1933 Continental Flyer Roadster; Tribute or travesty?

[Barry Wolk]

West Peterson and I were having an interesting discussion in PM that I'd like to bring here.

I've been collecting "Continentals" for awhile now. Some are pretty darn rare. One of the cars I've wanted for a long time is a 1933 Continental Flyer Roadster. However, it appears, after many years of searching, that there are none extant. Continental also made a 4-cylinder "Beacon" Roadster, on a shorter wheelbase. It used the same body as the Flyer, but the Flyer had a longer hood and wheelbase to accommodate the I-6 Continental "Red Seal" flathead.

In the thread "1933 Continental Coupe-save it if you hurry", no one did so it got its top chopped, skillfully and tastefully, and is being turned into a hot rod. Had this artisan done this chop and restored the rest of the car I assure you you would have agreed that his 3" chop enhanced the original design. In fact, the original promotional literature fudged the facts a bit and gave the car a 3" chop with a pencil and eraser.

Here's the promotional literature:

Here's the side view of the coupe's body before the 3" chop.

This is the roof chopped. I think its much more like the drawing than the original. I wouldn't be surprised if the Count lost out to bean-counters that refused to cut out the tall hat crowd.

OK, now that I've shocked most of you sensible antique car fans, here's the crux of my conversation with West. I made a general request that should someone find another business coupe, preferably a Flyer, that I would like to buy it and have it made into a convertible, as they are the exact same lower shell. From the drawings I've seen it had side curtains and rudimentary top. Sounds like I'd just need a period-correct windshield frame and I'd have a tribute to a car that seemingly no longer exists. West thinks that my request would draw the ire of purists.

Some purists would say I'm ruining a rare, but not terribly valuable car, yet I'd say 99% of you have drooled over the round-door Rolls and hundreds of other rebodied stunners and recreations and cars that never were. West thinks that had any of you had what I wanted you would keep it from me, knowing I was going to alter the top, but restore the rest?

Would you?

[alsancle]

The Round Door Rolls was bodied in period so I'm not sure that is related to this discussion.

If you got a 5 window, I would restore it as is. Most prewar cars could stand a 2 inch chop and those that don't need it are usually worth tons of money. But, as a rare car (although not valuable) I would leave it original. If you found a Beacon roadster body remounting it as is on the longer chassis would be fine with me (assuming it was always presented as such). I generally frown on cars modified to an owner's tastes although respect their right to do it. People do tend to overestimate their taste.

[trimacar]

I've always been a purist, but I seem to be more tolerant lately...I'd say do the roadster conversion.....but it sounds like the real issue will be finding that coupe in the first place!

[Barry Wolk]

Therein lies the rub.

[F&J]

There is plenty to add in this discussion. If it was changed to a roadster and it was used all the time, shows, day trip, etc...I say cut it up. Another early 30s car sitting useless & neglected, in the back corner of a building or under a blue tarp, is not what I want to see.

I wanted to start a thread asking if early 30s cars are doomed, as I never see them at shows unless they are rodded. Matter of fact, I have to go to a farm/tractor swap & show to see stockers, but the closest AACA local show had almost none...maybe none. Except A's

People get angry when they hear rodded, but who else will want these cars and put them back on the road? Why are collectors not wanting or not driving them? It can't be only due to that they are a bit slow, and not enough brake. I don't get it. I prefer early 30s non-fords to be stock, as most non-fords look a bit out of place as a rod to "me". Yes, there are exceptions.

I wonder if some people will pull a hissy fit saying you are trying to pass it off as original...but, if you want one bad enough, build what you can't find.

[stock_steve]

...Matter of fact, I have to go to a farm/tractor swap & show to see stockers, but the closest AACA local show had almost none...maybe none....

Hey F&J, and anyone else in the Connecticut area,

Have you ever heard of the "Junkpile Jamboree" that has been held the past couple of years at the Haddam Neck Fairgrounds (somewhere around mid-July or so?), or the "100% Kulture Hot Rod and Kustom Show" that was held for the first time at the Berlin Fairgrounds in August last year (and has already been announced for it's "2nd Annual" this coming August)?

A lot of really fun & creative stuff shows up (including stockers), and it's *car*-related (rather than tractor--not that there's anything wrong with that of course).

We are lucky here in CT to have a core of "roots"-oriented car folks (in most cases *younger* folks) who care to expend the effort to organize fun events like these.

