Question on 63 Lark Standard

[nels]

Does anyone know "for sure" if in '63 the Lark Standard had silver painted plastic tail lights or were they chrome? I don't think they had the fingers around the lense but not sure of that either.
The reason I ask is that I have a Standard and restored it using the chrome plastic lenses but I then found a used plastic lense that was painted silver where the chrome would be. It is original not someones KY chrome job. The Standard is the only model I would suspect used this paint in place of chrome.

[showbizkid]

Nels, I have a Studebaker publicity photo that shows the Standard with the same taillights as the other '63 Larks:



Hope that helps!


[img=left]http://members.cox.net/clarknovak/lark.gif[/img=left]

Clark in San Diego
'63 F2/Lark Standard

http://studeblogger.blogspot.com

https://www.studebakersandiego.com

[nels]

Thanks Clark, those are interesting photos and would be believable but they appear to be prototypes. I noticed the rear shot of the car shows chrome molding around the rear glass which the Standard did not have. You will notice the front view does not have the trim. The missing Vanity can be seen through the rear window which says it is a Standard but as I said, probably a prototype or air brushed Regal. Nice pictures though.

[candbstudebakers]

Nels I got mine from the original owner and it had chrome ones but not the finger overlays, also no stainless on either rear or front windows, clean trunk and hood, have ever noticed on how the back up lights look out of place on the standard? I have been toying with changing to 62 style, nice cars fast too, R-1 4 speed, 373 tt rear and traction bars and sway bar, buckets and 65 dash...clone, nels the pistons went out yesterday and the shipping was $41.25 total...Bob

Bob Peterson / C & B Studebakers

Castro Valley, CA
canbstudebakers-

]

[barnlark]

Nels, it appears in the parts book the Standard shares the same lens with the top of the line cars. I've seen both, too. Maybe those painted ones were repops, or later versions on the cheap.
BTW the way, do folks in Covington describe that as a Cincinnati chrome job? [)] There were NOS '63 lenses on ebay last week. I wonder if they were plastic chrome versions or not. Would have been interesting to see the parts number on the packaging.

[Dwain G.]

My City of Seattle Standard came with all service records. It has the same tailight assembly as other '63 models. Those cars do come with a few hilariously odd differences though.


HEY, you're not Wilbur!

[showbizkid]

quote:Originally posted by Dwain G.

hilariously odd differences

You mean like the mailbox vanity replacecment? The solo sun visor? The absence of nearly all identification? The single-chime horn? [)]


[img=left]http://members.cox.net/clarknovak/lark.gif[/img=left]

Clark in San Diego
'63 F2/Lark Standard

http://studeblogger.blogspot.com

https://www.studebakersandiego.com

[nels]

Not only the sunvisor was missing but also the courtesy light switches on the door jams. The instruement surround etc were painted silver and not chrome. Sort of the 63 Scottsman. Bob, I do think they came with, at most, no fingers on the lens but as Dave points out, the shop manual only calls out one lense. In a way I was hoping this painted lense was the intended lense for the Standard. That would have really been the icing on the cake.
Dave, Ky chrome might just be a Cinci expression? I thought about that after I sent it. No offense to anybody in Ky for sure.
Bob, I gave my wife the envelope to mail last night so you will get a couple bucks extra. Buy a beer with it, Thanks for getting them out.

[barnlark]

Nels, anybody who has met you knows you didn't mean to be disparaging. That's why I was kidding. Just being in Ohio & living near Cleveland, I have heard it all. I think people get over-sensitive about such things (unless one puts down Studebakers) 'nuff said.
I pulled an entire plastic tub of that type of lens out of an estate sale two years ago. I wasn't sure if they were just faded plastic chrome, or painted on some of them. Some were pretty shiny and the previous owner had every body style on that property at one time or another. He also was a swap meet hound, so who knows from where they originated. I would think Stratovue would have your answer on this one. The parts book usually shows the difference, if there is one, for each body. I doubt if you have either lens that they would be incorrect for a Standard.

[img][/img]

[2R2]

Nelson,

Regarding the rear window trim on the car in the photo; remember, for $29.50 you could order the Appearance group (option code #79) on a Standard. This consisted of front and rear glass moldings, and a trunk mat! Just what you need to livin' up the appearance of a bare bones car.

Eric DeRosa

'49 2R-5 (original Survivor)
'63 R2 Lark (barely surviving)

[studegary]

The Standard leaves off a lot of things, like a hood ornament, grille ornament & other items previously mentioned. They did this (left things off) more than they used different parts. I believe that the 1963 Standard used the same tail lights as the other 1963 Larks and Cruiser.

That picture, reminds me of when I parked at the library this week. There were empty spaces around my car when I went in. When I came out there were cars parked outside their lines up close to my car on both sides. The car on the driver's side was so close to my two door that I could hardly squeeze into my car. Those that know me know that this does not take much room.

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer

[BobPalma]

Anyone else notice the oddity in the factory photo above?

The woman is wearing a light dress with short sleeves and no wrap, but there's a pile of snow yet to melt down in the background.

(In the South Bend area, it takes a long time for the parking lot snow mountains to melt down each spring!) BP