PDA

View Full Version : Something didn't look right



52-fan
12-02-2017, 06:00 PM
It will come as a surprise to none that I look at any 52 Studebaker advertised for sale. This one is a very nice car even with the changes here and there. As I looked at the pictures something seemed odd and I finally realized that the top color extends all the way down to the cowl. I can't decide if it is an improvement or not. It definitely kills the convertible effect of the pillar-less top. https://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Studebaker-Champion-REGAL-STARLINER-COUPE-74K-MILES/142609759715?hash=item2134343de3:g:HL4AAOSwUoNaIYdn&vxp=mtr

BobPalma
12-02-2017, 06:37 PM
:) 'Love the clocks on those cars, and the little nacelle perched on the steering column / front of the instrument cluster in which the clock resides. :cool: BP

BobPalma
12-02-2017, 06:51 PM
:) Curiously, this car attests to the topic of my March 2018 Hemmings Classic Car column just submitted today; Economies of Scale. Therein is discussed the terrible price differential the independents were forced to face in the 1950s.

The MSRP of a 1952 Studebaker Champion Regal Starliner 2-door hardtop was $2,116. In contrast, the MSRP of a 1952 Ford Crestline Victoria V-8 2-door hardtop was $1,925....and it was a V-8, since a six-cylinder hardtop was not offered.

Ford-o-Matic drive was a $102 option. That meant you could buy a 1952 Ford V-8 2-door hardtop with automatic transmission and still have $89 left over to buy a heater or radio or other things you might want before you got up to the base price of a straight three-speed 1952 Studebaker Champion Six Starliner! :eek: YIKES! :( :cool: BP

Studebakercenteroforegon
12-02-2017, 06:54 PM
Yes, I commented some time ago that this car was incorrectly painted - that the area around the windshield should be Body color. I wanted to point this out for people that research internet pictures for originality.
My thanks was a nasty comment from the seller.

52-fan
12-02-2017, 07:19 PM
I'm sure the seller doesn't care.
I can't decide which I dislike more, the color of the engine or the red steering column and shift lever with the original color turn signal switch. :o

fatboylust
12-02-2017, 09:01 PM
And the wheels should be either body color or black depending on whether it had black-wall tires (body color) or wide white wall tires (black) on the production order.

BRUCESTUDE
12-02-2017, 09:36 PM
Definitely the upper paint on the windshield post ruins the look a little. The wheels should be maroon on a surf gray '52.

8E45E
12-02-2017, 09:49 PM
Definitely the upper paint on the windshield post ruins the look a little. The wheels should be maroon on a surf gray '52.

That is correct, according to page 27 of the November, 1979 Turning Wheels, the wheel are supposed to be Comanche Red, which is essentially darker red color.

Craig

Bills R2
12-03-2017, 10:19 AM
One word: BLECH!

rockne10
12-03-2017, 11:38 AM
The red paint around the windshield and the engine color are easy fixes. What catches my eye is the 66-year-old wire harness. I think replacing that before doing all that other work would have made sense. But that's just me.

8E45E
12-03-2017, 02:11 PM
One word: BLECH!

I would not go so far as to say 'blech', but getting it painted where the correct color line break is will go a LONG way to making it look sharp.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4104/5177022351_912aeefed0_b.jpg

Craig

52-fan
12-03-2017, 02:44 PM
I guess while we are on the topic, I would opine that the engine does not appear to be original. The air cleaner looks to be from a Lark and the oil fill pipe is wrong making me think the whole engine is probably different.

jclary
12-03-2017, 03:41 PM
So...in view of this unholy blasphemy of "good taste,"...are we going to launch a critical ambush against the paint line of the beautiful 1950 Commander Regal Deluxe Starlight Coupe on the cover of this month's December Turning Wheels?:confused::rolleyes:

If I found myself in possession of either...the result would be a new set of "grin wrinkles" etched into my ever aging face.:D

8E45E
12-03-2017, 03:55 PM
So...in view of this unholy blasphemy of "good taste,"...are we going to launch a critical ambush against the paint line of the beautiful 1950 Commander Regal Deluxe Starlight Coupe on the cover of this month's December Turning Wheels.