Check 'em out if you can!

Edited March 11, 2013 by stock_steve (see edit history)

[F&J]

Yes, I went to JJ last year. Saw some cars heading there on our way back from Middletown, where I had a hookup with a guy from NJ with a bunch of parts for me. We followed one car and ended up there. There are much bigger ones in Ct also; Silver City Shakedown in New Britian?(I missed the first one last year) and a real good one is the Hot Rod Fallout in Glastonbury. But..Mass is the mecca of old cars IMO...lots of cars in that state, always has been.

I keep hearing about a pre 1930? stocker show at Mystic? I need to go. I guess I can't get in with my 32 Nash because it'd be too new

[whtbaron]

If you can recreate something that no longer exists, I think that would be great... as long as you don't try to pass it off as original when you sell it. I wouldn't want to hack up a complete car that was rare or historically significant, but when it comes to junkers it's all about having fun and putting them back on the road instead of in a landfill or a coke can.

[oldcarfudd]

Didn't oldcar's many posts, from Australia, document building a '21 Packard roadster from a car that had been some other body style? If you can do that, I'd say to go for it!

Gil Fitzhugh, Morristown, NJ

[1937hd45]

Can we get a list of the Duesenberg closed cars that have open car bodies now? If the old car world accepts the rebodied Duesenberg the Coupe to Roadster Continental shouldn't be a problem IMO. Bob

[TG57Roadmaster]

A better question would be, "Why can't pigs fly?" The result of a conversion would be car that doesn't meet the criteria of, and can't be shown in, an AACA show. I come here so I don't have to look at rods or mods, but instead can learn about the broad scope of vehicles that are recognized by the AACA. Yes, there are many on these forums who own both modified and original vehicles, great, but why are we asked to debate, ad infinitum, the merits of rods/mods/conversions? If I want to see and discuss "what if?" pics of tribute or modified cars, I'd visit other sites that cater to crowds that better appreciate such vehicles.

As for asking if anyone here would not sell you a car, just to keep it from being modified, why is that even relevant? How is one to really know another's true intentions, post-sale? You can go all Godzilla and stomp the car into a floormat once it's yours, just spare me the process.

Please count me among the 1% who doesn't drool over modified or newly-bodied cars, whether they have round doors or flat heads.

TG

[jdome]

A better question would be, "Why can't pigs fly?" The result of a conversion would be car that doesn't meet the criteria of, and can't be shown in, an AACA show. I come here so I don't have to look at rods or mods, but instead can learn about the broad scope of vehicles that are recognized by the AACA. Yes, there are many on these forums who own both modified and original vehicles, great, but why are we asked to debate, ad infinitum, the merits of rods/mods/conversions? If I want to see and discuss "what if?" pics of tribute or modified cars, I'd visit other sites that cater to crowds that better appreciate such vehicles.

As for asking if anyone here would not sell you a car, just to keep it from being modified, why is that even relevant? How is one to really know another's true intentions, post-sale? You can go all Godzilla and stomp the car into a floormat once it's yours, just spare me the process.

Please count me among the 1% who doesn't drool over modified or newly-bodied cars, whether they have round doors or flat heads.

TG

I couldn't have said it better if I said it myself. Well I could have but my post would get deleted.

If I read your original post correctly, you want to chop up several perfectly good cars in order to get the body from one, chassis from another and hood & engine from yet another in order to cobble together this "tribute to" that never was but suits your taste. I've been around cars of this period long enough to know that open car bodies are not necessarily the same as their closed counterpart. Often the cowls are different height, width and shape and the rear deck of a roadster is often lower than the coupe. You may just end up with a rest-o-mod coupster thing with the top of the doors finished off to your taste that is not a tribute to anything real.

[Paul Dobbin]

"you want to chop up several perfectly good cars in order to get the body from one, chassis from another and hood & engine from yet another in order to cobble together this "tribute to" that never was but suits your taste."

"Chop up perfectly good cars" ? I didn't read it that way. Perfectly good cars are not the subject here. Most restorations are compilations of the best parts we can find to make the car complete. I'm happy to see something made from leftover unwanted parts & pieces.

My guess is that the number of permanently unfinished project cars far exceeds the number of completed restorations. Maybe a new approach is in order. It's kind of like tatoo's, it's your skin and your choice.

