PDA

View Full Version : 65 convertible



davespopcorn
05-13-2008, 07:25 PM
Back in the 70's when I first joined SDC, their was a board member in Canada who was listed as having a 65 convertible. Did the company actually make one 65' or was it a misidentification.
Tony

BobPalma
05-13-2008, 07:37 PM
:) Tony: That member created a car with styling cues that might have been employed for 1965, so it looks different from the 1964 convertible on which it is based. The car is Strato Blue in color (or close to it) and if you wait a couple hours, Leonard Shepherd will probably post pictures of it![:0]

(I'm sure he is scrambling to find them even as I post!) :DBP

lstude
05-13-2008, 07:51 PM
quote:Tony: That member created a car with styling cues that might have been employed for 1965, so it looks different from the 1964 convertible on which it is based. The car is Strato Blue in color (or close to it) and if you wait a couple hours, Leonard Shepherd will probably post pictures of it!

(I'm sure he is scrambling to find them even as I post!) BP

You know me too well! :)

It wasn't a 65, but a 66 that was at the Spokane meet.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/LHSJR/SpokaneMeettrip165.jpg

Leonard Shepherd
http://leonardshepherd.com/

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/LHSJR/52Commander41108sm3.jpg

Mark57
05-13-2008, 07:55 PM
quote:Originally posted by lstude

It wasn't a 65, but a 66 that was at the Spokane meet.
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/LHSJR/SpokaneMeettrip165.jpg
Leonard Shepherd


This same car was at the Pacific Can-Am Zone meet in Penticton, BC last September. I'll bet Craig P. will have a more current photo. :)

<h5>Mark
'57 Transtar Deluxe
Vancouver Island </h5>
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x153/MarkH57/IMG_0099A.jpg

BobPalma
05-13-2008, 08:33 PM
:) The biggest physical change in the car, Tony, is barely seen in these frontal shots. He raised the rear bumper several inches to try to deflect the "high deck lid" appearance of the '64s...which I personally never had issue with...

Nowadays, every car's deck lid/tail is supposed to be 'way higher than the front....Brooks Stevens was just a couple generations ahead of the field with the 1964 Studebakers! (But we already know that....)[8D] :DBP

davespopcorn
05-13-2008, 08:39 PM
Thanks for the info guys. Was kinda out of the loop from 1997-2006. Drove Studes, all years until 1999. Worked with Bill Oliver late 80's-1995 in LA. Looking for another to resume the passion.
Tony

BobPalma
05-13-2008, 08:53 PM
:) Welcome back, Tony...the loop's never closed in Studebaker-land! :DBP

Lark289
05-13-2008, 09:01 PM
Thank you Leonard for the picture. That is a neat looking car :)

It is too bad that the factory never made one like it :(



Ready for a trip to the beach!

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/Lark289/StudeRamblerPic.jpg

lstude
05-13-2008, 09:13 PM
quote: Thank you Leonard for the picture. That is a neat looking car


As Mark said, Craig Parslow has a much better picture of it. I snapped it just as they were arriving at the hotel and the car was dirty from the drive.

Leonard Shepherd
http://leonardshepherd.com/

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/LHSJR/52Commander41108sm3.jpg

monomaniac
05-13-2008, 09:37 PM
Wrong car guys. The reference is to ex-Board member Jo Sawatzky from Winnipeg who owned a convertible and she claimed for many years that it was a 1965. After trying for more years I finally got the serial number of her car and it was (I believe) C503444 which is a 1964 Hamilton built convertible assembled on May 29, 1964.

When the 65s first came out no one could tell the difference to look at them from the 64s. There were some dealerships who sold their leftover 64s as 65s and titled them that way (not exactly kosher I think).

Back in 1969 I tried to buy a nice 64 Daytona hardtop from the original owner who claimed it was a 65. He even showed me his bill of sale from the dealer that stated it was a 65. However the Studebaker engine and the 1964 serial number tipped me off. When that change was made to the serial numbers (Jan 1/64) even the Motor Vehicle licensing office was confused.

studegary
05-14-2008, 03:11 PM
Thanks, Art. I remember Jo S's car and her claiming that it was a 1965. I always felt that it was a leftover 1964 that was titled as a 1965.

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer

8E45E
05-14-2008, 06:57 PM
quote:Originally posted by monomaniac The reference is to ex-Board member Jo Sawatzky from Winnipeg who owned a convertible and she claimed for many years that it was a 1965. After trying for more years I finally got the serial number of her car and it was (I believe) C503444 which is a 1964 Hamilton built convertible assembled on May 29, 1964.




