PDA

View Full Version : 1961 Lark Tail Light offered here first.



ChampTrucking
05-15-2008, 09:41 AM
http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll278/ChampTrucking/101_0573.jpg
http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll278/ChampTrucking/101_0572.jpg
http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll278/ChampTrucking/101_0571.jpg

I recently acquired this,and I know a lot of you are looking for these,so I will offer it here first before putting it on the Studebaker Swap page. It is very decent,minor pits in chrome on the side and a couple of small scuffs.I am scared to try and polish them out.Buyer can deal with that!! $100 dollars to whom ever wants it,just email ChampTrucking@hotmail.com,or PM me on the forum.Thanks!

ChampTrucking
05-15-2008, 10:38 AM
http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll278/ChampTrucking/101_0573.jpg
http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll278/ChampTrucking/101_0572.jpg
http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll278/ChampTrucking/101_0571.jpg
repost of pics...sorry.

ChampTrucking
05-15-2008, 11:10 AM
http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll278/ChampTrucking/101_0573-1.jpg
http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll278/ChampTrucking/101_0572-1.jpg

StudeRich
05-15-2008, 12:48 PM
You can click the trash can icon on the dup. posts.

Interesting, how some batches did not get enough red dye on the side marker light lens portion and faded right out, even though the rest is in fine shape! [:0] I have seen others like that. :(

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

studegary
05-16-2008, 03:14 PM
From your pictures, I can't tell if it is an original or a reproduction.
In either case, it looks like a good find for someone.

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer

8E45E
05-16-2008, 05:18 PM
quote:Originally posted by studegary

From your pictures, I can't tell if it is an original or a reproduction.
In either case, it looks like a good find for someone.



I thought the reason they're so outrageously expensive compared to '59 and '60 lenses is because they are NOT being reproduced!!

Craig

JWW
05-16-2008, 07:29 PM
I sent you a second email about this taillight. Did you receive it?
The first one bounced because of the link in the post. Thanks.
JWW

bams50
05-16-2008, 07:39 PM
quote:Originally posted by 8E45E


I thought the reason they're so outrageously expensive compared to '59 and '60 lenses is because they are NOT being reproduced!!


They were reproduced for a while, but aren't anymore. Someone listed a pair of new repros on eBay a few months back.



Robert (Bob) Andrews Owner- Studebakeracres- on the IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
Parish, central NY 13131

"Some people live for the rules, I live for exceptions"- 311

"With your Lark you're on your own, free as a bird, alive as a Lark. You've suddenly discovered that happiness is a thing called Larking!"

ChampTrucking
05-16-2008, 10:54 PM
JJW-did not get the first email.I will go check again! The lens has the letters "TEACO" on it.Is this a repo or the real thing?Thanks

barnlark
05-16-2008, 11:52 PM
Rich,
I tried to sort out the Teaco question on the '60 lenses, but got conflicting answers. Seems that there were many boxes, pre (S-P) and post Studebaker Corporation logo (April '62, I think) that were used for later sixties and seventies reproductions of the needed lens parts. They packed them with what they had in stock box-wise. My original '60 lenses I'm positive are Autolite made. I've seen other untouched Larks with those AL logos on the outside of the lens. Some folks have boxes with Teacos and swear they are original. I think they may have used two vendors for replacements, Autolite and Teaco. Who was being used in 1961? I'm not sure. Anyone have '61 Autolite lenses? When I brought this up people wondered why I even cared, but original equipment historically is important to me as a buyer of NOS parts.

By the way, my vote as to where it goes is that poor fellow in the tornado post and thread with one broken '61 lens.

PekkaP
05-17-2008, 01:21 AM
I had a pair of these ( new -never mounted on car) for sale on eBay a few months ago -- I listed them then as NOS as I thought them to be such as they came from an old parts lot with NOS parts from several years. However, I think it was Gary kindly pointing out to me that these were old repros ( and not NOS) -- perhaps from the early 1970s ?[:I] They have TEACO text on them.