[Seldenguy]

Sounds to me like the story the chairman told at the board table, after going thru a circle of managers and came back to the chairman, it was entirely reconstructed and misconstrued. ---Bob

[alsancle]

Can we get a list of the Duesenberg closed cars that have open car bodies now? If the old car world accepts the rebodied Duesenberg the Coupe to Roadster Continental shouldn't be a problem IMO. Bob

Bob, the old car world accepts the rebodied Duesenbergs to varying degrees. The general public doesn't know the different. It used to be that they were not allowed at certain shows but I think that has changed. The market absolutely cares. Depending on when the rebody was done and by whom the discount can on resale can be 50% or more.

For me, the history of the car is every bit as important as the car itself. I'm probably in the minority but modern fabrications just do not interest me that much. I appreciate period hot rods, but they of course have history

[West Peterson]

The result of a conversion would be car that doesn't meet the criteria of, and can't be shown in, an AACA show.

TG

Actually, Tom, you are incorrect. Barry is proposing to make a car that supposedly did exist, and AACA accepts such cars.

[F&J]

Various quotes that matter to me. in this thread:

I've been around cars of this period long enough to know that open car bodies are not necessarily the same as their closed counterpart. Often the cowls are different height, width and shape and the rear deck of a roadster is often lower than the coupe. You may just end up with a rest-o-mod coupster thing with the top of the doors finished off to your taste that is not a tribute to anything real.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

This is where a true craftsman comes in, making it all work. The cars from around 32 or 33, 34, seem to be a bit closer in basic shapes comparing roadsters and coupes, not all but quite a few.

My guess is that the number of permanently unfinished project cars far exceeds the number of completed restorations. Maybe a new approach is in order.

This boggles my mind when I see more unfinished, or never started restos each year..and it seems to be growing.

Don't really care.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

If you can please yourself, that's the most important thing. IMO

If I could go back in time (29-33), I'd want to be working in design, or shaping metal in a custom bodybuilder shop.

[Barry Wolk]

If I read your original post correctly

You didn't. Not even close.

[Barry Wolk]

Barry is proposing to make a car that supposedly did exist

KBB and NADA, say it did exist.

[West Peterson]

KBB and NADA, say it did exist.

We've argued in the past about how the information used by KBB/NADA may, or may not be correct. And, as you said in your original post, "the original promotional literature fudged the facts a bit and gave the car a 3" chop with a pencil and eraser." It was common for them (the industry) to "erase" the whole top and come up with a design that they fully intended to build, but never did. But the literature was released before the decision was made to build... or not to build.

[F&J]

Not that you asked.... ... but if it was me, I would skip the thought of a roadster "tribute" (carbon copy), and go with a "phantom" which is a body style that was never built on that make..like a cabriolet. This eliminates the comments about trying to pass it off as a real factory built roadster.

It also gives tons of leeway for the metal guy to show his stuff, as far as pleasing lines, compared to the daunting task of "copying" every minute detail from a real roadster that can't even be located to be looked at in person.

On the hamb, there are around five 1932 Ford ex-5 window coupsters, that all lost their tops decades ago. Each one is very different in door top details and roof details. We were discussing them in one thread, and a guy who has a real Cabriolet 32 highboy chimed in and said "you guys are wasting your time, as they will never look right" He went on about all the differences in the real cabriolet, which was made by a different body plant. I recall thinking, "why go spend 5k for a junk roof and rotted 5w doors, only to end up with yet another common 32 5w coupe". It is just too much work to get it "right" as a 5w coupe....and these are just hotrods built from nothing worth saving. The whole point of working on what we have, is to put an old car back on the road.

I do like copying difficult parts, but it sure is fun to see new shapes and details come from your hands...just like the original custom bodybuilder shops. It's been going on since cars were invented...changes to suit the owner.

[TG57Roadmaster]

The result of a conversion would be car that doesn't meet the criteria of, and can't be shown in, an AACA show.

TG

Actually, Tom, you are incorrect. Barry is proposing to make a car that supposedly did exist, and AACA accepts such cars.<!-- google_ad_section_end --> West

West, I understand the car to be crafted once existed, but I'd like to see the Class in which it would be shown. #39, Special Interest Class "...is not for modified vehicles, ie, hot rods, street rods, choppers, etc." Maybe I'm missing something, but chopping off a top to create another type vehicle smacks of modified. I'll happily stand corrected when shown an AACA Class for this car.

