They really do exist

[30DodgePanel 280]

12 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

A pox on whomever stole that Pierce's hood ornament Wednesday night.

 

 

Quartered

(the only word that comes to mind)

 

Owner gets dibs on which section goes first as he or she sees fit. 

[8E45E 412]

5 hours ago, wayne sheldon said:

Sure is disgusting about that beautiful Pierce's radiator cap being stolen! Cannot say what I really think about it on a family friendly forum. Unfortunately, that sort of thing does happen, always has, probably always will, even in our wonderful hobby. I have lost a couple items at shows myself. However nothing as valuable as that cap! (I do still miss my Homburg hat. It was old era, perfect condition, and fit me perfectly. Stolen out of a friend's '26 Buick four-door sedan because we thought it would be safer there than in my open model T! In forty years since, never found another one that worked for me.)

I only wish a separate thread was started on this incident.  What could, and should be an interesting thread has unfortunately deviated into a sad occurrence that we all must constantly remind ourselves to be aware of at old-car show, including not leaving one's car unattended, and making sure the venue has excellent security on site for the entire duration.

 

Too bad a report of what some eff-ing lowlife did intruded and ruined the start of an excellent thread topic.

 

Craig

Edited October 13 by 8E45E (see edit history)

[60FlatTop 4,791]

11 hours ago, Xander Wildeisen said:

I bet Robin Hood took it. 

 

I appears that there is a lot of that going around.

 

No point deduction for correct cloth covered wire, 2 points off for Model T coil on Pierce-Arrow.

[C Carl 1,369]

11 hours ago, C Carl said:

 

I did talk to the owner of a beautiful early '30s P.A. with conventional headlights several years back. It was originally a Canadian car. That was the reason given for its configuration. 

 

Could there have been some Canadian regulation which would have made the unique Pierce Arrow headlights unacceptable ?  -   CC 

[John_Mereness 650]

I am not one to hang around my own cars when parked on the street downtown while at dinner or at shows (lots of other cars and people with them to see) and not to say I am mistrusting, but if you have ever tried to take off a 200 degree RR radiator ornament you will know why I drove around with my Scottie Dog on the car verses the "Flying Lady" that stayed with the car since 1932 and that I intended to have stay with the car during my ownership.  Plus, I just liked the  Scottie Dog better.  

 

As a sidenote, that is my nephew and his best friend in the backseat - they folded down the opera seats and declared them the best foot rests ever matched to the back seat "better than a recliner"  - they were catching  up on their iPad time.

 

  

Edited October 13 by John_Mereness (see edit history)

[8E45E 412]

5 minutes ago, C Carl said:

 

Could there have been some Canadian regulation which would have made the unique Pierce Arrow headlights unacceptable ?  -   CC 

Canadian headlight regulations have never been as strict as US regulations.  For example, sealed beams were not 'law' in Canada as they were in the US, which didn't allow composite headlights until 1984.  Various Citroens, Peugeots and Saabs in the 1970's were sold in Canada with their Euro-spec lenses utilizing the H4 bulbs.

 

Therefore, I could not see Pierce Arrows being sold in Canada without the integrated fendertop headlamps.  

 

Craig

[Matt Harwood 6,417]

I suspect it was purely an owner preference thing. There were plenty of people who didn't like the Pierce-Arrow fender headlights but appreciated the Pierce's other virtues. Just as you could order a Pierce in just about any color you wanted, they were likewise happy to oblige the buyer who didn't care for the headlights. They probably didn't like it, but a buyer is a buyer and if you're operating in that rarefied atmosphere you give him what he wants. 

Fortunately, not many guys opted for it. In my experience, many more of the brass era Pierces had separate headlights than '30s cars when it was becoming more common and less unusual.

[JV Puleo 2,032]

As much as I admire PA's engineering I've never thought those "frog eye" headlights were attractive and would have been one of those buyers who wanted traditional separate lights. They wouldn't keep me from owning one (should I be so lucky) but if I had a choice I'd take the car with the separate lights.

 

But, I don't like Cords either so chances are my tastes are not exactly "mainstream."

Edited October 13 by JV Puleo (see edit history)

[John_Mereness 650]

By the way, I really like the Pierce Arrow Convertible Sedan with the free standing headlamps and fender parking lamps (a unique parking lamp too), but personally I would stick to the signature Pierce Arrow fender mounted headlights and crossbar parking lamps - it is they styling that a Pierce Arrow is all about. 

[edinmass 2,638]

Does ANYONE think this headlight treatment looks "frog eyed" or unattractive?

[8E45E 412]

It is a dilemma I would have in owning a 1920's Pierce Arrow.  The attached headlamps are iconic, but I really do like those bar-mounted ones.

 

Craig

[edinmass 2,638]

Same car...with wire wheels......

