Chrysler Imperial - Educational Opportunity

[Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Steve & others,

I don't know if this is really worth it or not.  I have tried, in
similar fashion, to "educate" the tax office here (we have no "DMV" in
NW Florida; the tags are issued by the tax collector) and it's a waste
of time.  At least here.  They are just not prepared to accept anything
anyone standing on this side of the counter has to say-- and they don't
care, either.  They go by the books they have, and those are the only
recognized authorities they know, and if you bring them another source
they just shrug and say "Well, that's not the way we do it in Florida."

If you really press the issue you might end up not getting tags.  Plus,
the people behind you get irritated, because they're having to wait
longer while you argue with the person issuing the title.  All of them
have the attitude that "I don't make the rules, I just follow them.  If
you have a problem with the way we classify your car, take it to
Tallahassee."  (The capital.)

Of course, this is a state where a car has to be over 35 years old to be
considered "antique."  If I'm not mistaken, it's 25 years old everywhere
else in the universe.  35 is a pretty OLD car.  (Or is 35 to be
collectible, 50 to be antique?  it's really ridiculous, whatever it is.)

In private conversation I have found people often get offended if you
correct them.  "Oh.  EXCUSE me," one person said, after I had tried to
explain, as politely as I could, that Imperial was a separate make.  Or
they get confused, as in:

"Oh, I thought Chrysler made that.  What is it then?  A Buick?
Lincoln?"

So most of the time I just go along with "Chrysler Imperial."  It's not
all that inaccurate, anyway.  You could say "General Motors Cadillac" if
you wanted to.  I think the reason people don't (one reason, anyway) is:
it's a mouthful.  It's a lot to say and kind of cumbersome, whereas
"Chrysler Imperial" has a ring to it.

I think the other reason is, Cadillac and other companies existed before
they became part of GM.  Imperial, to my knowledge, was created after
Chrysler Corp. was formed.  So Chrysler came first and that was the name
most people knew.

Mark M



  ImpSvcs@xxxxxxx wrote:

> Good Morning All,
>        Mike, you're absolutely right.  I think we've all seen this at
> one point or another.
>
>        I think we should make a concerted effort to help people
> understand the Marque.
>
>        Using the same positive (although Cliff Claven-esque) "Did you
> know..." tone you'd use with a student, you can explain that Imperial
> was indeed it's own division, just like Plymouth, Dodge, and DeSoto.
> The situation is more akin to the relationship of Ford and the
> Lincoln-Mercury Division of Ford... Ford Motor builds Fords, and has a
> division called Lincoln-Mercury.  Chrysler builds Chryslers, and also
> had divisions called Imperial, DeSoto, Plymouth, and Dodge.
>
>        I have finally got the ladies at the local Secretary of State's
> (DMV) office understanding that Imperial IS the make... now when I
> approach the counter I get a smile and "it's the Imperial guy".  If
> done tactfully, your student will go away with a new piece of
> knowledge they can pass on to others.
>
>        The best place to start is to be sure we're all singing from
> the same sheet of music.  My only source of information has been
> Krause's Standard Catalog of Chrysler 1924-1990, which is IMHO an
> excellent book that I refer to almost daily.  Some of the information,
> however, seems a little clouded at best.
>
>       The 1955 section states "Beginning this season, Chrysler
> considered Imperial to be a separate 'marque' or 'make'.  Therefore
> Imperial production figures were broken out from the totals for the
> test of the Chrysler line."  Unfortunately, the book then muddies the
> waters by stating "Chrysler Division's New Yorker and Imperial Series
> climbed to second rank in the high priced field."
>
>        A short intro to the Imperial section remarks "Imperial became
> a separate division of Chrysler Corporation in 1954."
>
>        The book continues on to report that *1956* is the first year
> that Imperial production records were recorded separate from Chrysler
> Division.  Separate production lines were set up at the Kercheval and
> Jefferson plants in Detroit that year as well.  The 1960 entry
> mentions "the Chrysler-Imperial Division of Chrysler Corporation" in
> reference to 1959 and '60 production.  The 1962 footnotes then state
> "The car's maker was now called the Chrysler-Plymouth Division of
> Chrysler Corporation, which had been formed in 1961."
>
>        This could cause a casual reader to conclude that the car would
> be called a Plymouth Imperial...
>
>        I think the ending point of the Imperial nameplate is generally
> accepted to be 1975.  How do we describe the later Imperials?
>
>        Does anyone have a more definative source of information we can
> agree on to use in our educational crusade?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Charette
> Imperial Services
> www.imperialservices.net
>
>
> In a message dated 7/18/02 5:57:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
>
>> I had to pull teeth at the registration tent to get my
>> '67 listed as a 1967 Imperial Imperial...they screwed
>> up, I told them it was an Imperial Crown.  its sad
>> when Mopar folk don't even know Mopars...
>>
>> Of course, Carlisle had us listed as "C" body
>> Chryslers, Imperial, All.
>>
>> We need a nationwide campaign to raise awareness.  No
>> wonder the marque tanked.  Would anybody buy a car
>> called a General Motors Cadillac?
>
>
>