TG

[Barry Wolk]

We've argued in the past about how the information used by KBB/NADA may, or may not be correct.

Yes, I'm sure someone went back in time and created this ad.

[West Peterson]

West, I understand the car to be crafted once existed, but I'd like to see the Class in which it would be shown. #39, Special Interest Class "...is not for modified vehicles, ie, hot rods, street rods, choppers, etc." Maybe I'm missing something, but chopping off a top to create another type vehicle smacks of modified. I'll happily stand corrected when shown an AACA Class for this car.

TG

It would be shown in the normal class for productions cars, 20b.

If you took the top off of your 1934 Packard and turned it into a roadster, it would be shown along with all the rest of the cars in Class 19c.

Edited March 12, 2013 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

Yes, I'm sure someone went back in time and created this ad.

That would make it feasible that they also built a Flyer roadster.

My point is that information in KBB/NADA isn't always correct, and shouldn't be used as sole evidence that a particular car/make/brand/model was built.

[West Peterson]

From an historical perspective, these three photos are the absolute best example I've ever seen showing exactly what would have to be done in order to achieve the advertising illustrator's image of what the car should look like, and what it would take to gain the attention of the car-buying public. I can imagine the disappointment an interested buyer would have felt had he walked into a Continental dealership (was their such a thing?) and asked to see the car in the illustration. Or, worse yet, had he ordered a car based on the illustrator's rendering not seeing an actual car, then showing up at the dealer once it arrived. Uggghh!

Edited March 12, 2013 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[Barry Wolk]

There were no Continental Motors dealerships, per-se. They were sold through gas stations and repair facilities.

[alsancle]

I'm sure they built a few. There is probably one or two hiding somewhere too. It is always amazing to me what comes out of the woodwork. There is an interesting discussion on the HAMB regarding 41 Willys Roadsters. I guess there were 3 built and 1 or 2 are still out there. Most people including me did not realize they built any. I can remember as a kid reading an article on Graham Hollywood Convertibles where they were adamant saying they only built one. There were actually 4 or 5 built.

Btw, West is 100% correct. The NADA guide should not be used for an sort of reference material (including values).

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Interesting thread. FWIW I like F&J's idea of a custom body - but in period style and methodology to the extent possible. F&J being a CT local, if you get a chance you should check out Morton Coachworks in Bristol. He has been building a speedster body for a RR chassis that was displayed as a work in progress a couple seasons ago at the Hershey meet. Jesse is quite talented and has done a few very high quality restorations for clients but this is the first complete fabrication. Dissapearing top, Vee windshield, fully templated in light gauge aluminum before he does the actual body, etc. very cool and hope it is really far along but not quite done for this fall's Hershey meet. Only downside is that I can only imagine the cost involved here in both time and materials.

http://mortonautomotive.biz/twentySixRolls.html

Edited March 12, 2013 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)

[TG57Roadmaster]

If you took the top off of your 1934 Packard and turned it into a roadster, it would be shown along with all the rest of the cars in Class 19c.

Okay, that's a new one on me, but I'd have to make a coupe out of our '34 roadster, not the other way around. Both share exactly the same lower body, wood frame, etc., from the cowl back, shared by Super 8 and Twelve. It's an easy mod, with plenty of examples to use for the few patterns needed. But on a car with scant information, how do you authenticate sills, boot wells, door panels, top configuration, etc., when there are no other examples for comparison and measurements?

I'm not talking about a chassis on which another, correct body is swapped (sedan to convertible, coach to victoria, etc.). This is the first I've heard that cars on the field can have started life as a coupe and can be modified into something else by an entity other than a factory or coachbuilder.

Lesson learned, my mistake, and know I now that we can modify anything we want as long as it looks like the genuine article.

Thanks,

TG

[F&J]

Artistic renderings were also used on Nash, rather than photographs.

Here is the brochure for my second series 1932 "6 cyl" Nash. Nash made a big deal about the largest 8 cyl lwb 32 models in the second series, as far as "low" and sleek, as they redesigned the rear axle/driveshaft and new X frame, to get it lower.

My convertible sedan does have a very chopped look to the windshield, but not as low as shown in the brochure.

If you can see in the pic, the conv sedan uses integral windshield posts like a closed car, and the conv coupe/cabriolet uses bolt-on chromed posts like a 32 GM and 33 Mopar had on it's cabriolets.

