PDA

View Full Version : Interesting '51 Stude Custom



DEEPNHOCK
11-22-2013, 05:54 AM
http://kustomrama.com/index.php?title=Charles_DeLacy%27s_1951_Studebaker

1951 Studebaker Starlight Coupe restyled by Charles DeLacy of Los Angeles, California. Charles customized his Studebaker in his spare time, working by night at an aircraft plant, going to college by day, and working at an body shop during his "idle" hours. The build took 15 months to complete.[1]
Up front Charles created a new grille made from a 1947 Oldsmobile top bar, and a 1949 Mercury grille.[2] The headlights were replaced by a pair of 1952 Ford lights.[2] In the rear Charles replaced the stock deck lid with one from a 1952 Nash. A forward panel was made from a 1934 Ford hood. He also restyled his Studebaker using 1950 Oldsmobile rear fenders with 1952 Ford scoops, and 1952 Lincoln taillights.[2] The exhaust tips were inset under the bumper.[1]
Charles lowered the car by installing lowering blocks front and rear and sectioning the body 3 inches.[2] The Stude retained its flathead six engine but it was equipped with a 3/4 race cam, oversize valves, dual carbs, headers and re-shaped combustion chambers which brought the compression ratio to 9:1.[1]


The car's interior featured custom button-tufted upholstery.[1]


October 26 to November 1, 1953 Charles' Studebaker was shown at the 4th annual Motorama in Los Angeles, California.[3]

http://kustomrama.com/images/5/5c/Charles-delacy-1951-studebaker.jpg

http://kustomrama.com/images/2/25/Charles-delacy-1951-studebaker35.jpg

http://kustomrama.com/images/d/db/Charles-delacy-1951-studebaker5.jpg

JRoberts
11-22-2013, 05:56 AM
The front reminds me of a Mercury.

studegary
11-22-2013, 01:05 PM
The front reminds me of a Mercury.

1949-1950 Mercury grille pieces plus 1952-1954 Mercury (or Ford) headlight rims.

jclary
11-22-2013, 01:37 PM
Good Grief!!!!:eek: So...lets take an iconic aerodynamic (for its era) happy face work of art...deface it to a box shape, give it a frown:(, and then add a frumpy "Rosie O'Donnell" chubby rump...and try to act like it was time well spent????:rolleyes::yeahright:

Nothing gained from the original with this build.:(... More like a proportional wreck...the damage is equal from all angles.:oops::mad:

paintim613
11-22-2013, 01:37 PM
A little too radical for me, but looks like some amazing work. While ours was customized a lot, at least many people recognize it as a Stude.

paintim613
11-22-2013, 01:41 PM
Good Grief!!!!:eek: So...lets take an iconic aerodynamic (for its era) happy face work of art...deface it to a box shape, give it a frown:(, and then add a frumpy "Rosie O'Donnell" chubby rump...and try to act like it was time well spent????:rolleyes::yeahright:

Nothing gained from the original with this build.:(... More like a proportional wreck...the damage is equal from all angles.:oops::mad:

Please remember the time frame when this was done. This kind of custom work was all the rage in the 50's when Barris, Winfield, and others were becoming well known. We are sure this kind of thinking was the motivation for the 60 year old custom work on our Stude. Timing is everything IMHO.

jclary
11-22-2013, 01:55 PM
Please remember the time frame when this was done. This kind of custom work was all the rage in the 50's when Barris, Winfield, and others were becoming well known. We are sure this kind of thinking was the motivation for the 60 year old custom work on our Stude. Timing is everything IMHO.

Hey...all that was done here is to cobble together a bunch of parts from a rather boring contemporary bunch of cars to take a rather unique design and make it look like most boring contemporary cars of the day. The best I can say about it is that the craftsmanship looked great, fit and finish looks proportional, but the aesthetic art of the build was not an improvement from the original.

Just because you take a 1951 Studebaker and make it look like a later model sorta/kinda 1954 Mercury with a panoramic greenhouse...not much of a gain regardless of when it was done.

swvalcon
11-22-2013, 01:56 PM
Why do a custom at all. Just go out and buy a stock mercury.

jimmijim8
11-22-2013, 03:25 PM
Whyscome? Perhaps too much time in the garage or college./or it was his and you know the rules. cheers jimmiijim

RadioRoy
11-22-2013, 05:59 PM
It's amazing how many customs, or Kustoms fail. The professional designers that did our cars were pretty good to start with.

Of course, that doesn't stop every garage grease monkey with a torch from "improving" every C or K body they can get their hands on.

Dick Steinkamp
11-22-2013, 07:12 PM
Please remember the time frame when this was done. This kind of custom work was all the rage in the 50's when Barris, Winfield, and others were becoming well known. We are sure this kind of thinking was the motivation for the 60 year old custom work on our Stude. Timing is everything IMHO.

Tim,
Most here won't "get it".

These 50's kustoms aren't for everyone for sure, but they are a big part of our hot rod/custom/modified heritage.

Sondre Kvipt does an outstanding job of preserving this history at his site...

http://kustomrama.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

There are many times more folks passionate about this era in the car culture than there are members of the Studebaker Driver's Club. Again, you don't have to appreciate this part of the old car hobby or any other segment. But you are missing a big part of the hobby (and the fun) by limiting yourself.

I was honored when Sondre featured the Kart Hauler...

http://kustomrama.com/index.php?title=Lee_Talbot_and_Sam_Chakries%27_1953_Studebaker

It's easy to post what you DON'T like about someone elses car (especially one done 60 years ago). How about posting yours? Be brave. Someone here may not like it.

jimmijim8
11-23-2013, 02:49 AM
The door swings both ways. Maybe back in the day the builder thought he would create a rolling piece of art by starting with something as ungainly as a good looking Stude. Was his intent to make a statement/impression? Probably so. I think it is okay for others to voice their appreciation or not of custom car renderings. Yes he contributed to the modified car scene of the 50's. It for sure is one of a kind. cheers jimmijim

Bob Andrews
11-23-2013, 04:34 AM
Tim,
Most here won't "get it".

