PDA

View Full Version : Studebaker Brochure Errors; of which ones are you aware?



BobPalma
12-20-2011, 08:27 AM
The only "way" a vehicle manufacturer can have press release photos and showroom brochures available on introduction day is to generally use photographs of pre-production and protoype cars, or line art, to depict the new models. Understandably, this results in legitimate errors going to print; cars not equipped exactly like the bulk of production, showing options not available, etc.

Studebaker had its share of such errors through the years, so how about citing some of those and see what shakes out?

For starters: The large 1959 full line Studebaker brochure #PD9012. On the rear cover is a spray of all the 1959 models, including the Hawk. The spray clearly shows a Tahiti Coral Lark Regal sedan having a white roof:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/DSCF2482.jpg

This implies that ordinary two-tone colors were a legitimate 1959 Lark option, which they were not.

There are many more out there. (This thread will be a good brain-teaser for us old timers, and informative for newbies.)

This ought to be a "fun" thread. (Don't feel bad if you can't cite a brochure number or post a picture. With this group, if your memory is hazy and someone has the appropriate brochure to cite a correction, you can be sure that will happen, too! <GGG>)

'Have at it. BP

Bill Pressler
12-20-2011, 08:35 AM
The '63 brochure I believe is accurate, but the '63 showroom album is one of the sloppiest efforts I can remember seeing...Regal showing Custom side trim, Custom showing Regal side trim, mention of bucket seats standard on Daytona, Custom trim on a Wagonaire (available in Canada, I know), and a 'truck section coming' mention that never happened.

There's also a competitive brochure (perhaps, fleet) for '63 where the line drawing of the Lark instrument panel is upside down in the brochure!

8E45E
12-20-2011, 08:37 AM
This ought to be a fun topic.

The only "way" a vehicle manufacturer can have press release photos and showroom brochures available on introduction day is to generally use photographs of pre-production and protoype cars, or line art, to depict the new models. Understandably, this results in legitimate errors going to print; cars not equipped exactly like the bulk of production, showing options not available, etc.

Engine colors come to mind! How many times have we seen a PURPLE starter on a real engine? In many of those brochures, the engines are much more colorful than they actually were!

Of course, the 1965 brochure has a few oddities, such as a silver mylar strip on the center console of the Daytona interior illustrated there, and the rear cover of the green car has several non-production trim pieces on it. And as we just mentioned, the lone 1966 Daytona with the V8 emblems on the C-pillar.

Craig

klifton1
12-20-2011, 08:53 AM
Studebaler-Packard Corporation reserves the right to change specifications, designs or prices without notice and without incurring obilgation. Information contained herein is from data available when final approval for printing was given. This
is the last sentence in the 57 Packard brochure. I think this leaves it pretty wide open on the finial product. I've been bittin by this on the purches of new motorcycles.
Klif

BobPalma
12-20-2011, 09:02 AM
The '63 brochure I believe is accurate, but the '63 showroom album is one of the sloppiest efforts I can remember seeing...Regal showing Custom side trim, Custom showing Regal side trim, mention of bucket seats standard on Daytona, Custom trim on a Wagonaire (available in Canada, I know), and a 'truck section coming' mention that never happened.

Uh-oh, Bill. There's a blatant error in both the small and large versions of the 1963 full-line brochure that's been properly cited here on the forum within the last two weeks.

(By the time I've got this posted, I bet someone posts what it is. <GGG>) BP

BobPalma
12-20-2011, 09:04 AM
Engine colors come to mind! How many times have we seen a PURPLE starter on a real engine? In many of those brochures, the engines are much more colorful than they actually were! Craig

Good one, Craig.

Wouldn't it be funny if someone showed up at a national meet with a purple starter and used the brochure to argue with the judges against an authenticity deduction? <GGG> BP

2R5
12-20-2011, 09:13 AM
Also as discussed a few weeks ago , the 1966 brochure shows a 66 green Daytona with the flag emblem on the rear roof line, as well as on the company post cards.

