Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hemmings CC July issue

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

  • plwindish
    replied
    The end of the article was the best part. "The question shouldn't be why it died; rather, the question should be how it survived for as long as it did." The car certainly had a history of outliving the owners of the companies that built it. One can only dream of what might have been if the company stayed under a continuing Newman-Altman ownership and had gone to Calloway earlier to have a good frame put under it. To me, a Calloway frame, updated suspension along with a screaming LS series motor and Avanti body would be a great combination.

    Leave a comment:


  • LarkTruck
    replied
    Originally posted by JBOYLE View Post
    I believe they meant the Avanti with the "original" (albeit modified) body.
    Yes, the post-2000 cars are Avantis...built by a company with the legal rights to the name and that built the last of the original cars, but they don't have anything in common with the early cars other then the name and styling cues.
    IMHO, the Avanti died in 1985 with the bankruptcy, anything built after that is, well........

    Leave a comment:


  • Sdude
    replied
    Originally posted by JBOYLE View Post
    I believe they meant the Avanti with the "original" (albeit modified) body.
    Yes, the post-2000 cars are Avantis...built by a company with the legal rights to the name and that built the last of the original cars, but they don't have anything in common with the early cars other then the name and styling cues.
    But the story was about Avanti as an independant hence the 1965 beginning date. I disagree about not having anything in common with the original. I think the fact that it was designed by Tom Kellogg gives it a direct connection with the Studebaker version.

    I understand much was omitted due to space issues and my gripe really wasn't with Jeff Koch's conclusions. I just felt that getting the years wrong is as serious a publishing faux pas as would be spelling the name of the car wrong. I expect more from a publication like Hemmings. Thanks for responding, Bob. I hope you can pass this feedback on to Jeff Koch. I would hope he would want to know and learn from it. Perhaps someone will write to the editor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Studedude1961
    replied
    I frankly thought the whole orphans article would have been better printed in a non-car magazine like Reader's Digest. It was much too basic and offered too many simplified pat answers for a magazine of Hemmings CC quality.

    Leave a comment:


  • Warren Webb
    replied
    I received my copy a few days ago & saw this same thing right away. I thought about starting a thread but figured it would be brought up if someone thought of it. I was disappointed by a magazine such as Hemmings to be so far off base. If their editor had just the slightest clue of misinformation I would have thought a quick call or e-mail to Bob Palma would have second based this error. I would think that an editor as such would have had taken the time to double check inaccuracies.

    Leave a comment:


  • studegary
    replied
    Originally posted by Sdude View Post
    Just got my Hemmings Classic Car July issue and there was an article about American Orphans. I have confidence in the quality of this publication but the two Autos that I know a little about raised some questions of accuracy. It raises the question in my mind if there are not similar inaccuracies in the narratives of the other brands?

    .
    This is the reason that I dropped all of my Hemmings subscriptions. I saw MANY errors in articles about cars that I am fairly knowledgeable about (Studebaker, Avanti and others). I therefore assumed that there were as many errors in articles about cars that I was eager to learn more about.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBOYLE
    replied
    Originally posted by Sdude View Post
    The Avanti listed the years in business as 1965 to 1990. What about the Avantis that were built up to 2006? there was no mention of them. Are they not considered Avantis?
    I believe they meant the Avanti with the "original" (albeit modified) body.
    Yes, the post-2000 cars are Avantis...built by a company with the legal rights to the name and that built the last of the original cars, but they don't have anything in common with the early cars other then the name and styling cues.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobPalma
    replied
    Well, Jon, I wouldn't consider myself "on staff" as much as being a periodic columnist. Kind of like an Independent Contractor instead of an Employee....well, actually, that's what it is!

    If I was really on staff, I'd probably have my own little cubby hole in the old, nicely-repurposed small New England Machine Shop in Bennington VT that is now Hemmings Editorial Headquarters. It's a wonderful building, beautifully redone. You can stand in it, as I did last October, and just imagine an overhead jackshaft(?) running the length of the building, with large flat belts dropping down from the ceiling to power dozens of machines as craftsmen went about their trade maybe 100 years ago. 'Neat place!

    But I don't hold any sway over the content of the magazine beyond my quarterly column.

    I share your concern about some of the conclusions reached about why each subject manufacturer went out of business. Jeff Koch understandably avoided discussing overseas competition, although he did address that in a general disclaimer in the opening paragraphs.

    Too, he avoided stressing the contribution labor unions (both productivity and pay demands) and, oftimes, poor management made to each marque's disappearance. He tended to dwell on product as a primary factor and in many cases, it was. Others, not so much. It's not a general topic I would have wanted to tackle with any limitations...but if that were the case, the discussion of each marque would have to run into pages rather than paragraphs.

    The issue of space (column inches) in the various Hemmings publications is always a concern. I just submitted my September 2012 Hemmings Classic Car column last week. It has nothing to do with Studebakers, but is an interesting story I ran across from 1951. As usual, I was limited to 4,000 characters, including spaces and punctuation, but could easily have made the article four pages long, with all the information I found about the topic and the wonderful period photographs I was allowed to reproduce. Phooey!

    I'll echo Dick's observation about the two specific points you raised, Jon. Like Dick, I've never paid much attention to post-Studebaker Avantis. Interesting cars with varying degrees of Studebaker origins, but not Studebakers. BP

    Leave a comment:


  • Studebaker Wheel
    replied
    I noted the same thing. I speculate the 1897 date comes from a source that states they began experimenting with the horseless carriage in that year. Obviously the first automobile to carry the Studebaker name was the '02 Electric series. Not sure re the Avanti, I know nothing about them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sdude
    started a topic Hemmings CC July issue

    Hemmings CC July issue

    Just got my Hemmings Classic Car July issue and there was an article about American Orphans. I have confidence in the quality of this publication but the two Autos that I know a little about raised some questions of accuracy. It raises the question in my mind if there are not similar inaccuracies in the narratives of the other brands?

    The Avanti listed the years in business as 1965 to 1990. What about the Avantis that were built up to 2006? there was no mention of them. Are they not considered Avantis?

    They claimed Studebaker was in business from 1897 to 1966. Where did the year 1897 come from. I have always been under the impression that they started building automobiles in 1902. Can someone tell me what happened in1897 at Studebaker?

    Maybe Mr. Palma could shed some light since he is on staff.
Working...
X