Hi Mark & All: Thanks for the comments, and for the varried perspectives! I know these types of discussions aren't everyone's cup of tea, but hey, that's what the delete button and subject lines are for - LOL (so, fair warning, if this discussion isn't of interest, just skip it...). For my part, I love discussing the varried forces and circumstances that combined to make the Imperial what it is. Again, Mark, thanks for sharing your observations. If I may, a couple of responses. A quick side-note, with regard to Chrysler's being the #3 U.S. automaker, it warrants mention that Mopar's 3rd place status was a recent turn of events when the Imperial Division made it's debut in 1955. For a generation, Chrysler Corp. had held the Number TWO position among American car companies - a distinction it had held from the early 1930's until 1954. Some of the reasons (dowdy pre-Exner styling, lack of a fully- automatic tranny, etc...) are explored in-depth in the article on "Mid Priced Cars" appearing in the same issue of Collectable Auto that we're discussing now. Part of the reason the article mentions that Chrysler was #2 for so long was that with Dodge, DeSoto and Chrysler's Windsor/Royal series, Chrysler Corporation covered a wider range in the mid-priced market than did Ford Motor Co., which only had Mercury to offer. If you follow the same line of thinking, Chrysler Corp's expansion of the Imperial Division was undertaken as an attempt to continue to broaden it's market share by expanding fully into the "prestige" market. Indeed, it is widely acknowleged that Imperial Division was created solely to compete toe-to- toe against Cadillac. This is the reason I feel that Cadillac and Lincoln (and for 55/56, Packard) are the only relevant comparisons for Imperial, within the context of this era. Yes, Packard left the luxury car business (and folded altogether after 1958). While the disastrous merger with Studebaker was listed as the 'cause of death', most historians agree that the real damage was done much earlier - when Packard continued to market a 'middle-priced' Clipper series after WWII. In achieving a short-term gain in sales from middle-class "strivers", by the early 1950's, Packard had greatly diluted it's luxury car image among contemporary buyers - not too dissimilar to Chrysler Corporation's inconsistent attempts to establish Imperial as a marque separate from Chrysler. Lincoln, on the other hand, suffered poor post-war sales by making a miscalculation later made by Imperial. In the early 1950's, Lincoln tried to interest the American luxury car buyer in it's sporting 'Road-Race Lincolns'. They did "OK", largely because their prices were reduced to compete with high- end Oldsmobiles and Buicks during that period. When restyled in '56 to again compete directly with Cadillac, the Lincoln convertible's price was raised by a then-substantial $700 (about $7-10,000 in today's money) to within dollars of the price of a Series 62 Convertible. Still, Lincoln production hovered around 40,000 for most of the early and mid-1950's. Cadillac sales, on the other hand, soared into the hundreds of thousands by sticking to a simple formula: cushy, chromy and quiet. While Lincoln and Imperial were aggressively trying to build a better handling or more reasonably-sized cars, the American Luxury car buyer spoke with their checkbooks: economy and roadholding were not important to them in the 1950's, 60's and 70's. I think I understand, Mark, why you compared the Imperial with Rambler. In retrospect, as collectors, we have the freedom to practice 'free-association' - comparing Fords with Oldsmobiles, and Buicks with Plymouth's, based on our various preferences in styling, performance, etc... The Rambler also was a kind of 'idiosyncratic' car, as was the Imperial in a different way... But for someone who was considering buying a luxury car in 1957, there was no way to compare Imperials and Ramblers. An an entry-level 1957 Rambler 4dr cost $1,961 as compared to $4,483 for an Imperial (adjusted roughly for inflation, that's $19,000 for a Rambler, and $45,000 for an Imperial 4dr). That would be like comparing a Saturn with an Audi. Hey, I own a Saturn L-series and it's a competent, serviceable car - for what it is. But in quality of construction and appointments, sophistication, finesse..., it ain't no Audi! As I mentioned, I don't believe that sales figures are necesarily a reflection of an automobile's merits (as compared to other offerings in the same market segment. But, respectfully, I couldn't find any reference to years when Imperial outsold the Rambler. In just some quick checking of production figures in "The Standard Catalog of American Cars", in the Imperial Division's best year ever, 1957, sales peaked at 37,946. By contrast, in 1955, 56 and 57, the Nash Rambler sold 83,852; 79,166; and 109,178 respectively. When the 1958 recession sparked increased American's interest in compact cars, Rambler sales shot up to 199,236. While today, if a car has the right type of looks, performance and features, it can come to be considered a 'coveted' car (witness the new VW Bug). But I would contend that that is different from being a 'prestige', or luxury car. In the mid-20th century, the hierarchy was very clear: Cadillac, Packard and Lincoln were 'prestige' cars. Chrysler, like Buick, was an 'upper mid-priced car', and (again, in my opinion) Chrysler CORPORATION simply did commit to fully separating the Imperial and Chrysler Divisions in the public mind. The quintessential anecdotal story in this regard is actually in Jeffrey Godshall's feature article on the 1957-59 Imperials in the August, '99 issue of "Collectable Automobile". In discussing the possible causes for the highly-praised Imperial Division being a constant 3rd, Godshall wrote the following: <<"Perhaps part of the reason lies in a story told to me by a former Chrysler designer. It seems a man was driving his new 1957 Imperial through the South, and, needing gas, pulled into a station. The attendant who filled the tank was awestruck by the Imperial, declaring over and over how sensational and beautiful it was. Finally, he asked the owner the price, and when told, reasoned, 'For that money, you could have bought yourself a CADILLAC!' In his opinion, the Imperial, as impressive as it was, was still no Caddy. Now how do you fight THAT?">> Well, I think Chrysler Corporation COULD have successfully fought it - by being more 'constant' and patient when it came to Imperial styling continuity and brand identity. Respectfully, Jim Byers, W,DC. I.S.O. - 1960 LeBaron Southampton or Crown coupe --- Original Message --- From: Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: IML: Collectable Automobile/Imp. Mystique >Jim & All, > >Overall, a very interesting analysis and I agree with much of what you >say. > >One quibble: you say "Imperial didn't sell well." I think this is kind >of an overstatement, or perhaps too negative. > >Imperial didn't sell as well as Cadillac or Lincoln, that is true, but >it was still #3. And considering that Chrysler Corp. was the #3 >carmaker in the U.S. I don't think that's all that bad. (I believe that >Cadillac sales more than doubled Lincoln's, so there was little chance >of Imperial ever catching Caddy.) > >I don't remember the figures right now, but I know that at times >Imperial sold more cars than all of Rambler (or American Motors) did-- >and American Motors was America's #4 carmaker. They also outsold >Studebaker. I guess this may not seem like much of a compliment (!), >but what I'm saying is Imperial sold more and survived longer than some >entire car companies. > >I've often wondered why Imperial didn't sell better, and I don't have an >answer other than perhaps the carbuying public isn't always able to >perceive quality, or maybe because Imperial was too individualistic for >most luxury buyer's tastes. > >Anyway, good comments. > >Mark M > >IMPSRULE@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> Hi All: >> >> First off, the following opinions about the recent >> Collectable Automobile article are just that - my >> opinions (so feel free to contribute your own >> perspective, but no angry personal emails, please=85 >> LOL). In spite of a few discrepancies such as that >> regarding the real wood veneer, I=92m elated about the >> lengthy, and largely positive article about the 67- 68 >> Imperials in the October, 2002 issue of Collectable >> Automobile. >> > > >