Re: IML: Imperial Fins

[RandalPark@xxxxxxx]

As the owner of a 1962 LeBaron Southampton, I really like the modest fin with the top-mounted taillights, also.

Paul in Seattle

In an email dated 10/4/2005 7:42:03 pm GMT Daylight time, "M Turner" <tminjesu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>As the owner of a 1962 Custom Southampton, I really like the modest fin with 
>the top-mounted taillights.
>Vince in Bosotn
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <RandalPark@xxxxxxx>
>To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 1:18 PM
>Subject: Re: IML: Imperial Fins
>
>
>> Actually, the '62 and '63 Imperial have exactly the same "amount of fin". 
>> The only difference between the two being the change from "attached" tail 
>> lamps to the integral style.
>>
>> Other changes lessened the impact of the fins on the '63 model, such as 
>> the squared off roofline, slightly different shaped side windows, new side 
>> trim that wrapped around the rear, and rear bumper back-up light 
>> extensions.
>>
>> It may be that the disappearance of the Imperial fin was more subtle than 
>> everyone thought.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> In an email dated 10/4/2005 2:15:27 pm GMT Daylight time, "Greg and 
>> Russell" <65luxuryliner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>>The fins that Imperial carried into the sixties were much taller than any 
>>>of
>>>those remaining on other cars. It was almost as if it were '58 or '59
>>>instead of '62 as far as Chrysler was concerned. As much as we love the
>>>fins NOW, they were definitely on the way out by the early sixties as far 
>>>as
>>>automotive styling was concerned. Cadillac Studio went to great efforts to
>>>make sure the public was 'convinced' the last finned Cadillac was '64.
>>>According to literature of the time, the '65 models (and also the '66s) 
>>>wore
>>>'blades' at the rear of the cars and NOT fins! Officially, the fin died in
>>>the '64 model year for Cadillac and (much) earlier for other makes (i.e.
>>>1960 for Lincoln and Chevrolet). It was a very gradual death as the '59
>>>Cadillac's fins were the tallest ever to appear on a production American 
>>>car
>>>and they grew smaller each year thereafter. As most of you know, the '59
>>>Cadillac's fins were a direct result of those that appeared on the '57
>>>Chrysler products. GM was not to be 'out-finned'!
>>>
>>>The demise of the Imperial fin (imho) was not as gradual. In '62 they were
>>>standing tall (I like them so please don't send any hate messages, LOL!),
>>>but in '63 they were completely gone. I tend to agree with the C. A.
>>>article regarding Chrysler carrying the fins too far into the sixties and
>>>then abruptly cutting them off! Cadillac's ending of the fin was
>>>considerably more subtle.
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: "jsadowski" <jsadowski@xxxxxxx>
>>>To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 2:31 AM
>>>Subject: Re: IML: 1960-1963 Article
>>>
>>>
>>>>I would have to not in my opinion. cebby had the sideways fin through 60 
>>>>&
>>>>Cadillac had the short fin through 66.
>>>> John
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: <HavADope@xxxxxxx>
>>>> To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 12:03 AM
>>>> Subject: IML: 1960-1963 Article
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you guys make it to your local bookstore, there is the new issue of
>>>>> Collectible Automobile June 2005. It has a big write up on the 
>>>>> 1960-1963
>>>>> Imperials, with nice photos of each year. I haven't read the complete
>>>>> article, but the
>>>>> main question it raises is Did Chrysler keep the fins way too long,
>>>>> since
>>>>> all others faded out roughly in the end of the 50's.
>>>>> Personally, If they had not have kept them, I may not own one of my 
>>>>> very
>>>>> own. Plus I always loved the fins of the 57 chevy, until I saw the
>>>>> Imperial. Now
>>>>> nothing compares! If anyone else gets a chance, check it out. I look
>>>>> forward
>>>>> to reading it later.
>>>>> Marc Lamp
>>>>> 604drht
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com -----------------
>>>> This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please reply 
>>>> to
>>>> mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be shared with
>>>> everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
>>>> Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com -----------------
>>>This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
>>>reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
>>>shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
>>>Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------- ?http://www.imperialclub.com ?-----------------
>> This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
>> reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
>> shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
>> Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>
>----------------- ?http://www.imperialclub.com ?-----------------
>This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
>reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
>shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
>Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
>
>


-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm