stexch Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Just finished reading the British book "If Anything Happens to Hester" by John Creasley, copyright 1959, in which the hero drives what the author calls a "Rolls-Bentley". My understanding is that Bentley was an independent company until its acquisition by Rolls Royce, but this is the first time I've come across reference to "Rolls-Bentley". I wondered if it might be a Britishism to distinguish the cars made by the original company from those made after the RR acquisition. Does anyone have any insight into this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlLaFong Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Nope, it is an author who did not research his subject well enough, There is and never has been a "Rolls-Bentley". A number of years ago, Hemmings announced that they would no longer run ads for "Rolls-Bentleys" or Cadillac LaSalles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Oracle Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) A 'Rolls-Bentley' is a euphemism for the Crewe-built Bentleys and not the 'W.O. Bentleys'. As with Vincent, who bought-out the 'H.R.D.' name*, there is no connection between Rolls-Royce Motors Ltd and W.O.'s company, which was bankrupt; R-R just bought the name in effect. I should also add that many Bentleys have been created out of Rolls-Royce cars. This is because in the 1970s only about 18% of R-R production was of Bentley-badged cars and so they are much rarer than their R-R counterparts. There is just one official Bentley Camargue for instance. And if you wonder why they persevered, the answer lies in the once-extant fine dividing line in the 'snobbery stakes' between the two marques. An example is a company owner that was asked why he didn't buy new R-R Silver Shadows and went for identical, more-or-less, Bentley T-Series instead. The answer was that if he did buy a R-R, or 'Royce', then all his employees would have demanded a pay rise as the company must be doing well!*Phil Vincent acquired the rights tp use the name of the H.R.D. Motors motorcycle company that had gone bust, founded by Howard Raymond Davies. They had never met until a Vincent Owners' Club Dinner! Edited January 24, 2012 by Oracle (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Mack_CT Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) One of those terms that may be tough to pin down as "correct" or not, I have heard it used by others to make the distinction between W.O. and post W.O. cars also. It has also been said that RR cars are for those who get driven arond, Bentleys suit those who do their own driving.John, I have to comment on your mention on HMN, I still read religously but really for the ads. HMN can make rules concerning the classification of their ads but I would not consider them as more expert than most informed hobbyists. After following the auction coverage and other commentary in the "new version" of HMN for a few years now I would say those guys are generalists at best, which is fine, but they should not be confused with the "final say" on what is "correct", at least not IMHO... They seem to know a lot about some cars and very little about others, which is reasonable for what they do, all things considered.stexch - Here is another brain teaser for you - What is the correct plural for Rolls Royce? I had always heard it to be "Rolls Royce" until I have noticed some RROC people refer to them as "Rolls Royces" - hmmm.... Maybe its "Rollers" Edited January 24, 2012 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stexch Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Steve: Rolls Royces would make the most sense to me.Oracle: My father owned a Bentley ('50's vintage 4-door sedan) that had been converted to look like a Rolls Royce. As I recall, the alterations made were changing out the radiator shell, hood ornament, and the hub caps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LINC400 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 While the term may be used to identify pre and post W.O. cars, I would suspect it is much more likely that it is simply a clueless author.I have read books involving a Lincoln Mercury Town Car, Ford Cougar, one where someone got in the back seat of a Pontiac Fiero, and one describing the huge towering fins of a 1958 Mercury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Mack_CT Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Yep, I was just checking out a book I picked up at Hershey by Dennis Adler, who has been around Classics a bit, where he references production figures for 1939 Packard Darrin Jr. & Sr. based cars, the first year for these, but pictures a '40!? Anyone can make a mistake for sure. There is too much info out there for any generalist to get it right all of the time, first to admit that I could not make an intelligent comment say, on pricing a '70 426 Hemi or '69 GTO. But getting back to this question I would say unlike "Continental" vs. " Lincoln Continental", which is incorrect for the Mark II, there is no factory designation for the term. I would be inclined to accept "Rolls Bentley" if in use my the RROC, seems closest to an authority for this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlLaFong Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I believe Roll-Royce would, ultimately, be the experts in this confusion. My guess is they will tell you that they have never produced an automobile that was badged or registered as a "Rolls-Bentley." Hemmings may not be the ultimate say so on this matter, but they do have some credentials. Part of the reason that they stopped running ads for R-Bs was because of the proliferation of cheesey RR conversions that were popular 20+ years ago. I did one for a customer, with a kit supplied by, none other than, Gary Wales, noted RR collector and expert. It was a, semi OK looking, faux RR radiator shell, made of stainless and a bunch of self adhesive RR badges to go on the hubcaps and here and thereon the body. All for about a grand, plus he had to turn in the gorgeous Bentley shell and the large, center mounted Lucas driving lamp as cores.Anyhooo, back to the point. It evokes the old question, "How many legs does a dog have if you call it's tail a leg?" The answer, of course, is four. You can call a tail a leg if you choose, but it is still a tail. Same with Rolls- Bentley and Cad-LaSalle. If that is what you choose to call them, fine. Just don't expect the world to fall into lock step behind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Oracle Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Yes, Bentleys had a different grille which required a