George Smolinski Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3macboys Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 (edited) 1956 Oldsmobile Golden Rocket - amazing number of styling ques for future GM products Edited March 27, 2020 by 3macboys (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_padavano Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 (edited) The color photo in the first post is NOT the original Golden Rocket. It is a photoshop version. Note the fins, the altered angle of the C-pillar, the chopped roof, the added Bertone emblem, the wheels and tires, and the fact that it is lowered. Also note the artist's watermark in the lower RH corner. There are a lot of these photoshopped what-if renderings on the web now. This is the original, GM version of that photo, without the photoshop embellishments. Edited March 27, 2020 by joe_padavano (see edit history) 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Smolinski Posted March 27, 2020 Author Share Posted March 27, 2020 I think I like the styling in the photo I posted better than the original. The fins on the original look wimpy. The sloped roof & back glass in my post are more stylish IMHO. Either way, I wouldn't kick it out of my garage. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 Even photoshopping a picture is a modification. The original picture is what GM built and therefore shows the styling ques properly. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and I think the original picture, un-photoshopped, is a far better looking car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1912Staver Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 Both are interesting , But I have to agree with George about the fins. They look like a last minute add on the original. The altered version makes them look like they were an integral part of the design concept. Greg in Canada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_padavano Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Tinindian said: Even photoshopping a picture is a modification. The original picture is what GM built and therefore shows the styling ques properly. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and I think the original picture, un-photoshopped, is a far better looking car. More to the point, the original is a copyrighted GM image. The artist is violating that copyright. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike6024 Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 (edited) It's not meant to be a big-finned car. Bullet nose and tapered rear. Edited March 27, 2020 by mike6024 (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Smolinski Posted March 27, 2020 Author Share Posted March 27, 2020 2 hours ago, joe_padavano said: The artist is violating that copyright. Someone needs to call the copyright police. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Kingsley Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 I see a lot of Corvette in the design- especially the roof and the area between the rear bullets. The little fins do look a tiny but out of place, but it's the 50s. Fins were in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 Yes, I wonder if Bill Mitchell and/or Larry Shinoda had a hand in this design? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3macboys Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 Between the 63 Split window I also see a 60 Cadillac 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 While the '63 split window Corvette has become pretty collectable due to its only being available the first year, it was a contentious choice. Bill Mitchell wanted it. Larry Shinoda hated it. Bill said it gave the follow through look of a stingray's tail. Larry held that it was a dated look, much like a split windshield would have been in 1963. Most cars had dropped split rear windows 30 years earlier so this was not a new or innovative look to a great designer like Larry, to say nothing of the poor visibility issues it would create. Mitchell pulled rank and the split was installed. The public loved the car but many complained of the poor rearward visibility so when the '64's were introduced the first design change was to drop the split. Many '63 owners had the split removed from their cars and had the upgraded newer window installed. I'm with Larry on this one. I've owned several Corvettes from this era and the '63 is my least favorite for just that reason. I drive my cars daily so I never cared for the split and, like others have said, rarity doesn't really mean desirability. If you've ever driven a 1964-'67 coupe, the rear vision is pretty poor to start with. Add a 6 inch wide pillar down the middle and you may as well throw the rearview mirror away. To give you an idea this is the rearward view in my '65 coupe: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1937hd45 Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 My compliments to the photoshop artist changing the goofy to good looking. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capngrog Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 There is a reason that the "split window" was only offered in the 1963 Corvette. I've driven many miles in a '63, and the rear ward vision was marginal at best. The rearward vision in my '64 coupe was much better. Just because something is rare doesn't mean it's valuable. Something has to be desirable to become valuable. For example, I'm a fan and owner of several Crosleys. The Crosleys are rare, but not particularly desirable (by most folks); therefore, they aren't that valuable (co$tly). Pardon me, I I got off track from the Original Post. I agree that the photo shopped car is better looking (with the exception of the excessive lowering) than the one in the real photo; however, when something like that is photo shopped or otherwise modified, a disclaimer should accompany the modified image/photo. Cheers, Grog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
58L-Y8 Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 The wheels tucked up into the wheelwells are the tip-off this is photoshopped image. While they happily skirted the rear fenders then, no one thought wheels pushed way up into the wheelwells looked good then...except Nash! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_padavano Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 25 minutes ago, 58L-Y8 said: The wheels tucked up into the wheelwells are the tip-off this is photoshopped image. Well, that and the altered wheel openings, the deleted parting line where the fender skirt mates to the body, the chopped roof, the extended rear glass, etc, etc. If you do a side-by-side comparison, you'll also see that they played with the lighting in the clouds and other parts of the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Kingsley Posted March 29, 2020 Share Posted March 29, 2020 Considering that the thread title is "What is it?" I doubt that a disclaimer about it being a modified image would have been possible. The replies including the original photo made editing the original post redundant. If it was known to be a Photoshop job that would be totally different. 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