Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!

19109119139159161077

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,910
    I thought you were going to buy the Ram, sell the Buick to the roommate, and use the ram and your fleet to back it up?

    Umm, for lack of a better excuse, separation anxiety? :blush:
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,089
    edited January 2013
    The Hemmings Classic Car came to the mailbox today. On the cover is a 60s Studebaker convertible. Uplander will be very happy to see this. What year is this doll on the cover.

    The editor's page talks about the ugliest cars he and submitters determined to be the Aztek and the 1961 Plymouth--all of them.

    Now he's asking for submissions for most beautiful car. I'd give him this for one of my memorable cars.

    1949 Roadmaster convertible sedan. Even the license plate says "beautiful."
    Makes me remember the movie On Golden Pond. Add Audrey Hepburn driving with a scarf blowing in the wind behind here and the car would be complete.

    Click picture for 600x800 version

    ">image


    ">image
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,588
    "beautiful" is not a term that should be handed out lightly--it should mean a car that is beautiful ALL OVER---not dramatic, or highly styled---but *harmonized* beauty---that is, every part of it agrees with every other part.

    That Buick has great lines!

    There are lots of cars with a pretty front and a butt ugly back, (or vice-versa) or with fabulous fins and nothing else to recommend it, or a lovely front and back and a very bad roofline----you get the picture.

    If one says that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" then you would have to agree with anyone who said an Aztek was "the most beautiful car on earth".

    So watch what you say! :P

    MODERATOR

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited January 2013
    If I had to pick nits, it has a big, uh, rear. Then again Jimmy Hoffa was probably stuffed in there so they needed the room. :D

    No doubt a beautiful car.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,588
    Yes but it's a "coherent" big rear....on an elephant, a big rear is perfect for the rest of what the animal looks like. :P He wouldn't look good with a horse's tail, or with stripes on his butt.

    Someone once told me that the car designer's best friend would be someone standing behind his drawing board or computer, wielding a baseball bat.

    Then he'd know exactly when to stop.

    MODERATOR

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I already love Fridays and you've made mine better, I therefore thank you. :D
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,590
    That best friend needs to visit the Nissan and Lexus design houses, stat :shades:
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,590
    You must like "Rain Man" then - a 49 Buick is one of the stars of the show:

    image
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,588
    edited January 2013
    I actually appraised that car some years ago---or one of them, at any rate. Let's just say in terms of condition, that "the camera was very forgiving".

    Perhaps it's been restored since then--it sure needed it.

    MODERATOR

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    That Lark on the cover of the new Hemmings Classic Car (mine came today too), is a '60. I have to say, I hate the skirts on it though!

    No other compact had a convertible in '60, although that of course soon changed.

    I'm not really a big-Buick fan of that period, but I think they way the hood opens is cool.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,910
    I'm not really a big-Buick fan of that period, but I think they way the hood opens is cool.

    I don't think Buicks really started exciting me until 1955-56. The '54 was the same basic body, but I just didn't like the droopy look of the headlights.

    That '49 is nice, though. I think it looks nicer than most of its peers. The DeSotos and Chryslers are pretty stodgy in comparison, and even GM's own Oldsmobile really isn't that attractive to me...front end has sort of a big-mouth bass look to it. The Lincoln looked a lot more modern IMO, but was nowhere near as attractive. If anything, kinda vulgar. And that year's Packard was in major need of a C-section!
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited January 2013
    When I was a kid, my mother's older brother on Staten Island had an old, I think, '54 Buick convertible. It was a mongrel (remember I was born in '58!). My mother's younger brother would rib him to unload it.

    I remember certain Buicks of that '54-56 period actually had an emblem on the decklid that said "1955 Buick" and the like! Talk about planned obsolescence!

    I think Cadillacs actually said "Nineteen-Fifty-Six" on their instrument panel, on the passenger side!

    EDIT: I remembered that correctly! The guy who lived behind us, who sold Dad our new '67 Chevelle, had a creamy white '56 Sixty-Special he used to pull a trailer with--it had the neat gold wheels. That's where I believe I first saw those nameplates.

    http://chromeography.com/post/36351554321/1956-cadillac-coupe-de-ville-by-lauri-- johnston
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,590
    I think I remember it seeing go to auction a couple years ago. I am sure in the 25 years since the film, it aged, and was probably never perfect to begin with. If a 10 footer can look mint in person, it will on camera,
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,590
    edited January 2013
    Hilarious, talk about a goofy/dumb idea. In 1965, I am sure everyone wanted a car that was labeled "1956" (as if a 1956 Caddy didn't look a million years old by 1965 as it was). Heck, even by 1961, done.

