neil morse

Hmm ... beware of that link -- I clicked on it and I definitely did not see a picture of a Buick!

I am zeroing in on the look I want for my "faux-vintage" photos. Here's my latest, taken with my 100-year-old Kodak Autographic.

It's unbelievable that people still try to promote this kind of BS to try to cover up the fact that a part is not right. I had a very similar experience with my '48 Chrysler Windsor (6 cylinder) years ago. I got new coil springs for the front end, and the thing was riding high in front like a super-stock Pontiac dragster! The guy who replaced the springs assured me that it would "settle down" after I drove it for a while. Sure ... and Santa Clause comes every Christmas, too! It turned out that he had installed New Yorker coils (8 cylinder). When he changed them out for the correct ones, the car looked right again. It's funny that you posted that quote from me. I was just about to repeat the same thought! I'm so glad you got things sorted out, and your Buick looks fabulous.

Not mine. Looks very solid. https://www.ebay.com/itm/1941-Buick-Series-90-Limited/273520740998?hash=item3faf1b4a86:g:ZC4AAOSwYIpbziFX:rk:8:pf:0

Wow, a Packard with the "legendary inline fireball 8 cylinder engine!" ?

Yeah, not only does James Cagny's mom (kind of a Ma Barker character) lead the cops on a chase in the Buick, but she cleverly evades them (in their Lincoln Cosmopolitan) when a beautiful '40 Woody wagon gets in the way! There's also a Limited in the film. All in all, a must-see for Buick fans!

Fabulous! What a banner day.

You're right, but I swear I didn't wash it! One of my gripes about Hollywood films set in an earlier period is that all the cars, even though they are usually correct to the period, look shiny and new. That's because they get the cars from collectors -- there just aren't a bunch of beat up cars from the 40's and '50's around that you can use making a film. But I remember when the Francis Ford Coppola film "Tucker" was being made in San Francisco, they had to line both sides of Van Ness Avenue with cars to make it look like Chicago in the late '40's. I had a '48 Chrysler at the time, and was asked if I would let them use my car. I ended up declining the offer (they only paid $50 and you had to agree to be there with your car for an eight hour shift), but one of the things they told me was that I would have to agree to have them spray my car with some kind of fake dirt and grime that they said would wash right off. They also said they would use water-based paint to temporarily get rid of the whitewalls. I think Coppola (being a car guy himself) was a little more sensitive than other film makers to the problem of all the cars looking too new.

Okay, Wayne, this is still a manipulated image from my smart phone camera, but I think I'm getting closer to the "real vintage" look. Stay tuned.

Thank you on the dog -- we love her. Those tags are very interesting. I'm learning some stuff I never knew.

Haha -- she was squinting in the sun, I'll do better next time, I promise! ?

Now Don, don't underestimate me! ? I'm already on it. It's complicated, but doable. They no longer make the 122 size film the old Kodak used, but I was able to find 3-D printed adapters that allow me to use 120 film, which is still readily available. And it turns out that there's a place in my neighborhood for vintage camera enthusiasts that does film processing. Since the 120 film is narrower, it makes it a little tricky to use the view finder because you only end up with the center portion of the image. (It's 2-1/4 X 5-1/2 instead of 3-1/4 X 5-1/2.) Also, since the little red window (remember those?) is in the wrong location with the narrower film, I had to "calibrate" the camera by running a dummy paper roll through and counting the turns on the take-up spool to get the film in the right position for each exposure. So there's going to be some trial and error before I get it sorted out, but I'm really having fun (can you tell)? ? No photos of the car yet, but here's an image from my first practice roll. Stay tuned.

That's very interesting. I wonder whether they needed the steel for the war, and that's why states like California stopped making new plates for every year and issued the topper strip for '42, the tag for '43, and the window sticker for '44.

I realize this is an old thread, but it's satisfying for me to see that I'm not alone in thinking the '40-'41 jack was some kind of "widow maker!" What were they thinking?

Oh, I'm working on it. I've got the right equipment. ?

Here's the plate on the car. I could just use the '41 plate by itself, but I think the "V for Victory" tag adds an extra coolness factor.

I got this answer from an outfit called "Dave's California License Plates" https://www.davesclp.com/ Yes the V tab stands for Victory and was issued to vehicle owners who paid their registration for the vehicles in 1943. Just like a sticker today the V was validated to be used for 1943 vehicles. In 1944 when you paid for registration on your vehicle they sent you a 1944 window sticker and the 1943 V tabs would of still been affixed to the plate. So it looks like California had a plate for '41, a plate for new cars in '42, but a yellow "topper" that went across the top of your '41 plate for old cars, the "V for Victory" tag for '43, a window sticker for '44, and then they went back to issuing new plates starting in '45. It's explained on this page: https://www.davesclp.com/yominfo.html So the plate I got would be the correct plate that my car would have had in 1943. I'm going to stick it on the front and run my "official" vanity plate ("41SUPER") on the rear only. It's not strictly kosher from a DMV standpoint, but I think my chances of getting in trouble are pretty remote. This all started because I am trying to take some "faux-vintage" photos of my car, and the modern plate sticks out like a sore thumb. This way the car will look authentic for the period.

Thanks, Mark. I located that site this morning, but it doesn't appear that they have a discussion forum like the one we have here, or that I could participate in their list serve without joining. But I'm going to try to communicate with them.

Patina!

I just bought this 1941 California plate on ebay, and I have a question for all the professors. As you can see, the plate has a "topper" strip for 1942, but then also has a corner tag that simply has the letter "V" on it. From the limited information I have been able to glean from ebay, these tags are referred to as "V for Victory" tags, and were issued in 1942 and 1943. I figured I could find the whole story on the Internet, but so far I haven't found a thing about them. Since the tags covered the year on the plate, I'm wondering whether they were issued during the war instead of new tags for each year, since no new cars were being registered. Does anyone know anything about this?

I realize that your mother-in-law in "only" 80, and your Buick is 81, but I suggest you proceed with caution! We all know you're frustrated by the delays that were beyond your control, but a few more days won't make a difference at this point! Take a deep breath. ?

Thank you. It's called "royal maroon."

Great to have you back, Gary!

I'm working on faux-vintage snapshots of my '41. Here's my latest effort.