I dunno, man...I just don't see how it compares to the Cord 810 or Studebaker Avantis.
#1
I have always harbored a love for the streamliner cars of the 30s, especially the Auburns and Cords that so define both that era and style (though I also appreciate the Chrysler Airflow). The Duesenberg SJ "Mormon Meteor" is simply a fantastic machine in every respect, and I always thought that I would never see a car that I love more.It turns out, I was wrong...
Wow.
Tailfins!
What amazes me most about this car is that Harley Earl designed it...in 1931. This is incredible to me since several years later, he would completely scoff at a design by Gordon M. Buehrig that would become the Cord 810--a design that clearly drew a lot of influence from this one-off.
The whole collection is up for auction next Saturday. Besides this Cadillac, it includes some ultra-rare gems from several long-forgotten brands such as Simplex, Locomobile, Napier, Panhard Levassor, Pope-Hartford--even a Marmon V16. You can see it all here:
http://www.skyhighphoto.net/vintage06/
Originally Posted by alleghenyman
#3
Don't get me wrong--the Cord 810 is a stunning automobile in its own right. I think what gets me about this car is that there's such a clear connection between the two, and heretofore, I'd always considered the Cord an original automotive design, one that came more from trains of the era than anything on four wheels.
#4
I got to see that whole collection a couple of weeks ago. Its truly an impressive group of cars!
#5
Bodywork nonwithstanding - although the car you pictured is beautiful - you really need to hear an old Cadillac V12 or V16 start up.With sixteen firing events in 720 degrees of rotation, the V16 doesn't make any familiar chug-chug-chug sounds that you associate with engine starting. Your Civic has one cylinder firing, and one exhaust impulse, every 180 degrees of crank rotation. A sixteen-cylinder Caddy has both every 45. The result is that the engines and starters make this nearly seamless growl that's just otherworldly and wonderful.
#6
Quote, originally posted by Swallow Doretti » The whole collection is up for auction next Saturday. Besides this Cadillac, it includes some ultra-rare gems from several long-forgotten brands such as Simplex, Locomobile, Napier, Panhard Levassor, Pope-Hartford--even a Marmon V16. You can see it all here: ...and here
http://forums.thecarlounge.net...73636
>8^)
ER
#7
Quote, originally posted by Parklife » Bodywork nonwithstanding - although the car you pictured is beautiful - you really need to hear an old Cadillac V12 or V16 start up. With sixteen firing events in 720 degrees of rotation, the V16 doesn't make any familiar chug-chug-chug sounds that you associate with engine starting. Your Civic has one cylinder firing, and one exhaust impulse, every 180 degrees of crank rotation. A sixteen-cylinder Caddy has both every 45. The result is that the engines and starters make this nearly seamless growl that's just otherworldly and wonderful.
You can't make a post like that without linking some audio clips!!
Conan1999: <grin>Do you really care? TCL is Poseur Kingdom. The bulk of the posts are generated by a slew of toolbags who've never driven the vehicles they discuss and who are "into cars" in the same way as the nouveau riche display designer labels. Granted, the forum's entertainment value is off the scale, but I wouldn't confuse it with expertise of any sort.
#8
My god, that car looks like pure evil. It looks like something the grim reaper would drive. In fact, I may PS the grim reaper behind the wheel of the first pic.
#10
Favorite?How about perfect.
Though I have not driven one, the R63 seems to be the perfect daddy vehicle.
Of course, I said the same thing about the Magnum R/T.
#11
Of the cars from that era, I prefer the Maharaja Dusie. It's the black and orange one that had the color-coded fender lights.
Modified by tehAndy at 4:00 PM 10-13-2006
#12
Quote, originally posted by Swallow Doretti » Don't get me wrong--the Cord 810 is a stunning automobile in its own right. I think what gets me about this car is that there's such a clear connection between the two, and heretofore, I'd always considered the Cord an original automotive design, one that came more from trains of the era than anything on four wheels.
I see your 810 and raise you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Avanti
Raphael--TPKN
Facebook|XBL--lJesse Custerl|PSN-lJesseCusterl
#13
Quote, originally posted by tehAndy » Of the cars from that era, I prefer the Maharaja Dusie. It's the black and orange one that had the color-coded fender lights. A gorgeous car to be sure--but much more art deco than modernist, like the 810 or this. And the reason I find this interesting is that Earl wasn't known for doing these types of designs--in fact, he derided them, as I understand it. Yet, here's a one-off, in exactly that style, penned by his hand nonetheless. It's a fascinating juxtaposition of character from one of the auto industry's most famous personalities.