Nash and GM were the only carmakers to turn a profit in 32, and Nash profits were higher than GM....yet, I find no evidence of a surviving 32 Nash 6 cabriolet on the net in 5 years.

So, if a person wanted a 32 Nash 6 cabriolet, it would be harder to convert from a coupe, due to the unique windshield posts.

Back to the Continental roadster conversion; the door might well be thicker on the coupe, due to space needed for window hardware and tracks. The problem is noticed in the hotrod world on Ford bodies, with many people hating thick door tops on a coupster. At some point in the 30s, the doors on a typical roadster became a bit fatter, so a roadster modification would be less noticable.

[F&J]

Back to the Continental roadster conversion; the door might well be thicker on the coupe, due to space needed for window hardware and tracks. The problem is noticed in the hotrod world on Ford bodies, with many people hating thick door tops on a coupster. At some point in the 30s, the doors on a typical roadster became a bit fatter, so a roadster modification would be less noticable.

The problem of too thick of a door on a roadster conversion, is not eliminated by thinning the door alone. The A and B pillars will also need slimming, as the kick panel and the rear quarter paneling would not line up with the thinned door, when closed.

Building a roadster is not as easy as just slicing the top off This was my reason why a cabriolet might have a better outcome, despite the extra efforts on window workings.

[West Peterson]

Yes, I'm sure someone went back in time and created this ad.

Are those prices in pounds or lire? Perhaps you need to go to England or France to find one.

[The Continental]

Haven't seen mention of the two 90 Series Cadillacs that were built off factory offerings that were never ordered.

Cadillac shows pair of V-16 beasts for Pebble Beach

[Barry Wolk]

Are those prices in pounds or lire? Perhaps you need to go to England or France to find one.

That was from an AU newspaper. Not sure if that was a full import or a running chassis bodied by Richard's. Import tariffs were so high that only very inexpensive cars were shipped in complete. Since Australia had no auto companies an entire industry sprung up putting Australian bodies on US chassis and assembling TKDs.

[1937hd45]

Not everyone in the world hopes to put a car on an AACA show field,, having the project is what matters. I have my cars because I like them, if I deside to "show" them or not is my business. Bob

West, I understand the car to be crafted once existed, but I'd like to see the Class in which it would be shown. #39, Special Interest Class "...is not for modified vehicles, ie, hot rods, street rods, choppers, etc." Maybe I'm missing something, but chopping off a top to create another type vehicle smacks of modified. I'll happily stand corrected when shown an AACA Class for this car.

TG

Edited March 12, 2013 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

Haven't seen mention of the two 90 Series Cadillacs that were built off factory offerings that were never ordered.

Cadillac shows pair of V-16 beasts for Pebble Beach

The topic is about creating cars that did exist. Those cars have been discussed elsewhere.

[Barry Wolk]

This is an Australian-bodied Continental Flyer. I believe this was done by Richard's. It's currently being restored.

The obvious difference being that the AU body had front hinged doors. The AU bodies were sheet-metal over a wood buck while the US bodies only used wood to attach upholstery to.

US running gear and AU body.

Note the innovative rear suspension. It rides like a dream.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Barry Wolk (see edit history)

[Barry Wolk]

I've asked my friend Casey, AKA Artancolour, to render a Roadster for me. It'll be the closest thing to a photo, as there seems to be none.

[jdome]

You can't necessarily rely on factory sales brochures for accuracy, especially during the 30's when manufacturers often ran out of money before they could complete all the dies. Lots of features, options and complete models that never made it into production. Almost all the car companies used illistrated brochures during the 30's to sell cars. It was common practice for marketing to take artistic license with the artwork to make the cars look longer and sleeker than they actually were. I would say the most exagerated stretching I've seen are in the large 41 Buick & Cadillac illustrated catalogs. Beautiful artwork though.

I don't believe the AACA should be encouraging chopping off tops of good coups & sedans to make more valuable convertibles. Lets be realistic, we all know of good original cars that have been modified or hot rodded or made into more valuable boatails or whatever. The CCCA saw the potential loss of history of closed cars that might be sacrificed to make more valuable open cars. They couldn't do much to eliminate the financial incentive but they made a rule that a Classic doesn't merrit Classic status by its body style only. The entire series would be accepted including it's homely sedan version. That helped at least some sedans to be saved as sedans.