Re: [AMC-List] you two enjoy this

["Eddie Stakes" <eddiestakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And as I write, there was just a interesting tidbit that I saw on the 
evening news on ABC, one of the rare times I watch the news. It was talking 
about the failure of the Ask Dr. Z series of commercials. A Chrysler 
spokesman said it 'was a huge success' while others including ad agencies, 
and car watchers, said it was a huge failure. No one could really relate to 
a guy they could not understand, much less didn't trust, even if whimsical, 
said one. Another said no one knew what the guy was trying to sell. I agree 
with that, and I guess whoever put together the report did too. Hard to 
believe Chrysler pissed away a whopping $100 million dollars on that crappy 
ad campaign, even if the CEO was the star. Hard to believe that is called a 
success when Chrysler is looking at a $1.2 BILLION loss in the 3rd 1/4:
http://www.topix.net/content/ap/3231111279108044554415400180274230152360?threadid=AM423H9LKEAV2LRI

Still even more ironic is the tidbit/snippet compared past CEO's who took to 
the tube in a effort to sell. Why was Orville Rickenbacher not there? But 
goofy Iaococca was. So was the fellow who sells Schick razors, saying he 
loved them so much he bought the company. But in a time......and
age......where one thinks of CEO's being dragged off to jail (pick one: 
Enron, Worldcomm, ad nauseum) and see CEO's dripping $400 million "bonuses" 
like the Exxon/Mobil CEO recently; I don't think people, speaking for 
myself, connected with the Dr. Z. commercials. Every time I saw another 
commercial I thought of 1988 all over again and bulldozers plowing over huge 
piles of NOS aMC parts in landfills west of Houston and other places in the 
US.

John didn't post the whole letter as it was long, and a reply of mine to a 
media fellow in California along with some suggestions for topics including 
doing a possible bio on Angela Dorian/Victoria Vetri for instance. And 
Pacers, the fellow had a Pacer and wants another. I told him to do a story 
on how many cars in 2006 suddenly are Pacerized and Gremlized. Toyota. Ford. 
A whole number of them are rolling aquariums and cut off butt ends. Same 
people who called AMC ugly in the 70s are now driving modern cars with AMC's 
stolen lines! Duh!

I'm not sure what happened with the amcforum.com either, although some have 
asked me about it. I was not a member there. If it did bite it, it falls 
into the old category of AMC Magazine; AMCWC; AMC unity council; AMC council 
of clubs; amcforum.net; and a number of other things that have bit it 
AMC-wise. All similiar, all different.

Maybe a lot of lost online AMCers will fill up with $1.99 gas (yup, it is 
$1.99 a gallon in several places here) and mosey over to this place and 
Bart's online place.

I also had a interesting email today from Mark S who I think is a member 
here asking AMO head Darrly Salisbury about the possibility of a Survivor 
Class. I won't put my whole letter here, but it pointed out (I hope) some 
the judging styles, shows and what not, what to expect and hoppefully in the 
long run, there is room on the showfield for all AMC and Rambler vehicles, 
whether custom, stock, non stock, chopped, lowered, limoed, kemped, 
frenched, monster garagged, pimped, you name it. Anyhows, gott go, long day, 
keep the old red, white and blue flame burning.
Eddie Stakes'
Planet Houston AMX
713.464.8825
eddiestakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.planethoustonamx.com
Email is currently HEAVY
5-12 day reply times, call if important
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mahoney, John" <jmahoney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Eddie Stakes" <eddiestakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Tate, Randy" 
<Randall.Tate@xxxxxxxxx>; <tomj@xxxxxxx>
Cc: <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 4:12 PM
Subject: RE: you two enjoy this


Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 04:35 PM
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Mahoney, John wrote:

>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1973-AMC-HORNETT-ONE-OWNER_W0QQitemZ320024818984Q
QihZ011QQcategoryZ5357QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>
> snip
>
> Maverick is almost same condition, and ugly color to boot still got $1200
more bidding and no dumbass questions:
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1972-Ford-Maverick-Excellent-Condition_W0QQitemZ2
80024696326QQihZ018QQcategoryZ6057QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

OK, I agree with you, that is embarrassing. What a bunch
of lamebrain remarks on the Hornet. And I think they are an
excellent pairing for comparison.

#######################################################

For the record, Tom, you agree with -Eddie-, whose note (below) set me 
rambling, and, as my time for AMC nostalgia limits me to seeing just one 
list, Doc's 'script also was dispensed phrom the Phamous Pharma Planet rX in 
Houston.

That said, and having just landed from a brief fly-by of the Eagle's Nest 
forum (which, unlike the Badass Gremlin group, I had not even -read- about; 
how can such a small sector of the car hobby [if AMC is as small as it 
seems] expect to grow if it remains so divergent?), I, too, agree with what 
was writ --- even if I'm not fast to fold 5H into a Pampers in hopes it will 
grow more ethanol.  Comfort with unfamiliar colors (in people as well as on 
cars?) is one of the harder things to master, but, when we turned up our 
noses at a wildly white/black/pink 1956 Packard Caribbean convertible for 
$5,000 that looked "loony" in 1976, what did we smell when it's worth 
$150,000 in 2016?  Maybe $1,500,000 in 2056?  Sweet success or eau de dumb?

http://www.treasurecoastmustangs.com/1972-ford-ppg.jpg

We can love cars in resale red, bad boy black, or shades of silver (I 
silently snicker seeing several snob-setters show up in similar 
silver/gray/beige painted steel --- especially if they run from rental-fleet 
Taurus to retinal-heat Porsche and they all ran from point A to point B), 
but we needn't "Yuck!" at purples, limes, or, yes, browns.

Number three: they're likely less common than the "loved" colors, number two 
[!]: they're likely more valuable in terms of telling the "real" story of 
the steel they cling to, and number one [!]: they're the cars that 
the -real- car lovers get all hot and bothered over, or they get a warm, 
wet, and tingly feeling from.  Not like purple rain.

A close-coupled two-tone Pierce comes to mind; to most, it looks totally 
bogus, but it's exactly how it was built.
It was a unique statement then and it's an even more unique statement now. 
It's the kind of car that -real- auto history -really- needs to see.  Two 
convertibles come to mind too: two variations on one tune composed by 
Lincoln.

Both were Full Classics, both went on American auction blocks just this 2006 
year: one in April and one in August.

One sold for twice what it may -really- be worth: in black paint/black top 
piped maroon/maroon leather with gold-plated [yuck, but that's just my 
opinion, which has no merit in terms of car history] interior trim.  Story 
says: "It was a gift from the president of the NY Yankess to Babe Ruth" 
(with a 1940 Rhinebeck horse show ticket found under the carpet); provenance 
says: "Whoa now, this ain't Monopoly money [$407,000] we crazies just throw 
around."
Except for the story and the g[u]ilt, just another #1 Zephyr.  Just not 
one -really- wonderful set of old wheels.

The other Lincoln was just as #1 in condition and one giant leap above in 
design: not one-off, but as designed by LeBaron and built by Brunn, it was 
one of just 20% of the 1935s that were -not- factory-bodied (as if the 
factory bodies were just chopped liver instead --- oh, how little do our 
musclecar contingents know!) and it was built on what was probably the 
finest (remember that when you count K cars!) chassis Ford ever made --- of 
which just over 1,000 (remember that when you count SC/360s!) were 
assembled.  Do the math.  20% of 1041; maybe 20 of 'em custom-bodied 
convertible coupes.  They didn't just offer SUVs, 2-doors, 4-doors, and 
[wow!] retractables way back then.

http://www.pontiac.com/g6convertible/index.jsp

Life was very different for America and for Ford: when Hudson (and even 
Nash) were big and "big" in body styles.

What's more, this car had the last of the "flowing" fenders --- it was one 
of the last cars that looked -really- great before cars began to look 
really -good- again in 1955.  Twenty years of so-so.  As if the mid-'70s 
went on until the '91 Caprice was spawned until now.  Yaris?  Versa?  And 
they say that the Gremlin and Pacer looked bad?
V-12, twin sidemounts, whitewalls on chrome wire wheels --- what more could 
you ask?  So it sold for just $6,000 over estimate and just $186,000 less 
than the black one.  So kids, the '35 is just about half the car the '40 is. 
Money never lies, right?

Wrong.  Eyes lie.  Its paint blinded the buyers to quality, history, 
provenance, and value: they were too yellow.
Maybe they were too uncomfortable or maybe they just never learned how wide 
and fun the -real- world of cars was.

(On a very slim chance that anyone is -really- interested, both Lincolns can 
be seen on the sites that sold 'em.)

http://www.rmauctions.com/

Maybe Lincoln can learn from AMC: it never put a "grill" on a "Rouge" and no 
Lincoln was ever bodied by "LeBarn."

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=10076&item=330011890011

Maybe Studebaker can learn from AMC too: it never built this 
chromed-and-two-toned car.  Cue your auto volcanoes!

http://tinyurl.com/raqox

"Look at those AMC wheels!"

"What?? They are by Mopar."

Open your yellow umbrellas.

The yellow rain could fall.

In 1989, when J. E. Stiglitz wrote: "There is a fool born every moment"

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/index.cfm

and altered P. T. Barnum's famous: "There's a sucker born every minute"

http://www.newyorkcitywalk.com/html/interactive_W150th.html

he wasn't thinking about the economic theories of selling collector cars, 
but both J. E. and P. T. saw something.

On September 20, 2006, when Scott McNealy said: "Selling is what business is 
all about!", and "Why don't you get together and build a community online?" 
and "Don't let the lowest common denominator slow you down.", he was not 
just thinking about how to make today's AMC as big as the big car company 
his father would proably have led in the early '70s (after he helped to 
create the Javelin/AMX/SC/Rambler/Machine/etc. AMC that you see as "the" AMC 
still), but he, too, saw something.

Whatever YOU see when you see a Ginger Maverick, a Brown Spirit, a Lime 
Ambassador, a two-t P-A, a three-t Packard,

http://www.cincyconcours.com/1999/99-030.jpg

or a yellow Lincoln beside a yellow Gremlin, keep your mind as open as your 
eyes are: you may see some gold in AMC.

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/837334

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/chronicle/archive/2005/03/14/MNGU6BOT6J1.DTL&o=1

What's next, oddball, ugly, loosers?

Just what are you still waiting for?

Some yellow torqu [sic] tube aliens?

Someone, sometime, who will see AMC?

Guess what, you're that someone.

And that sometime is today.

Seek not some old AMC son.

http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/index.jsp

http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/ceo/mgt_mcnealy.html

Seek some newer AMC sun.

Shine on silver or gold.

http://www.amcrc.com/sturb05/N2-2.JPG

Make a "new" AMC better.

Yell!  Hell!  Rebel!!!!!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eddie Stakes [mailto:eddiestakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:22 AM
> To: Mahoney, John; Tate, Randy
> Subject: you two enjoy this
>
> This is a interesting comment below by Doc. The reason why is
> recently on
> fee-bait there was a 73 Hornet for sale. Great looking car I may add,
> however, the poor fellow was fending off a lot of
> questions...ok, fending
> off a lot of comments, by people who had emailed him telling
> him he had a
> 74.

_______________________________________________
AMC-List mailing list
AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

or go to http://www.amc-list.com