Last post on Jun 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
#27468 of 29829 Re: Valiant [andre1969]
Jan 07, 2013 (8:42 am)
Yes, our Hornet had both a glove box door and an underdash shelf. I found it odd that the glovebox door seemed to be heavy diecast metal, while the shelf was the nastiest hard plastic material ever invented. I don't recall us using it much.
I remember when AMC updated the Hornet in '78 to become the Concord, the entire dash was redesigned and became much more conventional-looking for the times.
#27469 of 29829 Re: Valiant [ab348]
Jan 07, 2013 (8:56 am)
I must be getting old. Back in my student days (HS into college) I had a Duster, Hornet and a Gremlin (yes, I was a glutton for punishment). I just remember very few details. stuff like having a glovebox door? Not one of them! Though I am pretty sure it had a normal one with a turn knob with a key slot in it.
back seat, they all had that!
and I have no recollection of odd air vents or footwell vent boxes in the Duster. It did have a sunroof though.
#27471 of 29829 Re: For andre... [uplanderguy]
Jan 07, 2013 (9:28 am)
I just looked at the '57 DeSoto paint chart, and I don't see that color either. The closest that I can see is what they called "Dusty Orange" on the Firesweep, or "Tropical Coral" on the Dodges.
It's been a good 20 years or more, but I knew someone whose family had a 1957 DeSoto Firedome that was sort of a coral/salmon/pinkish color, but it wasn't as pink as the '57 Firesweep in that url. And interestingly, the '57 DeSoto paint chart shows no salmon color offered at all, so I guess this particular one had been a re-paint?
Now, the Chrysler paint chart has a color called "Shell Pink", which looks like a pale peach to me, and "Sunset Rose", which looks fairly pink, but again, not as jarring as the pink on that '57 Firesweep.
I have a feeling they just picked some custom pink paint for that car, and went their own route.
#27472 of 29829 Re: For andre... [andre1969]
Jan 07, 2013 (11:15 am)
If it is relatively close to looking period correct, probably no harm done with a custom color. I will admit when I see "restored" cars with colors that clearly did not exist when the car was new, questions are raised to me.
This is a pic from the local MBCA show a couple years ago. The white W111 coupe, a pristinely restored 1962 with the rare 4-speed, is in a non-original color. It was kind of a pearl white, which was not used by MB then. It works, maybe so long as it isn't in a judged show, and it suits the car. My car is correct, a type of color that maybe didn't exist much past the 60s.
Obscure cars this morning: immaculate ~90 Cavalier Z24 convertible, same nice condition ~85 Ciera woody I see now and then, C43 AMG.
#27473 of 29829 Re: For andre... [fintail]
Jan 07, 2013 (11:28 am)
I like authenticity, and if it's a car I know about the colors on (most Chevys mid-sixties to around mid-eighties, and '62 and later Studes) and it's a wrong color, that's a turn off to me. My '66 Stude was a wrong color and it always bugged me the whole year I owned it, even though the car was rock-solid and looked authentic to the casual observer.
#27474 of 29829 Re: For andre... [uplanderguy]
Jan 07, 2013 (11:56 am)
I can deal with a wrong color if it at least looks period correct. I knew a guy who had a 64 Corvair convertible, in a period looking pastel light green. I thought it must be an original color, but he told me the car was a cheap repaint in a random color. It looked OK to me, but it wasn't my car either
I would prefer a car I own to not just be a correct color for the model, but the original color of the car.
#27475 of 29829 Re: For andre... [fintail]
Jan 07, 2013 (12:02 pm)
I agree, fintail. When I was having my '63 Lark Daytona Skytop restored, I would have much-preferred that year's Rose Mist color over Ermine White. But I had factory documentation for the car that showed it was customer-ordered and built as Ermine White, so Ermine White is how it was repainted.
I have a couple pretty close, color pics of that car the original owner gave me from late summer '64, at Yellowstone Park. I wish I had a way to post them, but I don't.
#27476 of 29829 Re: For andre... [uplanderguy]
Jan 07, 2013 (12:04 pm)
> pretty close, color pics
Do you have a scanner to digitize them? Or a digital camera to take a closeup picture of the old photo and then send that digital image to the host site for your pictures?
#27477 of 29829 Re: For andre... [uplanderguy]
Jan 07, 2013 (12:17 pm)
I can deal with repaints (especially as the preservation/patina idea is only about a decade old), but having a car as it was built is important. A white car stays white.
I'd like to see those pics too, you should scan them or even take pics of them with a good camera. I wish I had similar history of my car - I have paperwork going back to the factory, and a mountain of receipts older than I am, but no photos from before I owned it.