    Styling ages slower today, which isn't a bad thing.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,154
    This silver Buick has the wrong wheel covers. Those are from a 1957 Cadillac.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 1,804
    I have subscribed to that magazine since it started - I actually was a Special Interest Autos subscriber, and carried on automatically when they converted it to Hemmings Classic Car. I have never been a fan of the editor and his positions on various things, and the idea of talking about ugliest or most beautiful cars just seems like a waste of space. They have a lot of wastes of space in there now. I really miss SIA and wish they would go back to that format.

    2011 Buick Regal Turbo, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,089
    >about ugliest or most beautiful cars just seems like a waste of space....wastes of space...

    I enjoy a lot of their one page articles which probably are ones you consider wastes of space. The article by someone who worked in the auto industry in the past, a different one each month, I find interesting.

    Everyone is welcome to their opinion.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,588
    I'm interested in seeing what is generally regarded as beautiful and ugly, since those types of opinions dovetail into market values, as well as give me tip offs on what bargains might be out there. Naturally like most humans beings, I glow in the warmth of self-righteousness when Hemmings Classics verifies that the cars I thought were ugly, are, in fact, ugly.

    Generally i agree with most of what they say except when they get to their 'future classics" articles---I really have to scratch my head over some of their choices, because most often their choices are dead in the water in the marketplace and in most people's consciousness.

    I'm a big believer in the "loved when new...then loved when old" school of thinking.

    MODERATOR

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,590
    Spotted a beautiful white W126 on chrome disc wheels this evening, and a C43 AMG.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited January 2013
    I like their one-page articles, like "I Was There" (people who worked in the industry 'back then') and "Reminiscing" (peoples' personal experiences with a car; we all have similar stories). I like getting it every month and there is great photography IMHO. That said, Special Interest Autos was every other month I believe, and a little more 'scholarly' I think. I always liked their 'driveReports', where they would test three competing old cars in the way Car and Driver or Motor Trend would test current competing models.

    This month's HCC has an column on the crashing of the '59 Chevy and '09 Malibu, which we discussed here a couple weeks ago.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,588
    What did they say about that? My subscription just expired so I didn't read it. I imagine they were not too pleased.

    MODERATOR

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    They weren't too pleased.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,588
    I wonder if they would express similar displeasure at someone who took an old classic, chopped the roof, slammed it, and air brushed the image of an Aztec god on it?

    MODERATOR

  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,769
    Spotted a beautiful white W126 on chrome disc wheels this evening

    Really fin??? I never thought I would hear the words beautiful, W126 and chrome wheels used together by you.
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,769
    edited January 2013
    ...saw one this morning. Red with white top. Tail lights looked like this:

    image
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 1,804
    I enjoy a lot of their one page articles which probably are ones you consider wastes of space. The article by someone who worked in the auto industry in the past, a different one each month, I find interesting.

    No, I like those, along with the reminiscences articles uplanderguy mentioned. I am referring to the multi-page spreads they seem to do every issue with somebody's list of the 50 best whatevers, which really are not very useful or interesting. I find the Driveable Dream articles very hit-or-miss, with some of them simply being about poorly maintained old cars. The Mechanical Marvels section, while potentially quite good, seems to be written in a way that makes most of them either indecipherable or useless, to the point where I don't even try to finish reading them now. And the columnists are generally uninteresting.

    The current issue came this week in the mail and I still haven't even taken it out of the mailing bag.

    2011 Buick Regal Turbo, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    Oh, I think "Hemmings Classic Car" would be upset at that.

    Now, "Hot Rod Deluxe"...not so.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    That's a '67. The Coronet 500 was a sharp automobile IMO.

    In my hometown there was a '66 Coronet 500 hardtop (similar) that was bone-stock and painted in a violet color much like Chevy's '65 Evening Orchid. Even as a kid the car stopped me in my tracks. It was owned by the owner of Daisley's Electric.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,588
    Hmmm....I wonder if they'd be upset, since Hot Rods are in the "brotherhood" and all that. They might not wish to offend other hobbyists, while it is quite fashionable to hate the government these days and keep their readership paranoid. :P

    MODERATOR

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,590
    edited January 2013
    The disc wheels in chrome are a period correct option, and I think they look good on some cars. I had a set of chromes on my diamond blue W126, and I think they looked nice.

    Here's a car similar to what I saw, with (dirty appearing in this pic) chrome disc wheels:

    image

    I do dislike chromes on newer cars. Like this - love the car, hate the wheels
Sign In or Register to comment.