Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

65 convertible

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 65 convertible

    Back in the 70's when I first joined SDC, their was a board member in Canada who was listed as having a 65 convertible. Did the company actually make one 65' or was it a misidentification.
    Tony

  • #2
    Tony: That member created a car with styling cues that might have been employed for 1965, so it looks different from the 1964 convertible on which it is based. The car is Strato Blue in color (or close to it) and if you wait a couple hours, Leonard Shepherd will probably post pictures of it![:0]

    (I'm sure he is scrambling to find them even as I post!) BP
    We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

    Ayn Rand:
    "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

    G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

    Comment


    • #3
      quote:Tony: That member created a car with styling cues that might have been employed for 1965, so it looks different from the 1964 convertible on which it is based. The car is Strato Blue in color (or close to it) and if you wait a couple hours, Leonard Shepherd will probably post pictures of it!

      (I'm sure he is scrambling to find them even as I post!) BP
      You know me too well!

      It wasn't a 65, but a 66 that was at the Spokane meet.



      Leonard Shepherd
      http://leonardshepherd.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        quote:Originally posted by lstude

        It wasn't a 65, but a 66 that was at the Spokane meet.

        Leonard Shepherd
        This same car was at the Pacific Can-Am Zone meet in Penticton, BC last September. I'll bet Craig P. will have a more current photo.

        <h5>Mark
        '57 Transtar Deluxe
        Vancouver Island
        </h5>
        Mark Hayden
        '66 Commander
        Zone Coordinator
        Pacific Can-Am Zone

        Comment


        • #5
          The biggest physical change in the car, Tony, is barely seen in these frontal shots. He raised the rear bumper several inches to try to deflect the "high deck lid" appearance of the '64s...which I personally never had issue with...

          Nowadays, every car's deck lid/tail is supposed to be 'way higher than the front....Brooks Stevens was just a couple generations ahead of the field with the 1964 Studebakers! (But we already know that....)[8D] BP
          We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

          Ayn Rand:
          "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

          G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks for the info guys. Was kinda out of the loop from 1997-2006. Drove Studes, all years until 1999. Worked with Bill Oliver late 80's-1995 in LA. Looking for another to resume the passion.
            Tony

            Comment


            • #7
              Welcome back, Tony...the loop's never closed in Studebaker-land! BP
              We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

              Ayn Rand:
              "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

              G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Thank you Leonard for the picture. That is a neat looking car

                It is too bad that the factory never made one like it



                Ready for a trip to the beach!

                Comment


                • #9
                  quote: Thank you Leonard for the picture. That is a neat looking car
                  As Mark said, Craig Parslow has a much better picture of it. I snapped it just as they were arriving at the hotel and the car was dirty from the drive.

                  Leonard Shepherd
                  http://leonardshepherd.com/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Wrong car guys. The reference is to ex-Board member Jo Sawatzky from Winnipeg who owned a convertible and she claimed for many years that it was a 1965. After trying for more years I finally got the serial number of her car and it was (I believe) C503444 which is a 1964 Hamilton built convertible assembled on May 29, 1964.

                    When the 65s first came out no one could tell the difference to look at them from the 64s. There were some dealerships who sold their leftover 64s as 65s and titled them that way (not exactly kosher I think).

                    Back in 1969 I tried to buy a nice 64 Daytona hardtop from the original owner who claimed it was a 65. He even showed me his bill of sale from the dealer that stated it was a 65. However the Studebaker engine and the 1964 serial number tipped me off. When that change was made to the serial numbers (Jan 1/64) even the Motor Vehicle licensing office was confused.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks, Art. I remember Jo S's car and her claiming that it was a 1965. I always felt that it was a leftover 1964 that was titled as a 1965.

                      Gary L.
                      Wappinger, NY

                      SDC member since 1968
                      Studebaker enthusiast much longer
                      Gary L.
                      Wappinger, NY

                      SDC member since 1968
                      Studebaker enthusiast much longer

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        quote:Originally posted by monomaniac The reference is to ex-Board member Jo Sawatzky from Winnipeg who owned a convertible and she claimed for many years that it was a 1965. After trying for more years I finally got the serial number of her car and it was (I believe) C503444 which is a 1964 Hamilton built convertible assembled on May 29, 1964.

                        Is she the "uncooperative lady" you referred to in your TW article?

                        Craig

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Using the year the car was sold on the title was common back then and I suppose perfectly legal. I have a '65 VW split window bus but the title says its a '66. Mine has the camper interior so maybe it took longer to arrive after it was first ordered and I figure the first owner didn't take possesion until '66. American Motors, I've read, had Metropolitans left over for even more than 1 year and some of them were titled as whatever year they were sold. Along those lines, does anyone have a vehicle that uses the engine number as the VIN? My '53 "Coupe from Cuba" is that way. I got the production order and it has the original engine still in it because that's the number that's on the title as the VIN. I also had a '59 Cadillac that used the engine # as the VIN.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            quote:Originally posted by BobPalma

                            The biggest physical change in the car, Tony, is barely seen in these frontal shots. He raised the rear bumper several inches to try to deflect the "high deck lid" appearance of the '64s...which I personally never had issue with...

                            Nowadays, every car's deck lid/tail is supposed to be 'way higher than the front....Brooks Stevens was just a couple generations ahead of the field with the 1964 Studebakers! (But we already know that....)[8D] BP
                            Really? I thought that the rear of the car was the most unfortunate part of the '64 restyle, as it just looked like the bumper was far too low, and there was just too much sheetmetal between the trunk lid and the bumper. Other than that it was a surprisingly fresh and modern looking update of the '63 body without changing a whole lot of parts.

                            nate

                            --
                            55 Commander Starlight
                            http://members.cox.net/njnagel
                            --
                            55 Commander Starlight
                            http://members.cox.net/njnagel

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              quote:Originally posted by monomaniac

                              Wrong car guys. The reference is to ex-Board member Jo Sawatzky from Winnipeg who owned a convertible and she claimed for many years that it was a 1965. After trying for more years I finally got the serial number of her car and it was (I believe) C503444 which is a 1964 Hamilton built convertible assembled on May 29, 1964.

                              When the 65s first came out no one could tell the difference to look at them from the 64s. There were some dealerships who sold their leftover 64s as 65s and titled them that way (not exactly kosher I think).

                              Back in 1969 I tried to buy a nice 64 Daytona hardtop from the original owner who claimed it was a 65. He even showed me his bill of sale from the dealer that stated it was a 65. However the Studebaker engine and the 1964 serial number tipped me off. When that change was made to the serial numbers (Jan 1/64) even the Motor Vehicle licensing office was confused.

                              Maybe it wasn't sold (doubtful since it's a conv) until the fall 1965 models came out, since it probably got shipped in June. I can't figure out why the BMV or DMV would have problems figuring that out except with dealers misrepresenting the titles. My car was built, sold and first licensed in 1959 like many new cars for the following 1960 model year, but they never titled new cars incorrectly each and every year as the PAST year on the title.
                              My guess is paper work at the dealers were the culprit. I bet it wasn't the normally meticulous women employees who usually typed them up back then either, but rather salespeople who would write up the latest model year title request to confirm the newest car year for their buyers regardless of fact. Probably lots of pressure back then to make every buyer happy; not thinking originality arguments would ensue many years later..

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X