuel then drops into carburetor and you get to wonder why it won't run when it has gasoline (had a warped flapper on a Stewart tank once, drove me nuts for a couple hours). Something else that helps confuse the issues. Engine vacuum pressures, and fuel consumption rates, are NOT mutually consistent. Vacuum is fairly high at an idle, and goes down as the throttle is opened up. As the car is driven, higher speeds, coupled with loads, increase fuel consumption. So, the way it works out, is that with a vacuum tank, it tends to work least efficiently when you need it the most. But this is also why it may work fine, sitting in the shop, at an idle, but then fails to work going down the road, even at maybe fifteen or twenty miles per hour. The engine needed more gasoline, while the weaker vacuum was holding the gasoline back from the lower chamber and not drawing enough fresh gasoline from the rear gasoline tank. Regardless all that. The vacuum tank was an incredible work of design and technology for its day. For about fifteen years, more cars (other than Fords) had them, than did not. They solved several minor safety and convenience issues of the time and made it practical to put the gasoline tank away from where the passengers sat. It took materials technology that did not exist in the early '20s to make the mechanical fuel pump a practical reality. With just a little effort, a vacuum tank can still be a practical and reliable way to feed a gasoline engine. Driving a car with a nicely working vacuum tank is a personal victory most people will never understand. That is my silly opinion.

Bumpers began showing up after-market by 1910. Many then were spring loaded, and simple single bar/rod/tube. A few expensive cars began offering them standard equipment on the front in the mid '10s. Other than the more expensive cars, they remained mostly after-market accessories well into the 1920s. The Biflex "kiss" type bumpers started showing up around 1920, as after-market. Dual-bar bumpers started showing up around 1924, about the same time as many lesser cars started offering bumpers as a factory option. Cars like Buick (and many others) offered either the Biflex or other dual-bar bumpers as either factory or dealer options. My July 1927 Chilton directory has advertisements for fifteen manufacturers of after-market bumpers. My '27 Paige has its factory optional bumpers on it. I have seen identical bumpers on a few other cars in the '25 to '28 year range (but I cannot recall with any certainty what marques they were?) Although the Paige bumpers are different than yours, and do NOT have a maker's name anywhere on them (as the other identical bumpers I have seen also did not), research has indicated that the Paige factory optional bumpers on my car were in fact made by Weed. Looking very closely at numerous original era photos of Paige automobiles with bumpers just like mine, indicates they likely never did have a "Weed" emblem on them. Paige also used Weed Levelizer shock absorbers. Weed offered a number of products besides tire chains. They sold both directly to manufacturers, and after-market to the owners of cars. As to what the OP bumper is worth? That is a tough one. Whether it is a front or a rear? Will also make a difference. Rears are generally only desirable as a match with the front. Fronts only were commonly used on cars in the '20s, so a rear is not necessary for many buyers for a front. However, a rear alone could be a problem, unless you find someone with a matching front. I can't tell for certain from the pictures if that is a front or rear. Rears were usually short bumperettes, a pair on each side, with the spare tire in between. But they were not always so.. Cars with side mounted spares often had a full rear bumper, and I have seen cars with rear mounted spare tires with full bumpers also (just not really common that way). It may have been used as a factory option? But I wouldn't know on what car. As an after-market piece? It would be appropriate for almost any mid-size or larger car from about 1926 through '29 that didn't have a standard factory bumper originally. As is, totally depending upon finding someone that wants it for their car, it could be worth anywhere from $50 to $500. If you can find a specific marque that did use that model bumper as a factory offering? It could maybe be worth even a bit more. Especially if two people need it really badly. But don't plan on the kid's education on that.

People, and particularly marketing people, really haven't changed a whole lot in a hundred years. I think those were mostly used as a marketing gimmick for customers to brag about "My car has the latest four-wheel braking technology!" That was my thought when I saw a few of those at swap meets forty to fifty years ago. I still suspect that was the real purpose. It really wasn't a bad idea, however, having such a brake light on the car so equipped. Having driven a fair number of '20s era antiques, both two-wheel and four-wheel brakes. I can say from experience that better brakes does make quite a difference.

