Chrysler 300's

[John Hertog <crossram@xxxx>]

Mr. Gelber,

I have frequently enjoyed reading your column in Dan's Papers, as I am an
automotive aficionado residing in the Hamptons. While I realize that
difficulty may exist in coming up with fresh material for each issue, I
stronly believe that any serious writer should check his or her facts before
presenting their material to the public.

I take particular issue with your statement, in the September 26, 2003 issue
of Dan's Papers - as follows: " The original Chrysler 300, probably one of
the most beautiful automobiles of 1955, got uglier every year as Chrysler
introduced a wider, lower and longer model. Car collectors aren't stupid so
the '55 Chrysler 300 is the only one of that series with big value."

I somewhat take offense at the portion of your statement, wherein you state
that the 300's got uglier every year onwards - but, I respect your right to
your opinion, as biased as it may be against the later Chrysler 300's.
Fortunately your taste is not that of the general public. While the 1955
C-300 is widely recognized as being America's first true Muscle car, it is
not noted as being the prettiest of all the 300 Letter cars. One can make a
case for the 300B - which is even simpler and "cleaner" than the C-300.
Others can argue for the 300C - Virgil Exner's masterpiece, also devoid of
the excess of chrome so common to other cars of that era. And on and on...

What does bother me, though, is that you did not bother checking your facts,
sir. The 1955 Chrysler C-300 is not by a long shot the only car of the
series with big value. Indeed, it is worth substantially LESS than its
finned hardtop counterparts. I won't even try to compare the value of a C300
to that of a 300For 300G convertible - the '60 ragtop is worth much more
than twice as much as the C300, in equivalent condition.

Expressing your taste is your right, even though I do believe you are going
way out on a limb by suggesting that a 1957 Chrysler 300C is UGLIER than a
C-300, and then ascribing this opinion to others; this is what you managed
to convey in your statement. Whereas you are certainly entitled to your
perception that the C-300 is the most beautiful of all 300's made, I can
flat-out state that this view in NOT held by the majority of 300
aficionados. Perhaps it is held by the majority of 1955 C-300 owners?
But - getting your facts straight is your obligation, as an automotive
writer. The '55 Chrysler 300 is NOT the only one of that series with big
value - nor is it the most valuable of the lot.



John J. Hertog
Sag Harbor NY
a member of the Chrysler 300 Club International, Inc.