Oh, my, what an antiquated concept...

[BobPalma]

So as an organiser and salesman, Nance was a failure; no wonder he didn't want to talk. CRUISER .

I'll strongly disagree, based on the benefit of history and my father's recollection of the matter. My Dad is an excellent marketing man and, of course, was a franchised Packard dealer during all of Nance' tenure. He always spoke well of the man, even though production delays kept him from getting any new 1955 Packards, any at all(!), until February 3, 1955.

That said, so much of what Nance faced is exactly what Sherwood Egbert faced almost a decade later. No sane person would blame Egbert for Studebaker's production and sales demise after 1962; heaven knows, he was doing all he could to bring the Avanti to market and pump excitement into the whole line, not to mention the dealers.

We could go on for hours about the various factors that all but sealed Nance's and Egbert's respective fates, but I believe each man gave it their best shot. Yes, each man made mistakes that we have the luxury of evaluating in hindsight. However, that they weren't successful reflects not so much on either man, but on situations they inherited that no mortal could have been expected to ameliorate.

In my never-so-humble opinion, of course. <GGG> BP

[cruiser]

BP ,
A very good reply and in some ways I agree with you . Nance inherited a Company
that had a corporate culture that was not dynamic and failed to move with the times.
But he did have a window of opportunity to turn things around . He made some bad
decisions , got some suspect advice and also had bad luck . I compare the 1955 Packard
introduction to the 1962 Avanti introduction where things done in haste oft go awry .

I don't compare the Nance performance to Egbert because he had cash and Egbert
didn't . Egbert was of course suffering his health problems which downed him mid flight.
I realise that the benefit of hindsight can 'colour' our views and as always , it is easier to
reflect on the past compared to trying to predict the future . Just ask GM and Chrysler !

But don't get me wrong , I love the 1955/56 Packards ( heck , I even love the 57/58's)
and when they went together WELL , they were a great car . But the process of bringing
them to the market was SO heavily flawed . Nance unfortunately must shoulder the blame.

I agree we could go on for hours ,so lets just be happy that the whole Corporation didn't
just fall over and die in 1956 and we got 10 more years of production which included
some of the most interesting cars ever put to market .

CRUISER