The difference was the small metal grommet missing from the hole for the mounting screw. I have an extra pair but rather than just to sell it I would ideally like swap these against excellent used / NOS 55 C/K coupe side grilles...( willing to pay even a bit extra...)[:I]

Here is a link to few pics.

http://community.webshots.com/album/563447817LPtDAq

Pekka




http://hotrods.pp.fi/Stude%20at%20Hillclimb%20Dodads%202006.jpg 1955 President State Coupe

1961 Lark Regal VIII Convertible

StudeRich
05-17-2008, 02:30 AM
Barnlark; yeah I remember that discussion! I still don't understand why anyone would call a Original Studebaker Automotive Sales Corp. Main Plant 8 Warehouse, remake of a low or out of stock tail light lense
A REPRO!!! It is NOT a repro! And, it should be considered ORIGINAL! [^]

Even if they did use a different vendor! Production parts often had more than one vendor, like the Hobbs headlights and the other brand were mixed and matched like Hurd and Yale Locks! [:0]

Revised: I always considered repro's, items made by someone other than the factory way after SASCO sold out to Newman & Altman (mid 1970's).

At that time for a short while, those Plant 8 parts actually belonged to a new Co. called Avanti Parts Corp. later merged into Newman & Altman/Standard Surplus Corp. another N&A Co. like Avanti Motors Corp. [:0]

StudeRich -Studebakers Northwest Ferndale, WA

Dick Steinkamp
05-17-2008, 08:42 AM
quote:Originally posted by StudeRich
I always considered repro's, items made by someone other than the factory way after they were out of business! [:0]


I would totally agree with Rich. How could they possibly be considered "reproductions" if they were sold by Studebaker when Studebaker was still in business? If they would be considered "reproductions" then there are a heck of a lot more "reproductions" out there that are being called NOS. This might be worse "hair splitting" than even the Corvette guys [xx(].

(love the pic of Pekka's '55 diggin' in around the hay bales [:p] [8D])

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

barnlark
05-17-2008, 10:41 AM
Hair splitting, yes, sorry, you're right. I was only researching and trying to figure out if both companies made them in the '59/'60 years or JUST Autolite for accuracy on my car. AL lenses are much more rare. I have a nice set on my car and they were very hard to find in perfect condition, unlike Teacos. Many more of them abound. I don't think Teacos lenses came around until after 1960 while Studebaker was still in business, but never got a firm answer from someone who actually dealt with them at the factory back then, just vendors with lenses in boxes. But..those old boxes were used until the 70's for parts I was told by friends in South Bend. I think they may have even switched away from Autolite lenses early on. Again, anyone out there have a 1961 lens with the AL logo instead of the Teaco on it? That may answer that question.

Does any of this matter until the 1960 lenses start to go for $200 a piece, no. Just OC stuff, on my part! I'm actually happy with either if I manage not to crack them when I tighten down the screws.

Would you guys consider post 1966 made lenses NOS, or reproductions? Or...is the final South Bend official part sold in the seventies the last official NOS date? Did they order from vendors until then or deplete stock only from the sixties? Teaco was making them much later into the seventies and may still be a vendor, I don't know. Ed Reynolds should know that answer. When I hear that some of these rare 1961 lenses are "repros" and not exactly like the originally made versions, I wonder if the quality is the same for the large asking price even though they are from the same molds. There isn't a date on them, so we may never know..

studegary
05-18-2008, 01:12 PM
When I refer to reproduction 1961 Lark lenses, I am referring to a run of lenses that a vendor had made in the late '70s or early '80s. The main difference with these reproductions, from NOS, is the lack of metal grommets in the screw holes. The lenses look similar and work the same. The main thing is to not tighten down on the screw in a reproduction. Even then, they often crack at the screw hole when left out in the sun on a hot day, like at the typical car show. When someone is paying hundreds of dollars for these, I believe that they should know if they are a part made for Studebaker or something made post-Studebaker for a vendor.

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer