Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nike Swoosh

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

  • Nike Swoosh

    Is there a particular name for the upside down Nike swoosh on many early-mid 50s Studebakers?
    Its one of my favorite styling features. I'm curious as to why Studebaker never highlighted it with two tone paint. Very few resto-mod people highlight it also. I've attached a few examples.
    Early corvettes seemed to always highlight theirs. But the new Chargers hardly ever do, but I found a few, one online and one in my neighborhood.
    Rafe
    Attached Files
    Last edited by Rafe Hollister; 06-13-2021, 02:05 PM.

  • #2
    Is there something NIKE about it? it's a Design Feature.

    SOMEONE must have thought it was a good enough idea to make and Market Aftermarket Stainless Mouldings to surround it, for a Two Tone Paint scheme.

    I guess I never saved a Pic of one, since I think it just clutters up the "Clean" design.

    StudeRich
    Second Generation Stude Driver,
    Proud '54 Starliner Owner
    SDC Member Since 1967

    Comment


    • #3
      Rafe is merely referring to it as a "Nike" swoosh because that helps identify it. It worked, as I immediately knew what he was talking about.
      Mike Davis
      1964 Champ 8E7-122 "Stuey"

      Comment


      • #4
        It's a bit like an upside down Nike swoosh, don't you think? I've attached a picture for your viewing pleasure. Might be interesting to do a 'Hawk' or 'Studebaker' graphic like the attached Nike graphic.
        Carolyn Davidson designed the Nike logo in 1971. She submitted an invoice for 35.00. Nike was in love with the Adidas logo, and initially passed on her swoosh. But later returned to it and said "I don't love it, but I think it will grow on me". In 1983, Nike invited her to lunch, but instead gave her surprise honor party, presented her with a gold ring with logo & diamond, and gifted her 500 shares, worth 750,000.00 today.
        Attached Files
        Last edited by Rafe Hollister; 06-13-2021, 01:27 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm not a fan of Nike, but that is a great description of it. I just don't see a PF Flyer logo working on much of anything.
          Ron Dame
          '63 Champ

          Comment


          • #6
            John Bridges would be your best source for an answer. He has written several books about Bob Bourke's design for Studebaker. You can get his books on Amazon but they may be available through SDC Store or the SDC Museum.

            The original design exercise was done just as a one off in 1951. The usually conservative management approved the design but to be narrow to fit the chassis of the current production cars.

            I was lucky to meet Bob Bourke in Nashville in 1992 and had my picture taken with him. I also went to the Grand Ole Opry and had lunch on the General Jackson Paddle wheel boat. Great Meet!

            Bob Miles
            International Meets Make Memories

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Rafe Hollister View Post
              Is there a particular name for the upside down Nike swoosh on many early-mid 50s Studebakers?
              Its one of my favorite styling features. I'm curious as to why Studebaker never highlighted it with two tone paint. Very few resto-mod people highlight it also. I've attached a few examples.
              Early corvettes seemed to always highlight theirs. But the new Chargers hardly ever do, but I found a few, one online and one in my neighborhood.
              Rafe

              I'm sure that the "sculpt" was a touch by Bob Bourke with Loewy's approval or both that appeared in all Studebaker cars from 1953 through 1955 and 1956 C/K models. It is a subtle way to add a distinctive look without being overbearing, a cardinal rule of Loewy... (My opinion of course!)

              Click image for larger version  Name:	Screen Shot 2021-06-13 at 6.43.02 PM.png Views:	0 Size:	41.8 KB ID:	1898857

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Rafe Hollister View Post
                I'm curious as to why Studebaker never highlighted it with two tone paint. Very few resto-mod people highlight it also.
                Looks tacky and screws up the flow of the design, IMO.

                Click image for larger version  Name:	5B78AC30-F61A-4F51-8DFB-F6D9511F805E.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	54.7 KB ID:	1898890

                Comment


                • #9
                  Perhaps you are in the esthetic majority and I am not. Perhaps thats why Studebaker never did it. There have been a lot of very nice cars over the years that seem to ignore their body lines when it comes to chrome and paint accents. But my eye wants to see accents follow the lines. I think that looks soo good!
                  Rafe

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I appreciate the shallow contour and how it created some surface interest without violating Loewy's disdain for ersatz ornamentation. The contour echoes not only the curve of the B-pillar, but also the rearward angle of the rear fender/tail light housing - another first in American automotive design.

                    Painting in a contrasting color interrupts another extremely important design element - the lower edge of the body. That contour flows so gently upward from the rocker to the rear bumper. It is this element that gives the C/K shape movement and lightness.

                    To me anything more than a pinstripe is redundant. In any case, some are done very well and others are done to please the owner. In the end, the latter is all that matters.
                    Andy
                    62 GT

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I've always thought it would've been nice if it was possible to order it two-toned, not two different colors, or maby pinstriped, or a thin chrome trim.
                      I never(!) thought about nike when seeing a Studebaker door...

                      What I find "strange" thou is the -55 two-tone/color setting; in my opinion it follows the lines of the car poorly, & it's on sedans & coupes too...
                      I remember when I saw a lemon-&-lime Speedster (differnt color design, I know) the first time in Basel Switzerland & thought "well at least you notice it".
                      & then there's the sidetrim on 55's that at least gives you a hint but I find it only disturbing the line so I removed it on Josephine.
                      Last edited by Noxnabaker; 06-13-2021, 11:30 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by StudeRich View Post
                        Is there something NIKE about it? it's a Design Feature.

                        SOMEONE must have thought it was a good enough idea to make and Market Aftermarket Stainless Mouldings to surround it, for a Two Tone Paint scheme.

                        I guess I never saved a Pic of one, since I think it just clutters up the "Clean" design.

                        Yes, that is true, Rich.

                        1953 Two-tone at 1953 Oklahoma City Auto Show - Studebaker Drivers Club Forum

                        Craig

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I owned a Speedster customized in the 1960s. The "swoosh" was deepened as part of the customization. I think it actually looks better than the original. I imagine they didn't have dies in 53 to make it deeper like this....

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6908 copy.JPG
Views:	240
Size:	119.2 KB
ID:	1898921
                          Dick Steinkamp
                          Bellingham, WA

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I like that. I've wondered about doing bodywork to deepen mine... nice to see how it might look. I've also wondered how it would look if it extended to the next panel, just in front of the rear wheels. Photo shop anyone?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	image_88377.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	0
ID:	1898975
                              sigpic
                              Dave Lester

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X