These 50's kustoms aren't for everyone for sure, but they are a big part of our hot rod/custom/modified heritage.

It's easy to post what you DON'T like about someone elses car (especially one done 60 years ago). How about posting yours? Be brave. Someone here may not like it.

Agree completely. I'll never get the point of shooting down others' cars. But this has been mentioned several times before on this forum. Always seems to fester up from time to time anyway.

Doesn't seem to line up with those who are afraid any little thing will run off any newbies looking in;):D

jclary
11-23-2013, 08:18 AM
Tim,
Most here won't "get it".


Perhaps not...but even the dumbest farmer on earth wouldn't mistake everything that dropped from the rear of a goose for a "golden egg!"

Those who know, and study the art of the works of the "masters" like Da Vinci...have found that underneath may be other works that were rejected and painted over. I doubt that there's a soul here on the forum that does not appreciate "old iron," and most enjoy the early rods that began as a movement for young folks to rescue the discards of others, and make a rolling art statement of personal expression.

The Kart Hauler is an excellent example of the craft. It was not only beautiful, but was built in a way that gave believable "function to form." My criticism was directed to this particular build. It is my opinion, and should only be given no more weight than my opinion deserves. The only true "kustom" I ever built, was a 1928 Model A five window. Olds power with no hood, no fenders, and an under performing 32 chevy grille & radiator, bar mounted pod lights, hill-billy brush painted flames. That was in my late teens...thank goodness, so far, no embarrassing pictures of that thing have surfaced.

All I'm saying is that not all of these early kustoms are eye pleasing winners. I have a collection of prehistoric stone arrowheads and tools. While all are valuable as "artifacts" some are more skillfully crafted than others. Just because one observes that an arrowhead is knapped unevenly for true flight...does not mean that the observer "don't get it.":rolleyes:

48skyliner
11-23-2013, 09:53 AM
I have read auto magazines since the early 50s, seen photos of some really beautiful customs, but I have concluded that the skills to produce the craftsmanship do not always go with a well developed sense of the aesthetic. In the case of the car shown here, it occurs to me the desired effect might have been achieved more easily, and perhaps with better proportions, by grafting the roof and greenhouse of a Starlight coupe to a Ford, Merc or whatever. Has this ever been done?

"It's easy to post what you DON'T like about someone elses car (especially one done 60 years ago). How about posting yours? Be brave. Someone here may not like it."

Well, here is a photo of a 1984 RX-7 I made into a convertible, and grafted on the rear body section of a Mazda RX-2 sedan. I used RX-2 chrome bumpers and a few other bits to give it a 60s look. This was done in 1990.

29896

gordr
11-23-2013, 10:04 AM
Nice convertible! Looks like Mazda could have built it that way, and should have.

The Stude custom in this thread looks like it is well built, but poorly designed. It's lost its Stude character, pretty much, and it's also too squarish overall, when judged by the gold standard of such customs, the chopped '49 Merc.

woodysrods
11-23-2013, 10:58 AM
Well said 48skyliner
But if the dates and time frame for the build, stated in the original post are correct.
The builder had similar vision as the designers of the time and the 54 Merc had not yet been seen when his build was started.
And as many Customs of the day (early 50's) it was built with parts that were readily available, while attempting to have a newish car that was unique.
Much like what the "Tuners" are doing today.
Good Roads
Brian

studegary
11-23-2013, 11:32 AM
Well said 48skyliner
But if the dates and time frame for the build, stated in the original post are correct.
The builder had similar vision as the designers of the time and the 54 Merc had not yet been seen when his build was started.
And as many Customs of the day (early 50's) it was built with parts that were readily available, while attempting to have a newish car that was unique.
Much like what the "Tuners" are doing today.
Good Roads
Brian

Your comments do not hold together for me. The car is a modified '51. The grilles are from 1949-1950 and the headlight rims are from 1952-1954. These parts predate the build. Perhaps a 1954 Mercury had not yet been seen when this car was built, but a 1952 Mercury had been seen and is basically similar in appearance to a 1954 Mercury. In fact, the side trim on the car is like a 1952 Mercury, not a 1954 Mercury.

WinM1895
11-23-2013, 12:39 PM
The slanted side mouldings w/the 3 'nubs' are from a 1952 Ford Customline.

1952/54 Ford/Merc's use the same headlamp doors, were available chrome or painted.

Grille insert is from a 1949/50 Merc.

I have my doubts inre to the 1950 Olds rear fenders, as these bulge outwards from the body, are curved at the front and are made as part of the quarter panels.

1954 Merc with plexiglass roof located above front seats would be a "Sun Valley." The 1954 Ford version is a "Skyliner" renamed Crown Victoria in 1955/56.

1957/59 Fords with 'flip-flop' roof were also Skyliners.

rodnutrandy
11-23-2013, 05:32 PM
I have to admit their are cars being built today by pro builders ,that I don't like. That being said, I am sure they don't want my opinion and am sure a lot drool over the ones I dislike. But if we all liked the same thing and drove the same thing, it would be boring . ( but we would all agree ! )

studegary
11-24-2013, 11:02 AM
The slanted side mouldings w/the 3 'nubs' are from a 1952 Ford Customline.



I agree that the vertical rear side mouldings are 1952 Ford, but the horizontal rear side mouldings appear to be from a 1952 Mercury.