Yes, probably never again. I went through much of the collections in '68 and '69, when we went to the Reno Swap Meets he hosted. I was still in high school then. No collection in the world today even comes close! Literally thousands of cars in the collection, many mostly out of sight, and others spread around various displays at Harrah's clubs and other locations. But what? Fifteen hundred on open display in the early '70s?? Most of them high quality restorations or expertly conserved originals. William Harrah was ahead of his time for conservation of original cars. Now, there aren't enough of them left because too many that should have been conserved, were restored instead. And as Buffalowed Bill said, he restored many without regard to whether they were financially deserving. That in itself is a timely point to me. Right now, on another forum, we are having a discussion about the Gray automobile of (about) 1922 through '25. A friend on that forum has one, being restored (needs it), and just bought another incomplete parts/project pile. I mentioned there that there had been a discussion here about a year or so ago about the Gray. I mentioned that I had known an owner of one about 45 years ago, that he had gotten to know Bill Harrah (a lot of people in those days did, I am told Bill H was quite nice and easy to know), because Harrah's crew was restoring a Gray at that time. The Gray may be rare, but they were not well made, probably contributing to such a low rate of survival for the cars. Didn't matter. Harrah was restoring one anyway. Any idea how long you may be able to make these available? I would like one, but money is tight right now. I know it is not a simple thing to print out either.

Ouch! That looks like it didn't quite beat the train?

I need to check in on this area more often. Seems I watch a couple times a week for awhile, then get distracted for a couple months. Then I look back and see something terrific that I had missed. As a long-time speedster enthusiast (alongside my interest in the factory issued automobiles), I can tell you that many thousands of speedsters, both home-built, and professionally built, were built during the '10s and '20s (the true speedster era). I have personally seen and closely examined copies of several hundred original era photographs of them. I think i still have a few hundred of them on a photobucket account (although I haven't checked for about two months to make sure they are still there?). I have personally owned remains of more than a dozen original era speedsters, six of which I have restored and used for awhile before family needs required selling them. I still have remains of a few, one of which I actually hope to begin restoration on soon. The simple fact is, that during those years, speedsters (by many different names) were an important and real part of our automotive history. Among other things, they were special cars to people that built and drove them. The funny thing is, that most of the original era photos of speedsters (T Ford and non Ford) were actually taken of the car, either with or without the builder/owner/driver in or with the car. Much of the driving of speedsters was done away from town because going fast was fun, and that wasn't allowed in town. The unfortunate result of this was that street scene photos of speedsters mixed in with more common general traffic are somewhat rare. That, in turn, makes people not realize just how common such cars actually were. This photo is fantastic! Those fellows were probably fairly well known (and hated by some) in their area. They were likely noticed often going a bit too fast, and recognized by many friends. Out of the many hundreds of era photos of speedsters that I have looked at closely? I doubt that there have been more than twenty of them as good as this one showing a speedster in town traffic. This one is wonderful. A side note. There was a film short made in 1928 called "Ma And The Auto", a late silent short that combined printed words of an era comic song along with recorded music (for theaters so equipped at that time). The film followed "the family" on a Sunday outing driving the car in and around the Los Angeles and Hollywood areas. Badly butchered versions can be found on the internet, but so far I have not found a good uncut version anywhere there. I do have a VHS recording of the full version, but the recording is more than thirty years old, and has degraded somewhat (the last time I watched it was about ten years ago, don't know just how good or bad it is now). The whole film is an incredible look at real moving traffic in an upscale area. To me, one of the best moments in the film is when a speedster quickly passes going in the opposite direction. It goes by too fast to get a good look at the car, but I could tell it was a model T. If I recall correctly, that scene was filmed in or near Griffith Park. For what it is worth, another part of the movie was filmed on what has been called one of the first "freeway interchanges" ever built. Built in 1926 or '27 if I recall correctly what I read many years ago. And, by the way. A chassis to be driven to a place to have a commercial type body built or installed, would have had a box mounted over the gasoline tank, with the steering column left in its permanent position. This car has the gasoline tank moved back, and the steering column lowered quite a lot. The chassis is also lowed, a sure sign of a speedster. Speedsters with crude backless seats, or no firewalls were fairly common in the late '10s. That one would still be driven that way in '25 is quite likely. Thank you nzcarnerd, and all.

