nzcarnerd Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 If someone has a rather realistic idea of the wheelbase of the smaller roadster, one could probably estimate the wheelbase of the first "monster car", as it seems about 30% more.Someone mentioned the brakes. I think it should have also come with an anchor, if only rear brakes.JohnThe small roadster is thought to be a Metz of 1912 or 1913. If that is correct its wheelbase is 90". The big car could easily be 140" which would fit with several of the larger cars of that era.Of course almost all cars of that era had rear only brakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trulyvintage Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 The top image ....When magnified to full size ....Says " Ginger Al " I believe ....Also seems to say " Verified " but not sure ?Seems to be a lady in the front seat ?If picture was taken in Michigan, isn't the license plate a clue ?Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Wolk Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 It says "Vernor's Ginger Ale", a Detroit institution. It was taken in Jackson Michigan, but that may not be a Michigan plate, besides, the Secretary of State in Michigan only keeps records for 10 years. Little help there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Wolk Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 The small car has a Michigan manufacturers plate from 1914.http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1525597&d=1325578642 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Wolk Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 I don't think the small car is a Metz. The front of the fenders is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-Frame Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 To me the pictures don't look legit... novelty fakes. First off the car is a right hand drive (in America?). Second, the front fenders don't look right and you can see they don't match in the second photo with the two car comparison. The right front fender is lower and rounded while in the top photo they match. Also, looks like the spare is behind the front seat? Odd. I am sure there is more than can be pointed out if one looks closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Wolk Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 Many early US cars were RHD.The fender had been hit, that's why it's lower.I don't think they had Photoshop in 1914. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I'm surprised no one has leaped on the nature of the hood fasteners or hinges on that beast. It also looks a bit like there is an access handle for a door on the driver's side. If one looks closely there appears to be a handle near the middle and below the level of the hinges or latches. Given the length of the hood that beast must have had a fairly large engine in it. One of the larger engines of the era was an in-line 6 built by English Daimler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-Frame Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Many early US cars were RHD.The fender had been hit, that's why it's lower.I don't think they had Photoshop in 1914.Definately not Photoshop but people did paint on glass negatives and layered images to alter things back then. Did it a lot on film in the movies to create illusions (early FX). Even if the right front fender was hit, where is the flat top piece to it in the second picture? And the tire looks smaller.I can't imagine any car company making such a huge vehicle in the very early days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Wolk Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 So, you're saying it's a fake based on what you see in two pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Wolk Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 Hi-res picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty_OToole Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Was hoping for a positive ID but so far no luck so will throw in my 2 cents.It appears to me that someone has taken a car of 1910 or so and altered it. Some kind of heavy luxury touring car. The hood has been changed and so has the grille.My guess is that someone took a large car and replaced the engine with an even larger aircraft engine. This was not unusual right after WW1 in fact some tried to make a business out of doing this.This would account for the odd hood and 1915 Mercedes style front end. They were built to cover an engine that was larger and longer than the original.The main flaw I see in this idea is that the pictures appear to be a shade too early. If they could be dated 1919 or 1920 it would fit in perfectly but these "specials" did not appear in numbers until after the war.There is one other angle. Some manufacturers may have tested new aircraft engine designs by installing them in cars. Curtis even tested a new air cooled V8 in a motorcycle in 1907, it set a record at Daytona Beach.This is all just speculation unless someone can come up with an old newspaper article or other positive ID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-Frame Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Barry, Happy New Year!I would be the first to admit I am wrong if I thought so but things just don't add up on the pictures for me. Take the perspectives….Look at the small car and its front tires. They match in size even at the angle... which is the same angle the larger car has but the two tire sizes don't match (the right one seems a few inches smaller in diameter). Place a piece of paper on the screen and match up a measuring spot on the left tire and see (do the same for the smaller car for comparison). Also look at the size of the car in the background. It should look smaller but seems about the same size as the smaller one going at a distance (vanishing point perspective). It looks more correct with the larger car eliminating the smaller one next to it. And the tops of the front fenders don't match. The top of the left one lines up with the top of the headlight but the right one doesn't and it is rounded, including the leading edge.Also where is that mysteriously placed spare tire seen above the seats in the top picture?And I doubt they would have made proportionally sized headlamps for the smaller car making me think it was a normal size car smaller in visual size superimposed . The second picture has an obviously highlighted (drawn) fender edge (something often done to bring out edge details in photos back then) and the radiator top on the background just doesn't look right.Again, I may be wrong but I am sure if you study the two pictures side by side and inch by inch you will find more anomalies.If I am wrong... I hope someone identifies this beast and yes, early cars did have right hand drive (or more correct middle of the seat drive in most cases). Not many American manufacturers did that though.Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) I agree with Rusty on the time frame and the use of other than a car engine. I previously mentioned a large 6 cylinder in-line English Daimler, an engine that was the power plant for British WWI tanks. English Daimler also made large in-line Air Cooled aircraft engines in those days.However, Rusty the fenders are alike the camera and angle make it look as you describe in the photo with the smaller car. The other clearly shows the fenders to be identical. Edited January 3, 2012 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-Frame Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) With your hi-res picture you can now clearly see the smaller car is superimposed. It has that look and gives it away under the right fender edge. And surface textures and clarity don't match.The large car's grill almost looks drawn in, including the verticle ribs that seem to bleed over the top of the shell.Hi-res picture. Edited January 3, 2012 by X-Frame (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzcarnerd Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I agree with Rusty on the time frame and the use of other than a car engine. I previously mentioned a large 6 cylinder in-line English Daimler, an engine that was the power plant for British WWI tanks. English Daimler also made large in-line Air Cooled aircraft engines in those days.However, Rusty the fenders are alike the camera and angle make it look as you describe in the photo with the smaller car. The other clearly shows the fenders to be identical.The Daimler engine used in WW1 tanks was a commercial unit that was much bigger than those used in cars. The cars used sleeve valve engines from about 1910 where, as far as I know, the tank engine had regular valves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzcarnerd Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 could this big car be a German made Benz ???...as in the "Blitzen Benz" that had a front mounted supercharger ???....just guessing here.The Blitzen Benz was never supercharged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzcarnerd Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 If the plate on the small roadster is 1914 then that definitely sets the date of the picture.My opinion is that it is a regular large American chassis of the 1910 era with a custom body. Matching the front wheel hubs with something else would be a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Restorer32 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 It's unquestionably a 90 hp Mercedes chassis from about 1914. Compare examples in George Wingard's book WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING. Identical grill, same wheels, same number of spokes, same center hub bolts. Obviously a homemade body, likely beat down from a closed or limo style body given the awkward windshield base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Restorer32 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Well, maybe not unquestionably, but that's my best guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keiser31 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 PLEASE! Enough of your conspiracy theories. Nothing has been superimposed.Geez!I was gonna say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Right hand drive as well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest De Soto Frank Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Those aren't children.Really ? Again, perhaps it's due to the distortion caused by the shooting angle and close proximity of the camera to the car, but from what I can see of them, they look... well, smallish... not midgets or dwarf-ish, but like children or adolescents to my eyes. I don't think either photo is re-touched or doctored... there were techniques for doing so, either to the negative (often a glass plate in this era), or to the print... but it usually is detectable. From what I can see thus far, these appear to be amateur "snap-shots", taken with a larger-format roll-film camera (as opposed to a higher-resolving plate-type bellows field camera or reflex press-camera, such as an RB Graflex). Edited January 3, 2012 by De Soto Frank (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest De Soto Frank Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) What size are the original prints that you scanned ? ( I took a closer look at the enlarged version of the first image, and the people still look "youthful" to me, but the original print is a bit "soft"... do you know something about them?)I'm still on then Benz bandwagen as to chassis heritage...The headlight lenses are unusual to me... I don't recall seeing American cars with curved lenses on gas headlamps. Edited January 3, 2012 by De Soto Frank (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Wolk Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 I don't think they're children, nor little people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest my3buicks Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Looking closely at the people in the car - they are not dressed in children's clothes - the person behind the wheel seems a sporting type woman(Amelia Earhart type not a feminine doll) the other in white is harder to tell but I am leaning toward a small framed man. He appears to be wearing a "stiff white bowler hat" which dates easily to the period in question and would have been worn by men. Edited January 3, 2012 by my3buicks (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest De Soto Frank Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Looking closely at the people in the car - they are not dressed in children's clothes - the person behind the wheel seems a sporting type woman(Amelia Earhart type not a feminine doll) the other in white is harder to tell but I am leaning toward a small framed man. He appears to be wearing a "stiff white bowler hat" which dates easily to the period in question and would have been worn by men.I do not ever recall seeing a white bowler hat in photos of that era... theatrical costumes excepted... black and brown were the traditional colors.The man's hat looks European to me, something more along the lines of the hat Chico Marx always wore, or Ferd'nan from the funny-papers... the image is too soft for me to tell, but it appears that the hat-brim curls up all the way around the hat, instead