different, lower, bonnet/hood. Sometimes Bentleys got a tachometer vice Rolls-Royces, aka per RROC 'Royces'. The Flying B mascot, hubcaps, steering wheel badges, dash badges, and a fractionally lower price differentiated.On a differtent subject, the argument as to whether Acadians and Acadian Beaumonts and Beaumonts are Pontiacs still rages. In the Ford empire the '60 Frontenac was a Frontenac, and not a Ford Frontenac. It goes on.... Edited January 24, 2012 by Oracle (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Mack_CT Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I agree on the factory being the best source but I would suggest it is unlikely RR would have an opinion on this, to get to the OP's question it may not be a "Britishism" but more likely a term often used by RR folks with a purpose. So maybe the world does not follow but it may mean something to those "in the know". I doubt Henry Ford used the term "Deuce" but show me a '32 Ford owner who would not use it. That is kind of where I was coming from...Interesting story on the "conversion kit" - hmm, lets see, cheesy repro RR grille shell, or nice original Bentley shell and driving lamp... Maybe Mr. Wales is forward thinking enough to reallize there will be a strong market for people who want to convert back - in most cases the Bentley version is at least as attractive. Try buying them back for $1,000... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Harwood Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 While the term may be used to identify pre and post W.O. cars, I would suspect it is much more likely that it is simply a clueless author.I have read books involving a Lincoln Mercury Town Car, Ford Cougar, one where someone got in the back seat of a Pontiac Fiero, and one describing the huge towering fins of a 1958 Mercury.I recall in jr. high school being pissed off that a chauffeur picked up the hero in Stephen King's "The Talisman" in an Eldorado, holding the back door open for him. At least get the basics right, yo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlLaFong Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I recall in jr. high school being pissed off that a chauffeur picked up the hero in Stephen King's "The Talisman" in an Eldorado, holding the back door open for him. At least get the basics right, yo.Not quite sure what the problem is. I never read the book, so I'm unaware of the timeline, but there were Eldorado 4 doors. The Broughams had four Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LINC400 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Not quite sure what the problem is. I never read the book, so I'm unaware of the timeline, but there were Eldorado 4 doors. The Broughams had fourI was going to mention that too.However, I read the book "Tales from a Buick Eight" by Stephen King. The book is about a 1954 Buick sort of possesed by aliens. On the cover is a picture of a 1953 Buick, as well as a free included poster of a 1953 Buick. The best part? There is a caption inside the cover that states something to the effect of "Car buffs might notice that the cover is of a 1953 Buick instead of a 1954 as described in the book. The author just happened to like the look of the 1953 better, and used a picture of one instead".Ok so since the book does not take place in 1954, or the 1950's at all, and there is no specific reason for the Buick to be a 1954, if you like the 1953 better, why not write the book about a 1953 Buick instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john2dameron Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Okay, we can all agree (I think) that in spite of Rolls-Royce purchasing Bentley, they have never manufactured a car branded as a Rolls-Royce-Bentley. However in my photo collection file I coined the term Rolls Royce-Bentley and I tag Rolls-Royces as Rolls-Royce and also as Rolls Royce-Bentley and Bentleys as Bentley and also as Rolls Royce Bentley. What this does is when I am looking for certain photos to either call up all Rolls and Bentleys as a group or as separate groups. That does not make the cars Rolls-Royce Bentleys; they are either one or the other. I hope this does not confuse anyone; it makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Continental Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I have read books involving a Lincoln Mercury Town Car, Ford Cougar, one where someone got in the back seat of a Pontiac Fiero, and one describing the huge towering fins of a 1958 Mercury.People trying to ride on the engine is how those fires got started in '84 Fieros. It wasn't until late 1984 when dealers urged the 1985 buyers to never allow passengers in the engine bay. I saw an ad once for a Lincoln Mercury. The seller claimed his dad used to have a Lincoln Edsel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john2dameron Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 A friend's wife purchased a new Ford Granada in the '70's and it came from the factory with a Mercury Monarch front clip. Did this make it a Ford-Mercury? No, just another factory goof. A few years before that another friend bought a '68 Mercury Montego. He drove it a while and pulled it up on his grease rack to change the oil. 'Got the oil out and could not find anywhere to put new oil into it. Called the dealer and they told him it was in the valve cover. It was not. Then they told him to drive it to town (about 14 miles) and they'd put the oil in it. He convinced them to tow it in and it had two valve covers alike with no filler cap so they had to put a new valve cover on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlLaFong Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 People trying to ride on the engine is how those fires got started in '84 Fieros. It wasn't until late 1984 when dealers urged the 1985 buyers to never allow passengers in the engine bay. Riding on the engine!?!?!?! What kind of hillbilly rodeo is that. Do we actually need the factory to tell us not to ride in the engine bay? As Bill Engvall would say, "Here's your sign". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Casper Friedrich Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The Finnish burlesque-queen Ulrica Bacher said in a television-interview that she wanted a 1958 Ford Mustang... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crusty Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 People trying to ride on the engine is how those fires got started in '84 Fieros.Fiero Fire (warning, mild profanity): Odd that the fire is at the front of the car...revenge of a jilted ex perhaps? 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