Well, Like Vintageben in Australia, I too, in Califunny USA need to be a little careful what I say. But nanny states (in any hemisphere), and unrealistic alarm are to me very important subjects. Just yesterday, to a "thread drift" comment, I responded about the asbestos scare. Are there serious real concerns? Yes. Do I believe they are blown way out of proportion? Absolutely. What I wrote yesterday, in its entirety (including the two closing lines which won't make sense since you likely will not have read the previous postings leading to my comments, so you may wish to ignore them, I include them here only to be able to say "in its entirety"): "Asbestos is funny stuff. It is not politically correct to say this, but it is usually not nearly so deadly as it is claimed to be. And yes, as a former contractor, and school maintenance worker, I have had to attend several asbestos safety seminars. Natural asbestos fibers are so common in so many areas of the country, and windblown any day the wind blows, that if asbestos was as bad as claimed (remember, most of those claims are by lawyers looking for sheep to shear), there are large regions in Califunny that would be deadly kill zones. One such area in South San Jose is home to nearly a million people, and the asbestos loaded hillside has been known for nearly a century and a half. Farmers a hundred years ago knew that the area was no good for farming (which in and of itself IS rather suspicious) because nothing of value could be grown there. But hey! You think those in power are going to let a ten square mile area of some of the most valuable land in the nation sit undeveloped? The real danger has to do with individual DNA and immune systems. Some people are especially susceptible to its effects. I knew a very nice fellow that worked in a brake and clutch shop about forty years ago. Suddenly, with almost no warning, he developed asbestos related cancer at barely over 45 years of age and died a few months later. This susceptibility is something I hope gets much more and better study soon. With DNA understanding, it should be possible to find who is susceptible early enough in their lives to avoid dangerous areas and careers. There are many other potentially dangerous chemicals and compounds. Less than thirty years ago, I lost a good friend (in the antique Studebaker and Horseless Carriage crowd) because he had worked for many years in a business machines service and repair business. At the age of about fifty, he died due to organ failure because of exposure to a certain cleaning fluid. While the fluid is now considered a "known risk", most people that had been heavily exposed to it for a hundred years lived long, rich, and full lives. Something in his genetics made him more susceptible than most. At this time, still. Discretion may be the better part of valor. Play it safe. Susanne, I do hope the kid you knew is doing fine. Wonderful Photo! We don't see enough original era photos of the elusive wide-track cars. Thank you all." South San Jose is in California (I spelled it here the proper way because of out-of-USA readers here that may not be familiar with my usually using my personally preferred spelling), in the USA. Going all crazy and alarmist about every risk in life, is (at best) the little boy who cried wolf. At its worst, it creates "fixes" that are far more dangerous than the original danger ever was. Once they become overly politicized? You can jolly well bet that a very few people are making a ton of money from the exaggerated lies. And guess who pays for that. Because of my former professional connections, I happen to know about the situation in several areas of Califunny (my preferred spelling). However, I would expect that there is nothing unusual about here. Even in Australia, there are probably many hundreds of natural asbestos deposits. In one of the seminars I attended about ten years ago, I was informed of about ten known exposed natural deposit sites known in Nevada County alone (I filed away the map when I was forced to retire a few years ago, but probably do still have it). Nevada County is where I currently live. And one of the largest known natural deposits in the county is less than three miles (about 4 km) from my house. And I don't worry about it. Banning the importation of a few old cars because they may have an ounce of asbestos in it? Will do NOTHING to protect any decent honest person. It can only line the pockets of liars and thieves masquerading as politicians, or others, that will "fix" the problem and protect you. I'll shut up now.