Skinnys Garage
12-20-2011, 10:07 AM
The 1960 Lark Marshal brochure #PD6027 doesn't list a 289 as an engine option. Not sure if it's because of an early printing or just that they never 'officially' considered it an option. If the latter is true, then I guess I've got a COPO Lark.......Barrett Jackson, here I come!:rolleyes::cool:

qsanford
12-20-2011, 10:51 AM
I think the 1964 brochures show the Hawks without the hood ornament.

Gunslinger
12-20-2011, 01:08 PM
How about this Avanti ad...it appears to have one round headlight bezel and one rectangular one. Whether that's merely from the perspective due to the angle, bad retouching by whomever made the ad it still looks like it should have been caught early on before publishing. It is correct in the second photo.

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii281/Boris_Badenov/cars/jb007416.jpg

2R5
12-20-2011, 01:44 PM
Now thats a error...someone should of lost their job for that one !

StudeRich
12-20-2011, 01:48 PM
OK Bob's mention of the VERY blatant error we just talked about here a few days ago was those ugly White '63 Lark Wheel Covers shown on a '63 hawk.
People did say that they have seen several original cars that "got out" with them on, but they never were intended to be there.

The really obvious one I remember, is the special introductory brochure for the NEW '62 GT Hawk, with the Black car on the cover with the Prototype Grille Shell with "Studebaker" stamped in it.

BobPalma
12-20-2011, 02:03 PM
[B][COLOR=blue]The really obvious one I remember, is the special introductory brochure for the NEW '62 GT Hawk, with the Black car on the cover with the Prototype Grille Shell with "Studebaker" stamped in it.

Rich: How about the early 1962 Hawk promo photos with the "wrong" parking lights on the front? BP

scott.rodgers
12-20-2011, 02:30 PM
The 65 brochure shows a wide chrome strip on a bucket seat console and one of the cars has an unusual (and unused) hood ornament.

Studebakercenteroforegon
12-20-2011, 03:21 PM
Way back when I actually saw a '65 Daytona Sport Sedan that had a shiny Mylar band on the console lid. I have seen plenty of '65 Daytonas since I haven't seen another one with the band.

Bill Pressler
12-20-2011, 04:06 PM
That's it, Rich is right...the white-accented wheel covers on the Ermine White '63 Hawk in the brochure! I'd have posted earlier, but I'm supposed to be working (!) in my office and Sheila decided to move all my Stude-related stuff I had crammed in here, down to our new bookcases in the (finished) basement!

BobPalma
12-20-2011, 04:41 PM
I'm supposed to be working (!) in my office and Sheila decided to move all my Stude-related stuff I had crammed in here, down to our new bookcases in the (finished) basement!

Well, Bill; you had better get your butt down there to work as well! <GGG> BP

8E45E
12-20-2011, 05:07 PM
If one looks closely at the dash of the Wagonaire in the 1966 brochure, it has the 1963-5 style aluminum strip without the woodgrain insert middle section and glove comparment door.

Craig

BobPalma
12-20-2011, 06:42 PM
I think the 1964 brochures show the Hawks without the hood ornament.

That's correct, Quentin; no hood ornament on the Hawk's grille shell. Good memory. BP

Kurt
12-20-2011, 06:54 PM
I believe that the 65 and 66 brochures show the engine pictures that still look like the Studebaker engines, rather than the Chevy ones that were really under the hood.

BobPalma
12-20-2011, 08:34 PM
I believe that the 65 and 66 brochures show the engine pictures that still look like the Studebaker engines, rather than the Chevy ones that were really under the hood.