If I found myself in possession of either...the result would be a new set of "grin wrinkles" etched into my ever aging face.:D

I haven't got my latest TW yet.

How about this one painted two tone when it was brand new? http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?101478-Unusual-51-in-showroom&highlight=blackwall

Craig

studegary
12-03-2017, 04:32 PM
I haven't got my latest TW yet.

How about this one painted two tone when it was brand new? http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?101478-Unusual-51-in-showroom&highlight=blackwall

Craig

That paint was probably done by the dealer or a customer and not by Studebaker. In the last new car dealership that I worked in, they often added major "graphics" to plain cars to make them more outstanding and to bring in more profit. I will add that I hated that, but I did not own the dealership.

8E45E
12-03-2017, 04:36 PM
That paint was probably done by the dealer or a customer and not by Studebaker. In the last new car dealership that I worked in, they often added major "graphics" to plain cars to make them more outstanding and to bring in more profit. I will add that I hated that, but I did not own the dealership.

I do not disagree. I have seen dealers here do the same to brand new vehicles.

Craig

52-fan
12-03-2017, 06:28 PM
So...in view of this unholy blasphemy of "good taste,"...are we going to launch a critical ambush against the paint line of the beautiful 1950 Commander Regal Deluxe Starlight Coupe on the cover of this month's December Turning Wheels?:confused::rolleyes:

If I found myself in possession of either...the result would be a new set of "grin wrinkles" etched into my ever aging face.:D

I am not bashing the car. I would love to own it, but I would change some things if I was able.
I do hate to see an ad for any car where the seller spouts about how "restored" it is and there are modifications. It is a shame when a newby pays a hefty price for a car he thinks is correct or original and then gets dinged at his first show.

jclary
12-03-2017, 07:01 PM
I am not bashing the car. I would love to own it, but I would change some things if I was able.
I do hate to see an ad for any car where the seller spouts about how "restored" it is and there are modifications. It is a shame when a newby pays a hefty price for a car he thinks is correct or original and then gets dinged at his first show.

Just to be clear...I'm not angry 'bout the criticism...it was just too low hanging fruit to pass up the opportunity for my typing fingers not to comment. My attitude about originality has evolved over the years. Let's face it. you name the make of car anybody wants to collect, and they were built mostly from low bidding suppliers, with investors, executives, and managers using the lowest bidders supplying what they could get away with and make the most profit. I actually recall (as a second grader no less) being disappointed in the snaggle-tooth design of the '52 Studebaker. I began drawing before I started school, and the odd cute airplane looking bullet nose Studebaker was a favorite. I never tried to draw a '52.

I have a renewed appreciation for them in my old age, and am impressed when any of them (especially a '52) show up with..."paint all over it.";) A comment or two regarding "originality" is OK with me, but when it becomes a "pile on," I think it is OK to resist too. I'm guilty of joining (and probably starting) some conversations that became too negative. I have some very original looking restoration work that you will have to dismantle to see the non-original improvements made. Sometimes it's difficult, but I'm trying my best to learn to celebrate anyone who joins with us, saves one of these cars from the crusher, and returns it to functionality, regardless of how they altered it to suit their personal satisfaction.

TWChamp
12-03-2017, 10:56 PM
Those 2 hardtops in #11 are sure nice looking, and having the correct post color sure does help.
1952 being Studebaker's 100th anniversary, it's too bad the 1953 design didn't come out one year earlier.
What a great design the 1953 would have been to celebrate 100 years.

Michidan
12-04-2017, 10:29 AM
During my time keeping a registry for these the car popped up once or twice. The red painted A pillars have been there for at least 10 years now. I must say, every time the car comes up it looks better. Has a nice shine now and the chrome work looks terrific.

RadioRoy
12-04-2017, 12:23 PM
I am not bashing the car. I would love to own it, but I would change some things if I was able.
I do hate to see an ad for any car where the seller spouts about how "restored" it is and there are modifications. It is a shame when a newby pays a hefty price for a car he thinks is correct or original and then gets dinged at his first show.