#14
Quote, originally posted by SchrickVR6 » I see your 810 and raise you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_AvantiYou know, I've never realized how much in common these two cars have. They really do both come from a common design philosophy. Very cool!
#15
I have a lot to comment on about that car. I'm not too sure, though, if you really want to hear all of it. I'm not hating it, but it has some...problems. Is there more history/background (re: Earl's involvement in it) of this automobile available? I've never actually seen nor heard of it before, and it's kind of surprising to behold, in several ways (not ALL bad either). If you'd like to read my "review" of it, just lemmeno, then, elsewise I'll just hold my tongue.
#16
"Coachwork by Harley Earl" (!)
#17
I love cars that come from an era when their designers actually cared. You know the word "car" upside down spells "rac", which has several letters in common with the word "art".
#18
That is an amazing car collection. Those old Packards are awe-inspiring.The original unrestored cars are what impress me the most. 100 years old and everything is like it came way back then. Wow.
#19
But I thought the Chevette Scooter was your favorite car ever?
78 Scirocco|80 Scirocco|87 Scirocco 16v|88 Scirocco 16v|85 524td|85 4Runner
=====>last.fm<=====|MusicGourmets.com|OneFiveTwo
#20
Quote, originally posted by vwlarry » I have a lot to comment on about that car. I'm not too sure, though, if you really want to hear all of it. I'm not hating it, but it has some...problems. Is there more history/background (re: Earl's involvement in it) of this automobile available? I've never actually seen nor heard of it before, and it's kind of surprising to behold, in several ways (not ALL bad either). If you'd like to read my "review" of it, just lemmeno, then, elsewise I'll just hold my tongue. No, I'm definitely curious...especially since this is totally NOT in Earl's style whatsoever.
#21
It says the coachwork was by Harley Earl, yet next it says it has custom fins, teardrop fenders and whatnot. Was Harley Earl responsible for those styling cues??
#22
How to start this...well, first off, this creation is not the worst I've seen, but in all honesty, it is a strange looking creature. My criticism of it comes from two primary directions; proportioning and cohesiveness of forms.First comes the proportioning part. To me, and from most of the learned designers I've ever studied, the skillful application of good proportioning of the individual elements of a design are the most important and fundamental part of any given automotive design's success or failure, aesthetically. This car, to be plainspoken about it, is a proportioning trainwreck. With the hood towering, in a nearly grotesque manner, over those pontoon fenders, which makes them look oddly small, the fender-to-hood proportion (a vital element in classic-era design) is thrown way out-of-whack, to the point where it looks like an amateur did this job. That's where I can't help but question the actual involvement of Harley Earl in this project. If he really was the designer, it is one of his low-points, but I have a suspicion that Earl probably, if anything, did some "here and there" touches to something that originated elsewhere. Some of his trademarks are there, certainly, such as the prominent/bulging hoodline (later to sweep the industry in the late forties/early fifties due to Earl's influence), along with what else, his tailfins, which he had a fetish for. But, even with these, there is just something "off" about them, that makes them look like someone may have co-opted Earl's idea and applied it, but less deftly. Also, the Earl/tailfin idea pretty much had its beginnings during the WWII era, when he observed the twin-fuselage P-38 Lightning fighter aircraft and fell in love with its side-by-side vertical stabilizers, thus incorporating that look into the 1948 Cadillac, which was the "birth" of tailfins in production cars. The placard in the photograph says that this is a 1931 model Cadillac, so I'm really wondering exactly WHEN this car was designed and built. Which leads me to the next thing:
This car is perhaps one of the best (worst?) examples of a design's whole being less than the sum of its parts. Its basic elements, fenders, radiator grille/hood, cowl, body, are all from totally different eras, and totally different schools of thought in design, and the combined effect is confused and "all over the road" aesthetically, IMO. First the fenders. They are apparently inspired by Buehrig's Cord 810 pontoons, with some added touches such as the mild "pointing" of the leading surfaces. This would date these pieces as from the late thirties at the earliest. The hood and radiator grille on this car are definitely from the late thirties as well, with the "barrel" effect having become mildly popular with production cars such as the '38 Oldsmobiles and '39 Chrysler featuring it in their styling. The earliest barrel-effect radiator I can recall is the '33 DeSoto, and it was not very likely the car to provide any inspiration for this design. Now, combine these two for the "face" of this Cadillac, and the result is not all that great. The fenders and the hood/grille are fighting each other, and with the added insult of the headlamps being mounted VERY low, and inset into the fenders. This creates an illusion of the hood and grille being even taller and more out-of-proportion than they already are, IMO. I'll only mention the ungainly placement of the wheels DEEP inside those bulbuous fenders, which make the car "sit" on the ground in a spindly, under-tired way. I look at this car and it reminds me of a person with small, close-set eyes and a HUGE forehead above them. Somehow, just not right.