Right, Kurt. BP

BobPalma
12-20-2011, 08:45 PM
Do you suppose they hadn't finalized the "butterknife" side trim when they created this "photo" for the first-series 1955 model year brochure, D-217, dated 9/54? Yipes:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/DSCF2492.jpg

Studebaker Wheel
12-21-2011, 01:27 PM
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee285/studeq/newsgroup/47adtwotone.jpg?t=1324495333

Not a brochure but a magazine ad from 1946 ('47 model year). They didn't offer a two tone but should have.

scott.rodgers
12-21-2011, 01:45 PM
Here's oddball 1965 hood ornament:

8E45E
12-21-2011, 01:52 PM
Here's oddball 1965 hood ornament:

Also look at the white-painted side trim, stainless only on the exposed portion of the upper B-pillar, hubcaps, C-pillar emblem & placement, and the lack of a model name chrome script on that car. And the grille appears to have the veritical lattices blacked out to emphasize width. That is why I mentioned the whole car in my above post.

Craig

Stu Chapman
12-21-2011, 06:26 PM
Right, Kurt. BP



The early McKinnon engines we received from GM did have yellow valves covers. Is this perhaps what you were seeing?
Stu Chapman

BobPalma
12-21-2011, 06:52 PM
The early McKinnon engines we received from GM did have yellow valves covers. Is this perhaps what you were seeing? Stu Chapman

Actually, Stu, it isn't. Whoever was doing the brochures continued to using the 1964 line art drawings (not photographs) of the Studebaker Six and Studebaker V8 engines, even in the 1966 brochure!

I have copies of both 1965 and 1966 brochures in front of me to confirm. If you compare the "engines" shown in the 1964 brochures with the 1965 and 1966 brochures, you'll see the same line art (drawing) was used all three years, and they are Studebaker engines!

(Now, really, in your wildest dreams 45 years ago, Stu, did you think we'd be nit-picking the brochure engine art in 2011?) <GGG> BP

2R2
12-21-2011, 09:11 PM
One of my favorites isn't a brochure, but an ad. The two page, black and white ad showing the entire '63 car line-up. Looking closely, you can see the Larks in the background have the '62 style wrap-around windshields.

mbstude
12-21-2011, 09:54 PM
One of my favorites isn't a brochure, but an ad. The two page, black and white ad showing the entire '63 car line-up. Looking closely, you can see the Larks in the background have the '62 style wrap-around windshields.

Now, that is funny.

Clear as can be. http://oldcaradvertising.com/Studebaker%20Ads/1963/1963%20Studebaker%20Ad-03.jpg

StudeRich
12-21-2011, 10:21 PM
Thats just crazy sloppy! They air brushed in all the other features on those two Larks like the rooflines, Grilles and Wheelcovers and missed the windshields!

Notice how weird, Mercedes like Frua like or something that Cruiser roof & 1/4 Windows looks! :(

Then, they did the Wagonaire up complete or used an actual '63 Prototype. :confused:

Bill Pressler
12-22-2011, 03:41 AM
They've made that Cruiser almost look like a four-door hardtop!

I have seen and noticed the goofs in that ad before, but had forgotten about it. Thanks for mentioning it!

BobPalma
12-22-2011, 07:12 AM
Eric, I hate to admit it, but "you got me!"

That's the first time I'd ever noticed that! ('Prolly focused on the Avanti instead all those years ago.)

Good one. BP

8E45E
12-22-2011, 08:09 AM
That's the first time I'd ever noticed that! ('Prolly focused on the Avanti instead all those years ago.)

Bob, I bet you have seen that one before. :) In the early '80's when Fred K. Fox did his "Literature In Review" in Turning Wheels, many did write in and point out many of the brochure and advertising errors, including that ad, which he reprinted in TW.