That's a major gripe of mine also. When a newbie looks at a high dollar restored car, he/she thinks it is correct. The mistakes get copied until everyone thinks they are correct. Some blatant ones are leaving the rear fender welt black (the factory painted them) and making a convertible top on a 48-51 with a big zip out flap for the rear window. The zip out flap did not appear on a Studebaker until 1952, and when it did, there was no more chrome plated two piece window.

8E45E
12-07-2017, 07:03 AM
When a newbie looks at a high dollar restored car, he/she thinks it is correct.

The zip out flap did not appear on a Studebaker until 1952, and when it did, there was no more chrome plated two piece window.

I can see why some would think that.

Many of the original fabric tops got converted early in their life while the cars were still in daily service. Convertible tops back then were not known for longevity in harsh climates, and would have received the new clear plastic rear window when the top was replaced which promoted better visibility over the previous glass one, with little concern for originality at the time.

Craig

Likes2Laff
04-09-2018, 06:31 PM
I bought the car that motivated this thread. Did I over pay? Some would say "yes", but I obviously don't think so. Everything on the car works including the radio, new headliner, etc. or is refreshed or rebuilt. This should be a fun car for an occasional ride this summer.

But mostly, I just thought it looked neat and when I saw it, I smiled. I don't know why I smiled, I just did.

The car is coming out of winter storage and I am having the "A" pillars and windshield surround painted body color because I believe I will enjoy the way it looks more.

If it shows up at a car show, it won't be to win a prize, but rather so that a few other folks might smile at it too.

Warren Webb
04-10-2018, 10:29 AM
But mostly, I just thought it looked neat and when I saw it, I smiled. I don't know why I smiled, I just did.

If it shows up at a car show, it won't be to win a prize, but rather so that a few other folks might smile at it too.

I like your attitude! I feel the same way with mine.

mbstude
04-10-2018, 05:45 PM
But mostly, I just thought it looked neat and when I saw it, I smiled. I don't know why I smiled, I just did.

If it shows up at a car show, it won't be to win a prize, but rather so that a few other folks might smile at it too.

That's what it's all about!!

BobPalma
04-10-2018, 08:10 PM
I bought the car that motivated this thread. Did I over pay? Some would say "yes", but I obviously don't think so. Everything on the car works including the radio, new headliner, etc. or is refreshed or rebuilt. This should be a fun car for an occasional ride this summer.

But mostly, I just thought it looked neat and when I saw it, I smiled. I don't know why I smiled, I just did.

The car is coming out of winter storage and I am having the "A" pillars and windshield surround painted body color because I believe I will enjoy the way it looks more.

If it shows up at a car show, it won't be to win a prize, but rather so that a few other folks might smile at it too.

:!!: Welcome to the forum, Dave. That is a nice car, and 1952 Starliners are rare in any guise. Enjoy! :) BP

Likes2Laff
04-22-2018, 04:49 PM
Hey guys...quick question.

I'm looking into shipping a Lark from Denver to Eastern Pennsylvania. Who would you suggest?

studegary
04-22-2018, 08:07 PM
Hey guys...quick question.

I'm looking into shipping a Lark from Denver to Eastern Pennsylvania. Who would you suggest?

You will do better with your request if you start a new topic/thread.

Likes2Laff
04-22-2018, 09:50 PM
Thanks for the suggestion. Just started the thread.

Scott
04-22-2018, 09:58 PM
Yes, Bob, but it should have been obvious to anyone that test drove one that the Studebaker was a finer car and better built, even if it was in the same price class.

:) Curiously, this car attests to the topic of my March 2018 Hemmings Classic Car column just submitted today; Economies of Scale. Therein is discussed the terrible price differential the independents were forced to face in the 1950s.

The MSRP of a 1952 Studebaker Champion Regal Starliner 2-door hardtop was $2,116. In contrast, the MSRP of a 1952 Ford Crestline Victoria V-8 2-door hardtop was $1,925....and it was a V-8, since a six-cylinder hardtop was not offered.

Ford-o-Matic drive was a $102 option. That meant you could buy a 1952 Ford V-8 2-door hardtop with automatic transmission and still have $89 left over to buy a heater or radio or other things you might want before you got up to the base price of a straight three-speed 1952 Studebaker Champion Six Starliner! :eek: YIKES! :( :cool: BP