[billorn 321]

To me the car with the separate headlights looks ordinary. Seeing it from the side it could almost be anything. It goes from being distinctive to blending in. Isn't that what we hate about today's cars? They all look the same. I wouldnt be able to tell you what that car is without looking close at the grill. That isn't what I expect from a pierce.

[bryankazmer 59]

while I like both, I think Pierce was in a bit of a styling quandary, trying to balance new and old.  The head lights in the fenders and streamlined pod parking lights were leading edge in the mid thirties, but some of the other Pierce trends, like often using wire or artillery wheels, were trailing edge.  The overall effect seems to be that Pierce and Lincoln tend to look fairly streamlined, but not as much as Graham, Hupp, Cord.  In the luxury market, the leader was the conservatively evolving Packard (don't bring up the Dietrich aerocoupe, it was an exception).

[John_Mereness 650]

16 minutes ago, edinmass said:

Does ANYONE think this headlight treatment looks "frog eyed" or unattractive?

That PA really is stunning !  The color is great too !!!

[1937hd45 1,412]

Headlamps are never an issue with early Pierce Arrows. Bob 

[8E45E 412]

That would go back when they were still called 'Great' Arrow.  here is a 1917.

 

 

Edited October 13 by 8E45E (see edit history)

[trimacar 2,075]

44 minutes ago, edinmass said:

Same car...with wire wheels......

Ed, is that a picture of my top, or the top I replaced?

 

As to the fender vs. bracket and New York law, I've researched the issue quite a bit.

 

Simply put, the bracket lights were an order option, and has it's own code for ordering a car from the factory.  For those who don't know, cars were ordered via telegraph, and code words assigned to options in order to save money on the telegram.  Thus, a dark maroon car with bracket headlights and rear mounted spare and wire wheels might be "Omaha cumquat table knife" on the order telegram.

 

I've searched, and there was no New York law found stating anything about fender headlights.  New York City itself had some regulation about the distance apart of front parking lights, and that may be where the "legend" started.  Rolls Royce didn't seal heads on engines forever, free Stanley's if you held throttle wide open for a minute were never given away, Henry Ford did not say "history is bunk" (although the full quote contains those words), New York State did not outlaw fender headlights.....

[8E45E 412]

13 minutes ago, trimacar said:

New York City itself had some regulation about the distance apart of front parking lights, and that may be where the "legend" started. 

New York City had for years, VERY stringent laws regarding taxicabs.  I wouldn't be surprised if there was some lighting law in place for taxicabs, including a warning light on the dash that a rear door is open, etc., but I don't think their taxi laws included any on headlight placement.

 

Craig

[TexRiv_63 406]

I'm with Ed on the headlamps. EVERY other car of the period had bracket headlamps and all looked very similar. The Pierce was distinctive in many ways but the headlamps set them apart.

 

Regarding the mascot theft that has been a problem for a long time. I had plain caps for all my prewar cars. A friend with a 34 Pierce 12 takes his archer cap off and carrys it wherever he is stopping.

[trimacar 2,075]

I have an original plain radiator cap for my '31 Pierce, very distinctive with a pointy top like the gas cap, and the plain cap is rarer that an archer!

 

I have a little bag, and remove and carry the archer with me if away from car, as does the fellow mentioned above....putting the plain cap on....

[Grimy 905]

32 minutes ago, TexRiv_63 said:

A friend with a 34 Pierce 12 takes his archer cap off and carrys it wherever he is stopping.

Nitpick du jour:  Don, that would be a 1933 or earlier, because for 1934 the radiator filler was moved under the hood.  The archer for 1934-38 is bolted to the radiator shell, with minimal clearance to the radiator top tank, and it takes about 20 minutes with a flat wrench to extract one.  Much less time if you're Ed......  🙂

 

[edinmass 2,638]

Dave, that’s the top you replaced.

[Fargoguy 11]

Several years ago when we visited the Lemay collection at Marymount there was a Pierce roadster with conventional headlights. Whether true or not- the tour guide told us it was a California law that required those headlights. 

[tcslr 33]

Edinmass,  You made me smile about the LV luggage!  I apologize for perpetuating gossip - I repeated what I was told - gossip.  It's interesting how 'legends' start!  It is making me think.... Do I like the bar lights? because they are more common?  Maybe. The PAs are SO distinctive.  I really liked that Cord though,and generally like Cords of the mid 30s - they look so clean but those big buckets... WOWZA!    in the same vein, I just don't care for Bugattis.  There is something about that grill that just doesn't 'zing' me.

I like the Cadillacs a little more than Packards - a good friend pointed out that in his estimation, the Cadillac rear axle and wells are 'too far back but not so on the Packards'.  I see what he means. Still.

Your car is exceedingly lovely.  I'm curious? what is the road illumination like compared to say a same year with 'conventional' lights? Seems to me that it may be a little lower illumination due to the increased width - but maybe too little to tell.

 

That's too bad about the mascot.

 

Tom