The November/December edition of AACA's Antique Automobile has a great article on Vic and Connie Oliver's beautiful Studebaker.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
1955 Studebaker Speedster II
Collapse
X
-
It was on the show field at Fall hershey as well. A great example of what Bob Bourke thought a Speedster should look like. Drawings were made but none were built until these folks undertook finishing one that someone else had started. Bob is correct it ia great articlesigpicSee you in the future as I write about our past
-
How about a picture?Howard - Los Angeles chapter SDC
'53 Commander Starliner (Finally running and driving, but still in process)
'56 Golden Hawk (3 speed/overdrive, Power steering - Running, but not yet driving)
'58 Packard Hawk. A partially restored car that was not completely assembled.
Comment
-
-
The most polite thing that I can say is, to each his own and it must have taken a lot of effort.
To me, it doesn't look like a Bob Bourke design or anything that would come out of Bob's pen or mind. The car that John Bridges built is similar to a Bob Bourke design.Gary L.
Wappinger, NY
SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer
Comment
-
Originally posted by studegary View PostThe most polite thing that I can say is, to each his own and it must have taken a lot of effort.
To me, it doesn't look like a Bob Bourke design or anything that would come out of Bob's pen or mind. The car that John Bridges built is similar to a Bob Bourke design.
Bottom line, styling is in the eye of the beholder. Some get more votes than others, but popularity lets the great unwashed have a vote.. The 1957 Fords outsold the 1957 Chevrolet. The 1958 Thunderbird outsold the 1957 almost two to one. Which is today considered the better design?
I've closely examined this car at the South Bend IM and found it to be gorgeous. There are a few details I'd change, but that's true of the '53K as well.
jack vinesPackardV8
Comment
-
Originally posted by PackardV8 View PostFWIW, designers don't have total control; even the '53 K was not produced exactly as BB envisioned it. The Studebaker management dabbled with several details, including the door posts and roofline. Then, does anyone think BB would have done the nose of the '55 or the '56J fins without direction from the suits?
Bottom line, styling is in the eye of the beholder. Some get more votes than others, but popularity lets the great unwashed have a vote.. The 1957 Fords outsold the 1957 Chevrolet. The 1958 Thunderbird outsold the 1957 almost two to one. Which is today considered the better design?
I've closely examined this car at the South Bend IM and found it to be gorgeous. There are a few details I'd change, but that's true of the '53K as well.
jack vinesJerry Forrester
Forrester's Chrome
Douglasville, Georgia
See all of Buttercup's pictures at https://imgur.com/a/tBjGzTk
Comment
-
Thank you (Steve Brown) from one Brown to another (Howard Brown). I now remember seeing the car at least twice at SDC International Meets. VERY nicely done.Howard - Los Angeles chapter SDC
'53 Commander Starliner (Finally running and driving, but still in process)
'56 Golden Hawk (3 speed/overdrive, Power steering - Running, but not yet driving)
'58 Packard Hawk. A partially restored car that was not completely assembled.
Comment
-
Originally posted by studegary View PostThe most polite thing that I can say is, to each his own and it must have taken a lot of effort.
To me, it doesn't look like a Bob Bourke design or anything that would come out of Bob's pen or mind. The car that John Bridges built is similar to a Bob Bourke design.
I can't recall if it was just an article or a book, but years ago I recall reading a publication titled "Design Disasters." Much of the examples included cars of the early to mid-fifties. A lot of it appeared to me to be from a designer failing to anticipate the public mood, taste, fad/phase (faze) of their times. It is not just the designers, but like most things in life requiring cooperation, failure in corporate teamwork from all decision-makers required to bring anything to market.
If someone has the information in their possession (not me), a very worthwhile exercise would be to establish a very exclusive registry of the existing examples of these "Bourke" visions so we could appreciate them side by side. From what I have observed, so far...I have a much more positive reaction than negative.John Clary
Greer, SC
SDC member since 1975
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bob Bryant View PostThe November/December edition of AACA's Antique Automobile has a great article on Vic and Connie Oliver's beautiful Studebaker.
Originally posted by 5brown1 View Post
"The idea for the convertable Speedster II came from a conceptual drawing by legendary car designer Bob Bourke. The drawing was of a conceptual sports car design fashioned from production steel panels. It was meant to have the sporty, racy appearance similar to the styling feature used on Continental Mark Vs and Ford Thunderbirds of the time, according to the book*Bob Bourke designs for Studebaker*by John Bridges, where the original design can be found. One of the only main differences between that design and Oliver’s finished design is he made his convertible – something you would not find on Studebakers between 1953 and 1959."
I've read John Bridges' books as, I'm sure, others here have as well! As for the sketch, my recollection of it is that, it was of a convertible. John Bridges also built his own physical interpretation of this sketch, and I believe it's a much more accurate representation of it. As for not finding any Studebaker convertibles between 1953 and 1959. There was one! It was and is a prototype convertible, built in 1953, and it was converted and upgraded to 1954 spec's for 1954. I believe it still exists today and always coud have been found if one was willing to put the effort into looking! So far, pictures of this car are all I've seen, and I haven't any that show a top. I suspect that maybe, this car doesn't have one? If this is the case, is it actually correct to use the term convertible, for it?
Please, don't get me wrong, I love this car and would like to know as much about it as possible! I also, just love looking at pictures of it! Seeing it in person, would definitely be preferable. I'd be in heaven, for every moment, if I'm actually ever able, to own it, or even just able to drive it a little, on some sunny day? I imagine that most of the general public, wouldn't even have a clue that it wasn't an actual production model?
Marksigpic
S2Deluxe = (5H - C3).
Comment
Comment