of flattening-out at the front and rear as in the case of a derby or bowler... and the crown looks more pointed at the top..It might also be one of the variations of Panama straw hat then in vogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest my3buicks Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) well, the one pictured is new - white/creme was certainly not unheard of in that time frame, while I agree that black and brown were the norm. I think one also needs to look at the car, color of the car and the couple in it and to me it makes sense. I doubt they were Mr & Mrs Average Joe. Eccentrics might be a better description. Edited January 4, 2012 by my3buicks (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty_OToole Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) I believe Restorer32 is correct in calling it a 90hp Mercedes from the early teens.In that case my theory of the special builder is exploded.In the photo with the people in it, you can see a box at the base of the rear fender where it joins the running board. This could be for clearance of the rear chain guard. Unfortunately you can't get a good look at the rear drive in the other picture because of the car in front. Chain drive is one of the characteristics of the big Mercedes.If it is a 90hp Mercedes it was one of the most expensive cars in the world. In that case the mystery becomes why such a luxury chassis is equipped with such a crude looking body and how it got to be so beat up.Is that the model made under license by the American Simplex company? If so could this be a prototype equipped with a cheap temporary body for durability testing?The white hat certainly looks funny. Could it be a Panama or straw summer hat? Edited January 5, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Wolk Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 The Manufacturer's Plate clearly dates the small car in the picture to 1914. However, the monster car could be a couple of years old, explaining the wear and tear on the front fenders. The pictures seem to be taken at different times as the driver's side fender pictures seem to show different stages of deterioration.If we can date this to 1914, what are the lights on the front fenders? Gas? Electric? Original to the car? People on other sites have come up with similar cars, but nothing so large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty_OToole Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) The headlights appear to be gas (note the vents on top) and you can see an acetylene cylinder on the left running board. But the parking lights appear to be electric.As to what is original to the car there is no way to tell. In those days the customer bought the chassis and had the body built separately and added accessories according to his taste. Those big brass headlights can't have been cheap. Edited January 5, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty_OToole Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 As far as the size of the people goes, people weren't so big back then. My grandfather was 5'4' and that was not unusual at the time. Anyone over 5'7" or 5'8" was tall. Minimum height for recruits in WW1 was 5'4" but this was not rigidly enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty_OToole Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) How about this for a theory. The car is a 1911 90hp Mercedes, one of the most expensive luxury cars of the time. It was ordered by a wealthy man who wanted a fast powerful high grade car because he liked going on long motor trips. He was planning to tour Europe and then the United States. He wanted a car that was functional and did not care at all for looks or style. The body and accessories reflect that. The touring body is conventional to the point of looking crude except for the unusual flange or arm rest or window sill running around the edge. The hood is pure function with latches you can get at, and a hatch in the side to check the oil.Did it ever have a windshield? In those days there was no safety glass. Some people did not want a windshield, they thought the plate glass was dangerous if it got broken which could easily happen in a car that was used hard. Or, maybe it had a windshield which got broken and was removed.It does have large expensive headlights. The owner wanted the best lighting for night driving.The bald tires and dented fenders suggest this car has met life in the raw. Possibly the pictures were taken after the car had covered thousands of miles touring Europe and America. Roads were bad in those days and driving conditions tough.Maybe this is what the typical car of the day looked like after 2 or 3 years of hard use.The owner and his wife are average size for the times, or maybe just a little on the small side. They are a few inches over 5 feet tall. The odd looking hat is a white Panama or expensive straw he brought with him from Europe. The chauffeur is not in the picture. Edited January 5, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest my3buicks Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Perfect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Wolk Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 From another site.The size of the car in this picture was interestingly large. This is from the Fowlerville Michigan 1914 Merchant's day: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty_OToole Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 One other thing I wonder about. Is the body on the Mercedes European or American. It looks to me like a typical American body but I don`t know that much about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Wolk Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 No one believes it's a Mercedes as their cars all has stars emblazoned on their radiator housing and their filler neck was at the front of their radiators. That V grill was popular on about 20 manufacturers in Europe at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest De Soto Frank Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 From another site.RE: Photo in #80: Front car looks like it might be an Olds Limited, and they are indeed "huge"... 42" tires, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzcarnerd Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 From another site.The big car at the front of the queue here is an Oldsmobile Limited - note the very large wheels and the double running boards. Our mystery car is not that big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Reattaneer Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Prototype? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now