Craig

BobPalma
12-22-2011, 09:13 AM
Bob, I bet you have seen that one before. :) In the early '80's when Fred K. Fox did his "Literature In Review" in Turning Wheels, many did write in and point out many of the brochure and advertising errors, including that ad, which he reprinted in TW. Craig

Agreed, Craig; I probably have seen it...but noting and then remembering that discrepancy, that's something else! <GGG> BP

mrjazzmillcreek
12-22-2011, 04:37 PM
As 2r5 mentioned,the 66 brochure or post card had the green daytona with roof flags,it also shows in the cenytre of the card a 66 red daytona with a shinny grille when it is suppopsed to be black

Chris_Dresbach
12-22-2011, 09:55 PM
One that I've noticed more recently is at the end of a plant film, "Model X" (1959 Lark). Right at the end they show a grille shot of a regular (new) 1959 Lark. Look closely, the grill badge isn't production.

StudeRich
12-23-2011, 12:30 AM
Well you have to remember that it was not the "Lark" yet, so it follows that they did not know what to I.D. the prototype as at the time.

It is kind of funny that it ended up being badged as a Hawk, both on the grille and the horn button. There must not have been time to do a "Lark".

clarkwd
12-24-2011, 02:51 PM
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z293/clarkwd/Clay53Studebaker.jpg
Its not exactly an error, but the 54 Salesmans manual shows this picture. Did anyone ever rod a 53 to look like this? Luckily the designer had some glasses on so Ray did not burn his eye out with his roach.
Bill

Stu Chapman
12-24-2011, 04:02 PM
Actually, Stu, it isn't. Whoever was doing the brochures continued to using the 1964 line art drawings (not photographs) of the Studebaker Six and Studebaker V8 engines, even in the 1966 brochure!

I have copies of both 1965 and 1966 brochures in front of me to confirm. If you compare the "engines" shown in the 1964 brochures with the 1965 and 1966 brochures, you'll see the same line art (drawing) was used all three years, and they are Studebaker engines!

(Now, really, in your wildest dreams 45 years ago, Stu, did you think we'd be nit-picking the brochure engine art in 2011?) <GGG> BP

Thank heaven, the final art and film was prepared in the U.S. so I can't be held responsible for it! When you think about it, it's amazing how all the manufacturers "stretched" the full side views to imply greater length than normal. I'm pleasantly surprised you guys are all this sharp! Have a Merry Christmas everyone.
Stu Chapman

Jim B PEI
12-24-2011, 06:41 PM
Thats just crazy sloppy! They air brushed in all the other features on those two Larks like the rooflines, Grilles and Wheelcovers and missed the windshields!

Notice how weird, Mercedes like Frua like or something that Cruiser roof & 1/4 Windows looks! :(

Then, they did the Wagonaire up complete or used an actual '63 Prototype. :confused:

AND the parklights on the convertible and Cruiser are 62 clear instead of 63 amber.
The Daytona Wagonaire looks correct right down to the side trim, but then the convertible/Cruiser side trim appears to be different, and not Daytona/Cruiser. If it was a 63 convertible, not a 62, wouldn't have been a Daytona as the only choice? Or am I forgetting a Regal convertible or something being available in 63 as well?
As far as the Avanti, I can't really imagine someone driving it with a tie like that. Must have been too hot inside it for him to even to pretend to drive, as his hands aren't even on the wheel. Or maybe its a mannekin and for obvious posing reasons, no hands as the arms end at the cuffs. I'm sure plaster wouldn't have minded an Avanti on a sunny day, just sitting there

Something else they missed.

RadioRoy
12-25-2011, 03:33 PM
One of the biggest goofs, one that continues to haunt judges, is in the 50 and 51 brochures - that being bullet-nosed cars pictured in bright red.

The color charts show that no bullet nose cars were painted bright red. They had two different maroon colors (back when maroon was maroon, before everyone started calling it burgundy).

The trucks could be purchased in bright red, at least in 1951 according to color charts, but no cars. Now, some 50-51 cars COULD have been specially ordered in bright red, but that would have to be a special order.

So when I am judging 50 and 51's at a meet, I always mark down for bright red. It makes the owners crazy, but that's what they get for not researching their cars better.