Nice. I must admit, that a part of me wanted to say something like "Again???", as I have read of this several times over the years. But then again, hope does spring eternal, and the Bullitt Mustang was a nice segue into the search. It really would be nice if the punch bowl could be found and positively identified. It truly does represent a turning point in history. It would be nice if it could be revered as such.

Oh, so very many years ago (about 45 years ago). Some very good friends of mine bought a 1921 Mack three axle truck, about three hundred miles from home. The truck was a rare pneumatic tire model, totally unrestored, and only had four good tires on it. So the four tires were strategically placed on the front and the two driven wheels, the idle rear axle now without wheels was chained up close to the frame. Besides, none of the three people involved had a commercial drivers license for three axles, so that got them by that problem (the Highway Patrolman didn't think it was funny, but them go anyway). Taking turns driving the Mack, or the modern pickup, and sleeping they drove night and day for two days before checking into a hotel for one night. After a good night sleep, it took most of a third day to get home. Except for one point, where they put the Mack into neutral and let her rip down a long, straight, hill, they drove the whole way home, mostly at about 15 mph. Bob always loved to look people square in the eye, and tell them that "the Mack's top speed was sixteen miles per hour, not seventeen, sixteen."

It is not whether this engine is more reliable than that engine or visa versa. It is a question of whether all the custom made modifications and "made to fit" junk is going to hold up or not. The more one goes running off in untried and untrue territory, the more likely something that someone said "That oughta work!?" won't. If one wants an "antique" car for such endeavors? A well sorted real Packard (or many other such cars) could do the job as well as anything that could be custom created for about $200,000. As for spilled wine and other abuses, the car was restored once? It can be restored again. As for so many "improvements" to make an antique "more reliable"? Years ago, when I was touring a lot? I knew of several cars that had been "improved" every way some machinist could think of. All modern bearings, safety hubs, modified modern brakes, modified modern clutch, modern electrics, etc etc etc. Guess which cars ended up on the vulture trailer the most often? Seriously, one of those cars, done by a life-long master machinist? Started, or tried to start, nearly a dozen tours with the local club. Most of those tours were short, 30 to 40 miles. I never once saw it complete a tour (rumor had it that it did complete a couple times I wasn't there, but newsletter reports almost always said he came in on the trailer). Modern clutch failed. Modern brakes locked up. Safety hub locked up. Couldn't start it to begin the tour, and on and on and on. Yes, Our antiques do pose certain risks. And they can and do fail, sometimes horribly. But for most of the miles we drive them? They are statistically fairly safe. A lot safer than riding a bicycle in traffic. Even safer than riding a motorcycle in a collision (with or without seat-belts). I like driving antiques.

Already mentioned that there were many coach building companies that could have built the OP body. If one wants a better idea of just how many companies there were? Check Coachbuilt.com I lost all my bookmarks in a computer crash a couple months ago, so don't have the actual address. Whether that auto-link put in by the computer will take you there or not? I do not know. As much as I personally do not like Mr Google, simply working with the name "Coachbuilt" should get you there with little effort. Depending on how much you want to study what they offer, and how much you want to restrict your findings to strictly the desired body you are researching? One could spend anywhere from several minutes to many hours going through the information they offer. A lot of the information is little more than a name of a company, and maybe a partial location. Others, lead to a great deal of information and sometimes many photographs. 60FlatTop, I dislike disagreement. But I must. The OP photo could be, however, likely is not for a taxi cab. While the style is similar, taxis were generally on small to medium size chassis. Early electric (city) cabs were often on roughly 90 inch chassis. As bodies, chassis, and gasoline engines grew, the chassis became longer. By 1910, taxis were on chassis of about 100 inches or slightly more. Meanwhile, limousines were usually put on the largest chassis available in some luxury car. In 1910, that would be well over 110 inches, and getting longer fast. The model T Ford chassis was 100 inches, and a couple thousand of them were built for taxi use. Other cars used as cabs may have been slightly longer, but still, cab companies generally (in those days much like today) used standard midsize models modified for cab use. That modification may have included a custom open-front body, but still on a midsize chassis. Except for the model T cabs, most taxis from the mid '10s into the mid '20s would most likely have a wheel base between (or near) 109 and 118 inches. Compare chassis size and wheel base with a few luxury cars. A friend of mine has a 1915 Pierce Arrow limousine (talk about sitting in the lap of luxury!). I believe the wheel base is 142 inches. Another friend has the large Hudson of 1915, its wheel base is 135 inches. Packard around 1915 also had their larger model wheelbase at 144 inches. All of these companies also had slightly smaller models, with wheel bases slightly less. This body looks large for the '10s era, but maybe not large enough for the top-of-the-line luxury chassis. Exact measurements of the OP photo would sure be nice! (Along with many more close up photos of details.) But that likely cannot happen. Tinindian's "three fingers/three inches doesn't work for me either. Just for silly's sake. I measured my three fingers, and got 2 1/2 inches. Couple that to I have to wear Extra Large gloves, and that most people and their hands were smaller a hundred years ago? And I would say at least three feet need to be taken off his body length estimate. Such comparisons are a good way to get a good estimate. However people's body parts do not make a reliable basis for comparison. However, lacking a more reliable item to compare, I went ahead with the man's hand. Using the man's full fist, measuring mine (slightly over 4 inches), adjusting slightly for smaller hand size, developed a scale, and measured the body. I came up with 84 inches (maybe slightly more), or maybe a bit over seven feet cowl to back. I would expect the OP photo body is slightly over 84 inches firewall to back. Then, just for kicks and giggles, I measured the man's height as best I could given that his feet are obscured. Turned that measure on its side and found the bodies length at about one and one third the man's height. Figuring the man's height at about five and a half feet plus two more feet for the approximate "one third" and adding them gives me the same ballpark, a bit over seven feet. Working with model T Ford speedster body reconstruction, as well as some early horseless carriage bodies, we often use the wheel rim. The size is very consistent provided you know for certain which of the common rim/tire sizes you are using for a measurement. For one project, I even developed a sliding scale from the front to the rear of the car by developing the scale off both the front and rear wheels. Because the picture was taken at an angle, I had to create a "vanishing point" scale to work on different areas of the car. Simply for comparison, the body on my '27 Paige is 9 feet long. It is just hard to know. The OP body could have been used for a taxi, maybe on a large Maxwell, or four cylinder Studebaker. I suspect it wound up on something more like a Chalmers or Velie, It could be any of the larger mid size cars of that era. Maybe used to take milady shopping in town? My opinion.

Many large trucks (as opposed to the Fords, Dodges, and Chevrolets which used the same electric lamps as their cars) used gas headlamps well into the mid '20s, and a few even as late as 1930. I have known that Packard and Pierce Arrow (and others including Paige) built trucks like this for many years. However, in all my years in the hobby, I have only seen a handful of survivors. That truck is fantastic! And probably the best survivor I have seen.

