Re: [Amc-list] No proto

["Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM" <Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hmm... I suppose the Tarpon *could* be seen by some as the prototype,
but I agree that it really isn't, and understand exactly what you're
saying about no full scale model being a bad idea! The Marlin needed the
extra length it got in 67 to look properly proportioned and still have
plenty of back seat head room, which as I recall Abernethy insisted on.
That the Marlin was styled *without* the presence of Teague may be
significant -- the less than perfect proportions may have been caught by
the one-eyed designer when others with less perfect depth perception
missed it! Or maybe his "underlings" (no offense to them!) just wanted
to please the big boss in Teague's absence? Teague was away in Europe
when the change from American to Classic body was made -- maybe
intentionally? Marketing for the Marlin was all wrong too. If it had
been marketed as a sporty personal car instead of a Mustang competitor
it may have been more successful. By 67, when it actually was marketed
as such, it was too late. I have noticed that many dealers thought the
same -- try finding a stripped 66. I've noticed quite a few six
cylinder, column shift three speed, basic trim 65s, but most 66 models
I've seen are loaded. I'm sure some of the reason is the old "survival
of the plushest/prettiest" which is prominent in the old car hobby, but
that doesn't explain the unequal survival of more basic 65s -- has to be
the unusual styling saving Marlins more than equipment. 

Teague's eye sight never fails to amaze me -- with only one eye depth
perception is supposedly much harder to perceive (couldn't help the
pun!!). I've had to drive with a patch over an eye for a few days --
more than once!  I did notice it was harder a little harder to judge the
speed of other vehicles, but only far away -- as in more than a couple
hundred feet or so. Closer I had no problem. maybe it was the
fore-knowledge that it might affect my vision. Maybe I was
subconsciously allowing for the fault because I knew about it? And maybe
Teague paid more attention to such things because he was aware that it
could be a limiting factor. An intriguing idea, no? Once can only wonder
if he'd been as successful as he was if his eyesight was normal! Or if
he'd stayed somewhere else and never went to AMC. I'm pretty sure he
stayed because it was better to be the big dog in a small company than
just another dog somewhere else. Lucky for us AMC fans he stayed at AMC
though!

I don't know as much about styling "rules" as you do, so I don't really
see the "flaws" in the Javelin and Mustang. But then I don't concern
myself with rules -- sometimes you just have to know when to break them!
As far as styling, sometimes breaking the rules just makes new ones for
future generations. If none were ever broken, we'd be stuck with a few
similar designs. Today's "rules" are there now because at some point
back in time someone else broke one -- and the people liked it!

I left one link intact. The main reason is you have it under "ugly" and
I don't see it that way! Reminds me of a newer model Mercedes, but it
might be one of the newer Hyundai models (which were apparently styled
after a Mercedes). It could be better -- the grille shape doesn't appear
to be quite "right" to me, or maybe it would be better with just a
different insert (better, but still not quite "right"). But it's far
from an example of "ugly" -- to me. Even the Scion and Honda "boxes"
don't appear "ugly" to me though -- they are far from styling wonders
though. Just rounded boxes -- practical for small yet roomy. It's hard
to make a box look good, but the stylists have made them presentable
enough to sell. Low price and "different" looks are selling them as much
as practicality though. I just bet if they weren't so practically roomy
for their size they wouldn't sell. 



John Mahoney wrote:
>>
hazard a guess -- 78 Concord? Even a prototype wouldn't have really been
hand built, "hand trimmed" or "hand modified" maybe, but the shell was
really already "built", even though it was called "Hornet" instead. I
can't recall exact month/year it was unveiled, but would have been
sometime in 77, I assume.
<<

No, but Frank (I love it when someone "answers" here; reading is -far-
more fun than "lecturing" --- plus, like my father said, "You won't
LEARN anything with your mouth open.") had the right approach.  The car
in my question was the 1965.5 Marlin --- which, of course, was the 1965
Classic with a few new parts.  
It went from full-size model to full-on manufacture without any
full-size steel running version ever being hand built.  It was one of
the reasons, maybe, that it looked like it did, as no car ever looks
-exactly- like it will off the assembly line and under the sun if it
isn't first built -exactly- as it will be built when it enters
production.

There's just something about models, concepts, and prototypes that auto
stylists see as "different" --- they're the same, but they're different
from
the "real" production automobiles.  It doesn't make a lot of sense so it
could fall into the area of "art-or-science" but it's always been an
automotive fact. 
Sometimes cars that look great in the design phase turn ugly in
production;
sometimes cars that appear questionable during development are beautiful
on the sales floor.  Sometimes the "mistakes" are never noticed.  The
original Mustang and Javelin and AMX show that.
The cars' designers may notice them and may or may not be able to "fix"
them or "flaws" may become integral to the car's "character" instead,
but there are always fewer "flaws" if a production prototype is
hand-built.  Computers
to create cars from start to finish?  Yes, that's the fast way to
tomorrow, but they still need help from -human- eyes.  And human eyes
need to have seen yesterday and today before they can see clearly to
tomorrow.  That's why ugly cars are still being put on the roads.
http://car-reviews.automobile.com/images/cars/ArtImages/12447/07.jpg

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