Is she the "uncooperative lady" you referred to in your TW article?:)

Craig

fstst56
05-14-2008, 07:30 PM
Using the year the car was sold on the title was common back then and I suppose perfectly legal. I have a '65 VW split window bus but the title says its a '66. Mine has the camper interior so maybe it took longer to arrive after it was first ordered and I figure the first owner didn't take possesion until '66. American Motors, I've read, had Metropolitans left over for even more than 1 year and some of them were titled as whatever year they were sold. Along those lines, does anyone have a vehicle that uses the engine number as the VIN? My '53 "Coupe from Cuba" is that way. I got the production order and it has the original engine still in it because that's the number that's on the title as the VIN. I also had a '59 Cadillac that used the engine # as the VIN.

N8N
05-14-2008, 07:40 PM
quote:Originally posted by BobPalma

:) The biggest physical change in the car, Tony, is barely seen in these frontal shots. He raised the rear bumper several inches to try to deflect the "high deck lid" appearance of the '64s...which I personally never had issue with...

Nowadays, every car's deck lid/tail is supposed to be 'way higher than the front....Brooks Stevens was just a couple generations ahead of the field with the 1964 Studebakers! (But we already know that....)[8D] :DBP


Really? I thought that the rear of the car was the most unfortunate part of the '64 restyle, as it just looked like the bumper was far too low, and there was just too much sheetmetal between the trunk lid and the bumper. Other than that it was a surprisingly fresh and modern looking update of the '63 body without changing a whole lot of parts.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

barnlark
05-15-2008, 12:51 AM
quote:Originally posted by monomaniac

Wrong car guys. The reference is to ex-Board member Jo Sawatzky from Winnipeg who owned a convertible and she claimed for many years that it was a 1965. After trying for more years I finally got the serial number of her car and it was (I believe) C503444 which is a 1964 Hamilton built convertible assembled on May 29, 1964.

When the 65s first came out no one could tell the difference to look at them from the 64s. There were some dealerships who sold their leftover 64s as 65s and titled them that way (not exactly kosher I think).

Back in 1969 I tried to buy a nice 64 Daytona hardtop from the original owner who claimed it was a 65. He even showed me his bill of sale from the dealer that stated it was a 65. However the Studebaker engine and the 1964 serial number tipped me off. When that change was made to the serial numbers (Jan 1/64) even the Motor Vehicle licensing office was confused.


Maybe it wasn't sold (doubtful since it's a conv) until the fall 1965 models came out, since it probably got shipped in June. I can't figure out why the BMV or DMV would have problems figuring that out except with dealers misrepresenting the titles. My car was built, sold and first licensed in 1959 like many new cars for the following 1960 model year, but they never titled new cars incorrectly each and every year as the PAST year on the title.
My guess is paper work at the dealers were the culprit. I bet it wasn't the normally meticulous women employees who usually typed them up back then either, but rather salespeople who would write up the latest model year title request to confirm the newest car year for their buyers regardless of fact. Probably lots of pressure back then to make every buyer happy; not thinking originality arguments would ensue many years later..

davespopcorn
05-15-2008, 07:33 PM
Yeah the Winnepeg car is the one I was talking about. Enjoyed all the replies to my question.
Tony

studegary
05-16-2008, 02:28 PM
quote:Originally posted by fstst56

Using the year the car was sold on the title was common back then and I suppose perfectly legal. I have a '65 VW split window bus but the title says its a '66. Mine has the camper interior so maybe it took longer to arrive after it was first ordered and I figure the first owner didn't take possesion until '66. American Motors, I've read, had Metropolitans left over for even more than 1 year and some of them were titled as whatever year they were sold. Along those lines, does anyone have a vehicle that uses the engine number as the VIN? My '53 "Coupe from Cuba" is that way. I got the production order and it has the original engine still in it because that's the number that's on the title as the VIN. I also had a '59 Cadillac that used the engine # as the VIN.


Most, if not all, states used the engine number and not the serial number (S/N) for a vehicle identification number (VIN) in the 1950s.

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer

s2dbob
09-06-2014, 01:58 PM
I am the current owner of C503444. I bought the car from Ivan Piniuta of Winnipeg in the mid 80s. I got no documents with it and have no idea when it was last registered, but it appears it was always in Winnipeg until I moved it. I was never able to prove or disprove the rumor. I hope to begin restoration next year. Is Jo Sawatsky still around?

Guido
09-06-2014, 03:35 PM
Sad how many of the original respondents are no longer with us (either in life or on the forum).

studegary
09-06-2014, 03:41 PM
Sad how many of the original respondents are no longer with us (either in life or on the forum).

One Gary to another Gary - I was thinking the same thing as I re-read the posts today.

SScopelli
09-09-2014, 02:34 PM
:) Tony: That member created a car with styling cues that might have been employed for 1965, so it looks different from the 1964 convertible on which it is based. The car is Strato Blue in color (or close to it) and if you wait a couple hours, Leonard Shepherd will probably post pictures of it![:0]

(I'm sure he is scrambling to find them even as I post!) :DBP

That is one great thing about Studebaker, is the ability to mix and match body parts and there is generally no cutting involved. And if you don't like it, you can go back as long as you kept the parts.

Who is that guy with the 61-1/2 convertible or the 63-1/2 Daytona.

Stu Chapman
09-09-2014, 03:06 PM
This car came up very recently on the thread headed "1964 Studebaker Daytona Convertible Owners' Registry" and I have commented on it. It is NOT a 1965. There were no 1965 convertibles. There may be some that were illegally titled. Re Jo Sawatsky, no one seems to know her whereabouts.

Stu Chapman

mrjazzmillcreek
09-09-2014, 03:31 PM
Stu What about the 66 convertible in Ontario that was bought new at the Dealership with a lot of 6 6 trim etc.

Stu Chapman
09-09-2014, 06:11 PM
Stu What about the 66 convertible in Ontario that was bought new at the Dealership with a lot of 6 6 trim etc.

It's on the Registry with considerable detail information. It has serial #C500737, and it was titled as a 1964 in the name of Studebaker of Canada Limited and remained that way until sold in 1966, and is still titled as a 1964 model. It certainly is unique and we can honestly say it is the only 64 convertible modified by the factory. There's more to the story but that will have to wait until this winter when there will be extensive Turning Wheels coverage on these cars.

Stu Chapman

55s
09-09-2014, 08:45 PM
FWIW: Unsold 48 Packards were retitled and sold as 1949s. The practice has been around for a while.

s2dbob
09-11-2014, 10:43 PM
I also have a 38 President Coupe that I purchased about a year after I moved to San Jose, CA. It was advertised in the local club newsletter as a 39. Since I already had part of a 39 I went after it, was a bit disappointed it was actually a 38, but bought it anyway because I liked how it looks. It turned out to be a one owner car that was bought with all the cars on the property after the owner died, because the buyer wanted the almost new pickup, and the person doing his taxes listed it for him in the Foothills Chapter newsletter. It turns out the car didn't sell until January, 39, and that's when California titled it. I have the original title, but no build sheet because it's a LA car and the museum doesn't have those records.

Studebaker Wheel
09-11-2014, 11:16 PM
Believe you are incorrect about the museum not having the build sheets (more accurately called production orders) for the pre-war L.A. assembled Presidents. What is the cars serial number?

Studebaker Wheel
09-12-2014, 01:29 AM
The '67 ('64) at the Spokane meet in 2005. At that time owned by Vern Spencer of Calgary.
3766537664

fargoguy
09-12-2014, 07:25 AM
The '67 ('64) at the Spokane meet in 2005. At that time owned by Vern Spencer of Calgary.
3766537664

Now that car is owned by our very own Gord Richmond, gordr on the forum.

Neil
09-13-2014, 05:47 AM
I have always liked the styling of the 66 studes,having owned 63,64 66cruisers.What does the fender script say on this above car?

8E45E
09-13-2014, 08:26 AM
What does the fender script say on this above car?

It is a gold 1963 'Cruiser' script.

Craig

57pack
09-13-2014, 08:57 AM
I remember going on a fishing trip with my Dad to the first Connecticut Lake in northern NH in 1967.
We pulled into the boat launch area and after launching our boat we parked our 64 Commander next to a "1967" Studebaker. That is what the fellow told my Dad it was, as he had to ask about it. Years later I realized the fellow probably purchased the Studebaker earlier that year and it was titled and registered in 1967. It had Quebec plates on it, I remember they had special plates that year for Expo67.:rolleyes:

s2dbob
09-13-2014, 11:56 AM
Believe you are incorrect about the museum not having the build sheets (more accurately called production orders) for the pre-war L.A. assembled Presidents. What is the cars serial number?
I spoke to you on 8 Jan 97 and you replied by letter on 7 Feb 97 regarding the 40 President with sidemounts as well as my 38 and 39 President coupes. You stated you were unable to locate the microfilm for any prewar Presidents from L.A. I have not seen anything since that those records were found, so I assumed they were not. The 38 is 7802031. Additional information would be great. Does this mean that the data from L.A. is now available?