I may offend a few again. Having looked closely at literally thousands of original era photos of automobiles. And spending just a couple minutes comparing the two bodies (the OP body under construction, and the '17 Hudson posted later by mkm5 ), I am convinced they are NOT the same car. Although similar, the windshield is quite different, the door is slightly different, and the belting on the body is totally different. While a few of those things could possibly have been changed (unlikely) between the time during construction, and the much later photo parked on the street? There is one other difference I see that would be more difficult to change, the roof-line in the first picture is nearly flat, while the roof-line on the Hudson in the street is quite curved. That basic style of "town-car" was relatively common for more than two decades with only minor changes. Most of those bodies were built by custom coach builders, and could be ordered in sizes and specifications to fit basically ANY car chassis. I even saw a circa '17 Dodge Brothers version in an era photo once. Smaller ones survive on Ford chassis both in the USA and abroad. I have personally seen several Pierce Arrow open front limousines, as well as a couple '10s Packards, and others. Car companies such as Hudson, Chandler, and even Studebaker showed such bodies in some of their sales literature. Even with most of the larger production companies, such special bodies were generally built by custom coach builders. The body in the original post, based upon the shape of the cowl, could easily be anywhere from 1913 through 1922. It would be possible to be either earlier, or later, however, earlier cowls would likely be a bit smaller, while later cars of the '20s likely would have a slightly larger (and more squared off) cowl in fitting with the styling rules of the day. There were, however, some earlier and later exceptions to those rules. The body being built in the original posting is, of course, too large to be intended for a Ford or even a Dodge. I would guess that it wouldn't fit on a Studebaker chassis either. Although, chassis were sometimes extended for special bodies in those days. Without a good size reference, it is difficult to speculate on what chassis it would end up on. But it does look to be for a larger car. Maybe for a Hudson (they did build more than one), or one of the three "P"s. However there were so many other wonderful marques it could have been for.

Henry Ford was larger than life. More than most people known in history, he truly was a complicated, and flawed, man. He was also a man of extreme intelligence, and passions. Like all real human beings, he was not perfect. Anyone with a limited knowledge of history, can make him out to be one of the best, or worst, human beings in history. There are solid facts that can be used to make him out to be Hitler's buddy, or the most evil of all greedy capitalists. However, for most of his life, he clearly was neither of those things. Late in Henry's life, he became bitter, and angry, for several reasons. Some of those reasons were in fact his own fault. He had not been a really good father to his son Edsel. Henry was controlling, and demanding, to most people around him. But most of all, he was controlling and demanding with Edsel. Edsel became ill, and died when Henry needed him the most. That Henry's abuse of Edsel contributed to Edsel's early demise has been debated. And likely will never be known for sure just how much it may have contributed to Edsel's early death. In this same time-frame, Henry met with another major adversary. the unions. Remember, Some years earlier, Henry had gone against all his advisers, and raised the daily pay for most Ford employees to nearly twice the industry standard. At the same time, for that raise in daily wage, he also cut the workday's hours (more pay for less hours). He did not have to do that. NO government agency made him do that. No union in 1913 had nearly enough power to make him do that He did it, simply because it was the right thing to do. He KNEW, he figured it out. In order to make more money, and sell more cars, he had to have the "best work force money can buy" (Henry Ford is quoted as saying that years before the first model T left the factory). In addition to paying more, Henry did something else most people don't remember. Henry dug into his own pocket. He bought the land, had the buildings designed and constructed. Then hired and paid for at his expense for health care clinics in the towns where his major factories were. All Ford Company employees, and their families (wives, children, parents and wive's parents), could go to those clinics at no cost to them. Henry KNEW. A healthy work force could do better work, and more work. Henry KNEW that if an employee didn't have to worry about his wife and kids? He could work harder and do a better job. Again, NO government agency made him do that. And no union made him do that. It must also be remembered, that Henry was a "bit" controlling. There was in fact, a down side. He did have certain "rules" that he expected employees to abide by. No drunkenness, and a few other things. There he was. The late '20s and early '30s. Old enough that he should have retired a decade earlier. His beloved model T has become archaic, Edsel has finally forced him to replace it with the more up-to-date model A. And the Crash and depression hits. Edsel's health is deteriorating, Henry is trying to save the company, and the unions go after him like wolves to an elderly bull. In Henry's mind, after all he had done for the little man, and with Edsel ailing, the little men went after him. It is in this climate, that Harry Bennett takes hold. I have never read Harry Bennett's book. I have heard of it. And I have read quite a bit of other accounts, many of them taking their information out of Harry Bennett's book. Harry Bennett was a thug. He wanted power, and found it in the form of an angry, and hurt, Henry Ford. It is my opinion, that much of the worst about Henry Ford, is in reality Harry Bennett's doing. The union busting efforts most among them. In the early '30s, Henry Ford spent much of HIS time building Greenfield Village. He was doing this in part as a testimony of what he (and others) had done in his lifetime. Interesting that the man once quoted as saying "History is bunk" now wanted a memorial to preserve history for generations to come. It should also be remembered, that an aging and broken Henry Ford stepped up when the nation called upon him to build aircraft for a war we could no longer avoid. That, after Edsel had died and there was no one else in the family to push the effort forward as effectively as Henry still could. Long before Henry was done, Will Rogers said it best: "It will take a hundred years to tell whether he helped us or hurt us, but he certainly didn't leave us where he found us." We are still debating that. As for Harry Bennett? I would take anything he said with the proverbial "grain of salt".

