why Imperials were so expensive, more thoughts on chromed stainless

["Greg and Russell" <65luxuryliner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

 

You are talking about your '60 and I only have my '65 to draw conclusions from.  Others on the list may have differing opinions.  When I sent my wheelcovers off to have all the dings and dents removed and to get them polished, the fellow told me it would cost less if I removed the flash chroming myself prior to sending him the covers.  It wasn't pleasant as I recall the muriatic acid bath the covers had to sit in to get the thin chrome plating off.  My guess about flash chroming is it made the stainless resemble the pot metal pieces that had been chrome plated.  Parts of the fender trim on my '65 are pot metal and other pieces are stainless.  They matched as I had no idea prior to removing them that they all weren't one or the other (except for the spotting and some pocking on some of the trim pieces).  Perhaps flash chroming kept the piece shiny indefinitely whereas unprotected stainless trim tarnishes and has to be polished.

 

Any other ideas/guesses?

 

Greg

----- Original Message -----

From: richard burgess

To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 6:09 PM

Subject: IML: why Imperials were so expensive, more thoughts on chromed stainless

More thoughts on my stainless,

 

I have been working on updating the story of my '60 "LeCrown".  My car went off the lot

for $8067 when new.  I found that amount to equal $44,570 in 2003 dollars.   Why did an Imperial Crown sedan cost twice as much as a fully loaded '60 Impala convertible?  Here are my thoughts on the obvious:

Low production

Larger size, huge body and frame, more steel

Finer interior upholstry

Chevrolet, for example, offered almost as many gizmos for 1960, so I don't think that acounts for the balance of the price gap.  Was build quality really that much better?  I have tried two different trunk lids on my Imperial and neither fits well, and both fit poorly in different ways.  There are other small things too, I don't think the cars were quite as "coach built" as some seem to think.  So why the price chasm?  I think the difference may be that they were outfitting the Imperial with finer details, more expensive cast

chrome parts, grill and tail lights, and detail stuff.  I think they were chrome plating stainless!

 

Lowell Howe told me that the wheelwell stainless was laquered at the factory, anyone find that to be true?  Almost all the chrome on my 1952 Pontiac was laquered because it was very thin due to the Korean War and the chrome shortage.  ObviousIy not a problem in 1960.  Why on earth would you manufacture a piece of stainless, give it a flash of chrome, and then clear laquer it?  That certainly would be overkill!

 

If you read my first e-mail you know I am polishing stainless and the color seems to be affected upon sanding or buffing.  Because stainless steel does not need to be protected from rust you would not need to chrome it.  However, if you wanted to improve the trims' reflective quality then you might give it a quick chrome.  My color change happens very quickly when I am working on the trim.  I think Imperial gave their stainless a quick flash of chrome to give it extra brilliance.  This would certainly make the car look more expensive and transitions from pot metal to stainless would not be so obvious.   These transitions happen at the fender brows, the fin tips, and at the gas door.  As I mentioned before, I have never seen 40 year old stainless age this well or have this quality of reflection.  I am just trying to repair some damaged trim and was baffled as to why I couldn't get the trim quite back to the original look.  This is my theory and I would like to know others' thoughts on this.  

 

Richard Burgess

'60 "LeCrown"

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square