The cowl and windshield are really strange elements on this car, as is the body. Not that they're ugly or anything, but they're so out-of-date! Here you have a front-clip of a car that is generally speaking, a creation of the mid-late thirties, attached to a body, with attendant cowl and windshield, that looks for all the world like they came off of a roadster built in say, 1925.
I'll stop dumping on it now; that's probably quite enough I'm sure.
(BTW, thanx to the poster who put-up the LOVELY photo of that eggshell-white Cord 810 Beverly. It's not secret that this automobile is my favorite in all the world, bar none. I have one just like it waiting for me in my garage in Heaven.
Modified by vwlarry at 8:00 AM 10-14-2006
#23
Quote, originally posted by fsuhorizon » You can't make a post like that without linking some audio clips!!
Can't find any, but some of my favorite V16 clips can be found here:http://www.billzilla.org/engread.htm
The one linked from "inside the cockpit" gives you a feel for how it sounds on startup.
#24
does that mean you're changing your handle from "swallow doretti"? All beautiful cars, either way.
#25
I really have to agree with VWLarry on this one. It's a 31 Cadillac, but I highly doubt the car (especially the tailfins, which don't match the style at all, IMO) were done by Harley Earl, especially not in 1931.
#26
Quote, originally posted by vwlarry » But if anyone can gather any more details about this car's background it'd be muchly appreciated! It's DEFINITELY interesting! I'm guessing you missed the link I posted, so here are the pages from the Gooding&Co auction catalog that describe what they know about this unique automobile:
The auction company are extremely well respected in the industry so I wouldn't really have any reason to doubt the info they chose to publish on this car.
Comparing the historic photo on page 4 with the car present day, it does seem that some of the details have been changed from its original design like the location and style of the headlights.
>8^)
ER
Modified by Peloton25 at 1:50 AM 10-15-2006
#27
Thanx for posting that brief on the car. Now things start making more sense. Earl began his career in Los Angeles, as a part of his family business of custom coachbuilders, who did a lot of work for celebrities and the mega-wealthy. As the brief states, Earl had, by the mid-thirties, long since become the director of design within General Motors Corporation and had left the family business behind. But, and I'm guessing here, Mr. Earl probably had the freedom to "dabble" in jobs now and then for movie stars such as Buck Jones, whom he had probably had a longstanding relationship as patron/customer prior to that time. In other words, he did the job as a favor to a friend.I'm not the ultimate expert on Earl's portfolio, nor his ultimate personal style, but from looking at the photo of the car as it originally appeared, I'd go out on a limb and surmise that Earl really more or less served as Jones' "consultant" on this styling exercise, and didn't have the final say as to the car's finished appearance. In some ways the car is a true "custom job" in that it uses several "parts bin" components to complete the effect. The headlamps on the original car are clearly taken from a production 1937 Ford, and from the looks of it, again, these have been grafted onto the front fenders of a 1936 Cord 810 (replacing the concealed lamps of the Cord).
Again, this is just my theory, but the car was probably created at the whim of the movie star (many were done in this manner during those years), with his input as to the look of the machine largely overriding any possible objections by the designer (Earl in this case). The man was paying for it, and he wanted what he wanted, and Earl, in this case of doing a job for a friend, in effect, could afford to acquiesce to his preferences, no matter the outcome's lack of cohesiveness and/or bad proportions, etc. In other words, he probably did it "for the fun of it", and since this car had no official ties to his employer, GeeEmm, it didn't really matter how it appeared to anyone but the customer, Mr. Jones.
It's unavoidable for me to say, again, and this is just my opinion, that this car is a "jumble" of period detailing and design themes that are fighting with each other instead of coming together as a harmonious whole. In other words, it shows the mark of an amateur, albeit with the helpful, (and probably, in Earl's case, quietly frustrated
BTW, it would be interesting to know the story behind the updating of the front fascia to those low-set, inboard headlamps and the "points" on the leading surface of the fenders. It really reminds me of the "Topper" movie car of the late thirties in this respect, or of some of the "teardrop" French exotics from makers like Figoni et Falschi, etc of the time. Perhaps Jones had a neighbor with a Talbot Lago and got a bee in his bonnet to make his Caddy look "just like it".
#28
One other detail of this car is kind of interesting, and even mysterious. Bill Mitchell came to General Motors design as a young up-and-comer in ~1937 or so, and he had some "signature" design features that established him as a unique talent of the time. One of these was his fondness for the look of Harry Miller's front-wheel-drive racing cars of the twenties and early thirties, which had prominent front differentials due to the technology of the time. Cord's front-wheel-driven model L-29 of 1929 used this similar mechanical element to its advantage, with a low-cut radiator sitting upon a stylized differential-cover between low-cut fenders, giving the Cord a massive, wide and low appearance that set it completely apart from the crowd of that time.Mitchell loved this look and liked to simulate it in his early designs, with a prominent front-apron between the fenders, and carefully applied chrome trim to accentuate the piece, and make the car almost appear to be front-driven. This Buck Cadillac has what looks like a Mitchell touch at the front, with the bulging, prominent apron and the sleek "hashmark" trim accentuating it. Also, the "biplane" bumpers, which were popular on sporting coachwork from several coachbuilders are prominent on this car, and were also a Mitchell favorite touch. Going even further with this "Mitchell influence" on this car (in theory anyway), the re-done front fenders, with their beveled "points" replacing the Cord-esque fully rounded originals, look for all the world like another Bill Mitchell idea to me, and not Harley Earl's. Mitchell was much better at surface development than Earl ever was, with Earl being much more likely to stick with a simple surface and "tinsel it up" with chrome accents, whereas Mitchell, even in his early years, had more feel for shaping the sheetmetal to a more refined degree, thus the "edginess" of this car's fenders.
Just a theory. It really is an interesting car. It's just not very "beautiful" to me, at least in the pure sense. It's more of a historical curiousity I'd love to know more about.
#29
Quote, originally posted by Swallow Doretti » Don't get me wrong--the Cord 810 is a stunning automobile in its own right. I think what gets me about this car is that there's such a clear connection between the two, and heretofore, I'd always considered the Cord an original automotive design, one that came more from trains of the era than anything on four wheels.
Brian, rest assured that Gordon Buehrig's masterpiece, the Cord 810, was never in any way, shape, or form a derivative of anything else. The 810's shape came from his mind and no one else's, and it was left for the rest of the world to emulate, simulate, and outright copy his work of genius afterward. Every scholar and historian I've ever studied is in complete agreement on this point. Buehrig was a maestro in metal, and the Cord was his greatest symphony.
(Sorry for going on in this thread so much, but there's not that much classic-era action in the Lounge, so I gotta have my fun where I find it.
#30
Auburn, Cord and Duesenberg were all so very different to each other when it came to engineering principles. Cord was of course the least "conventional" in engineering terms, Auburn the most orthodox in context of the times.
#31
C'mon, help out the old fart in the corner, talking to himself about cars!
#32
The 'biplane' bumpers are interesting, their bullets scream "50s" even louder than the tailfins do.
#33
Quote, originally posted by vwlarry » Brian, rest assured that Gordon Buehrig's masterpiece, the Cord 810, was never in any way, shape, or form a derivative of anything else. The 810's shape came from his mind and no one else's, and it was left for the rest of the world to emulate, simulate, and outright copy his work of genius afterward. Every scholar and historian I've ever studied is in complete agreement on this point. Buehrig was a maestro in metal, and the Cord was his greatest symphony. Oh, don't get me wrong--I still think Buehrig was an incredibly talented designer--that's probably why Earl forced him out of GM. And from the looks of it, it seems that the Jones' car was probably reskinned twice--once around '34 or so (when the tail was done), and then perhaps again two to three years later, when the nose was done. That would put the front of this car after the Cord 810--so it seems that Earl took his inspiration from Buehrig--quite a feather in the latter's cap, to be honest!
I say, this, too, off the fact that it seems by the time the car was put into storage in 1940, it was "done", since the catalog doesn't seem to indicate otherwise.
Either way, it's a fascinating little historical nugget that I won't soon forget.
#34
It may be a design before its time, but it isn't as nice as I would have expected... The more dated (but visually coherent) Duesenbergs are far more attractive IMHO, as is the 810.
█ ♣ █ + ███ | Sunlight on chrome, the blur of the landscape... every nerve aware
#35
And would anyone have a pic of an 810 with the headlights open? I've never seen one, and can't seem to find a photo.
█ ♣ █ + ███ | Sunlight on chrome, the blur of the landscape... every nerve aware
Posting Permissions