The simple answer for most model T Fords, is "no". There are exceptions. The earliest model T Fords were all built at the Piquette Avenue plant. This, unless they were Canadian builds, in which case they would have been built in Walkerville (I hope I spelled that correctly?). Even some NRS and one K model were built by Ford of Canada. I am not sure when the first USA branch assembly plant was in operation. That would be a good question on the MTFCA forum. There was a temporary site at the World's Fair (Panama-Pacific Exposition) in San Francisco which ran for about half of 1915. Some cars from there are known. I think a few branch plants were running before that, and Ford added more as the years went on. SOME "improved model Ts (1926 and '27 models) do have a mark stamped somewhere on the body that can identify which assembly plant put it together. I only know this because the subject has been discussed in the past on the MTFCA forum, and I have read it there, and even seen a couple photos showing the stamping. I have never really worked on an "improved" model T, and therefore am not an authority on their details. As I recall, the mark is usually only one or two letters (I think it may have been mentioned that "KC" was for Kansas City). I don't offhand recall more than a few specifics being mentioned. Also, as I recall, the location varied (making it really fun to find). I recall that some were stamped somewhere on the firewall, others inside the driver's door jamb. Many were apparently not stamped in this manor at all. For the rest of them, more than fifteen years of production, it mostly becomes speculation. If you know the car''s history, back at least to nearly new, You can speculate that it may have been assembled near where it began its working life. I do not have a copy of it, but have seen a few USA maps for different years showing the location of all Ford's branch assembly plants. It could probably be found on the internet, but Mr Google and I do not get along very well. In rare cases, having the original sales or delivery documents may (or may not) reveal where it was assembled. But since that applies to maybe one model T in a couple hundred? That isn't much help. A couple years ago, a few people tried to get a good conversation on this subject going on the MTFCA forum. But it didn't get very far. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information readily available.

