Real Packard trunk?

[1935Packard]

This trunk came with my 1207 (see pictures below). I know the trunk has been on the car for decades, but I don't know if it's an original Packard trunk or an aftermarket add-on. Does anyone know?

It turns out that with the trunk rack down, the car is too long to fit in my garage, so I'm going to be keeping the trunk rack up most of the time. Still, if it turns out that it's an original trunk I might try to put it on for shows and the like. Thanks!

[Owen_Dyneto]

It looks nothing at all like any Packard trunk I've ever seen. BTW, at least in the 30s Packard did not actually make the trunks. Most Packard trunks from the factory where "K" trunks, and several styles were offered and perhaps several makes. Also some cars were delivered with 6-wheel equipment (meaning sidemounted spares and trunk rack) but the trunk which was a separate option purchased from the dealer or another source. Still, I've never seen a trunk anything like that that, and I've seen many. Is there a maker's mark or logo on it? On the locking hardware?

[1935Packard]

Interesting! I couldn't find any mark or logo on it, although I'll check again.

It looked a little bit like the trunk below, although it's clearly not the same one.

[1935Packard]

I found some text on the lock itself: It says "Excelsior USA." I googled around a bit and it seems there was an Excelsior lock company in CT and an Exclesior trunk company in NJ. I'm not sure which this is, but the name was only on the lock (and in very small font, too.)

[Restorer32]

Remember, we judge the inside of trunks so putting the trunk on your car for judging could only hurt you. We do not require documentation that external trunks such as yours be "factory authorized" as long as they are appropriate to the era and vehicle. We do judge for condition.

[West Peterson]

While the trunk looks very, very similar to one's I have seen on mid-'30s Packards, I don't think I ever saw a correct trunk on a Packard with latches that looked like that.

In addition to what Jeff said on judging...

In almost all cases, trunks detract from a car's good looks. So, if you plan on showing it in a concours (like Meadow Brook, Burn, Amelia, etc.), it may be enough to knock you out of contention.

If, however, it's just a local weekend show, the trunk makes for a nice conversation piece. And in the case of no other trunk, built-in or otherwise, it's practically mandatory if you plan on touring.

[Restorer32]

I agree with West. Packards look best without the trunk and with the tops up but we all know what they say about opinions, everyone has one.

[Owen_Dyneto]

The locks on my original 34 Packard "K" trunk are also marked Excelsior USA, though no doubt they sold their hardware to many different companies for many different applications.

[1935Packard]

Thanks, all. The car is just a driver, so I'm not worried about show judging either way. As for appearances, I can't decide which looks better; but given that I can't fit the car into my garage with the trunk rack down, I certainly don't have any plans to use the trunk often! (And West, excellent point about touring.)

[Dave Mitchell]

That is a very nice trunk that came with your car and may well be correct. West is right, it does have different latches than one usually sees on Packard trunks, but it is so similar in design and the rest of the trim that it could be one from Packard,and is almost certainly made by the company that supplied Packard trunks. I have quite a few trunks, at least 6 different styles that were offered by Packard and are pictured in literature, catalogs, factory photos, showroom or parts displays. It is pretty likely that if Packard got a batch that looked like this from their supplier, they would send them on to the dealers. The other trunk on a restored car is actually different from any of the metal trunks that I have and know to have been offered by Packard. Since yours has a drop front and hinged top, it is closer in configuration to the "correct" ones that I know of. That said, the one you have a photo of may be correct too. Most of the Packard metal trunks had latches on the side for the drop front. As a point of trivia, I have several with fitted cases, and these were even numbered to match the trunk in some instances and there were at least 4 different types and grades of cases. I would put the trunk on and enjoy it, especially if you like it. If someone tells you that it is wrong, I would ask them to prove it.

I would have to respectfully disagree that all Packards look better with no trunk and the tops up. I think that the 35/36 sedans, of which I own one, looks better with a trunk on the rack. The styling of the 35/36s also left little room for integral trunks and putting one on the rack gives you at least some storage. The seven passenger sedans had a trunk for one passenger and not even that if the car didn't have sidemounts. In this series of Packards, at least in the sedans, I happen to think that a trunk gives the car a bit of a European look, which the judges at concours these days seem to think is the ultimate expression of automotive style.

When it comes to tops up or down, I like a lot of Packards better with the top down - take the 734 line, which is really, really low and sleek in the runabout or phaeton with the top down, and less so with the top up. The convertible sedans and phaetons in the '30s turn into magnificent parade cars with the tops down, and the sport phaeton's racey second "cowl" and windshield is accentuated when the top is down. You seldom see them down possibly because the big tops are a lot to deal with, especially for one person, but I really like them best down, and I would have to say the roadsters and coupe roadsters look best to me top down too. I always thought that the Darrin convertible victorias looked awkward with the top up, like it was a necessary evil, and there should be a 10 point deduction for showing one with the top up, along with the Auburn speedster series and the Mercedes Benz special roadsters. I have advised two people at major concours to put their tops down for judging on "significant" cars - one didn't as he (on his restorer's advice) didn't want to wrinkle his top - he didn't place - another looked at me like I was crazy and came up with the same wrinkle excuse - I asked him if he would rather have a wrinkle free top or a first in class at Pebble. The next day the top was down and he was very happy.

[West Peterson]

Hi Dave

I said almost all, but have to also respectively disagree with most of the cars you like with tops down. My opinion is that there are very few phaetons and convertible sedans that look better with the top down, including the speedster.

You're absolutely correct in regards to Darrin convertible victorias, especially those from 1938-40. The 1941s and '42s look good either way.

One you missed was the Jaguar XK120/140 roadsters. Holy cow. Must be the worst looking cars ever with the top up.

[tbirdman]

With my 32 Deluxe 8 coupe roadster, most people like it better with the top down. When I show it with the top up, a lot will come by and ask why don't I lower the top. With the top up it definitely gives it a more formal look while more sporty with top down. However, I think the cars looks pretty good either way.

I think a trunk on the car would not look good with the top down but maybe acceptable with the top up.

[1935Packard]

I agree that the trunk looks much better with the top up; when the top is down, the trunk ruins the smooth line down the car that tapers off to the rear. It's just too boxy for that, especially when you have the more aerodynamic style introduced in '35.

In terms of car shows, I like to see tops down. But then I love to put the tops down on my cars: my view is that a convertible should pretty much always have the top down except when it's too cold or it's raining.

[Dave Mitchell]

I agree, top up only when really cold or raining. I have had a 41 160 convertible for about 7 years and the top has been up about two hours of that time, and that was when it rained while I was at a show and includes the time it took for it to dry so I could put it back down. Most of the mid 30s to 42 Packard convertibles look better top down to me. The 39 12 convertible sedan in my garage has the top down, and the front compartment of my town car is always open. I think that the speedsters look terrific with the top down, it shows off how much lower they are. I guess I don't really understand why people will pay significantly more for a convertible and never put the top down - why not buy a sedan?

I agree too that the roadster with the top down probably looks better without the trunk, or is better with the top up. I love the aerodynamic style of the 35s. As long as I am going against the current, I will say that I prefer the 35/36 roadster to the 34s, it is a cleaner, more flowing design.

[tbirdman]

Not to mention the 32 is easier to drive with the top down and is more fun. Since I have done an extensive restoration of the interior, the top down at a car show really shows it off, while a top up will tend to hide it.