I shouldn't take the time for this at this hour. It has been a rough several days, and I need to get some sleep. On the other hand, this is something I feel passionately about. Personally, I do NOT like value guides. For that matter (with ONE notable exception), I generally do NOT like most appraisers. Most guides, and most appraisers I have met (or dealt with the fallout from their absurd advice), do NOT understand the antique automobile market. What makes one car desirable and valuable? And why another similar car is not so valuable? Takes years in the hobby to begin to understand. Also, true expertise is marque and vintage specific. An expert on Packards of the late '20s and early '30s may or may not know Packards of the brass era, or the '50s. And that Packard expert may know nothing about Rolls Royce, or model T Fords, of the same era. Guide books often double the realistic value of common cars in average to very nice condition. What they give for low retail is more likely the proper value for only the best of the best. They also usually miss the mark on the other end. A guide I looked at a few years ago said the top dollar value for a specific Pierce Arrow in marginally restorable/parts car condition was only $500. Well show me THAT car! I want to buy it! The fact is that a Pierce Arrow as described would sell easily for about $4000. The engine alone is worth more than $2000. But that is because it is a Pierce Arrow, not a Willys Knight. Don't get me wrong. Knights are wonderful cars. I have known several good friends that had them. I have known of many others as well, owned by people that loved to drive them on tours. However, Knights are different. If the engine is in good running condition? That is a very good thing. One must be very careful with a Knight that has not been run in awhile. The sleeves can dry out a bit, the oil becomes gummy, and a careless start-up can do a lot of serious and expensive damage to the engine. Not to be afraid of it. Just be aware, and if you find yourself in that position, check with several people that really know the Knight engines. The "Willys/Overland?Knight Registry" (or WOKR for short) is a wonderful (and last I heard active) source for good information. I think the valuations others have given are on the mark. I have seen a few better Willys Knights not able to sell for about $10,000 in the past few years. Some of them on eBad. Whatever you decide? I do wish you well. It looks like it may be a good car that needs a good home, and someone that will get it fixed up right and back onto the road. And hopefully on tour with other like-minded crazies (like me!). Rear fenders should not be very expensive? But finding them could be tough. Good luck!

I have been interested in Paige the marque since my dad bought one to be the great family project when I was fifteen years old. Unfortunately, he was better with ideas than he was with following through, and the car never got done. Before he died, it became mine. But with my family obligations, and the fact I had several other cars , both restored and not, I haven;t been able to get it done either. It sits, about half done, in the best garage space I have. Maybe one day I can actually begin to work on it seriously. Still, because of that car, I have a fondness for Paige. Read almost everything I could in books and hobby magazines, talked with a dozen or more owners and drivers of the cars (including Grimy who I have followed on tours in the '15 Studebaker I used to have. I do like that Larchmont II four passenger phaeton. Beautiful car! And fast too. I definitely believe that Paige is undervalued in both price and general consideration within the hobby. They have a very interesting history. And rare in the automotive manufacturing industry of those days, they lost money in only one year between 1913 and 1927. They achieved a ninth place standing for automobiles produced (in the USA) in one year (I forget which year, I read this in an industry report many years ago, but it was mid '20s). They were an "assembled" car, as most were in those days other than the big five (Ford, GM, Chrysler/Dodge, Studebaker). Paige did their own designing, and most parts were made to their order (similar to many of the larger companies like Nash, Durant or Hupmobile). All in all, Paige and Jewett cars were fast, reliable, well styled, and an excellent buy for the dollar of the day. Evaluating a Paige today and arriving at a fair market value is very difficult. They are better than many of the lesser known marques, yet lack the mystique and following held by such cars as Marmon or Rickenbacker. They are comparable with the Buicks, Nash, and Studebakers of the day. Part of the problem for them today is simply that people like to cluster together in groups. And they feel more comfortable thinking parts and information is a club-member call away. Therefore, Nash, Buick, and Studebaker cars are more desirable to most people than a Paige would be. The CCCA acceptance is a big plus for the 6-66 line. Until the CCCA clarifies the other top-of-the-line models? I don't know about those. However, most people, putting out a bunch of money for a CCCA car, are still going to prefer Packards, Cadillacs, and Lincolns. Those that want and can afford more expensive fare have many exotic choices (although the 6-66 Daytona roadster is pretty exotic by any standards of the era). That is one of the best and most beautiful Paige automobiles I have ever seen. I hope it finds a good home with a hobby-driven caretaker. I wish I was in a position to be looking for something like that. Although, frankly, at its current price? I know of a couple Pierce Arrows for less that I would go after first.

PFitz,, I am fairly sure that is the one I had heard/read of, probably by you, but also somewhere else. I was thinking of Saskatchewan, but wasn't sure enough to say it. Regardless. Saddened ti here of the loss of another craftsman.