Yes breeds as in
thoroughbreds. I agree it is all a matter of opinion and personal taste but I
have to say you are the first I?ve come across to describe the 300 as ?dull?.
Again I suppose some regard genuine tan leather as classy, others prefer
multi-colored cloth. Of course in most year 300?s you could special order nearly
any color interior or exterior you wanted. The whole idea of the 300 was to keep
it clean, it was a performance car, not the chrome laden barges that many 50?s
cars became, thus the lack of side trim. Again a matter of opinion, some like as
much die-cast and stainless jewelry hanging off the sides of their cars as
possible.
I would (and do) say that when compared to a
comparable Fireflite, the color sweep, interior fabrics (and colors) make the
300 appear sedate. Sedate translates to "not as exciting", or even
dull. It would be like comparing a 56 Carribean to a Clipper, only in the
Mopar case, the model status is reversed. I well know that the idea was to
"keep it clean". The car was a smashing success at that. And don't
get me wrong, I like 300's all good and fine like any FL car. I am just a
little "yucked" out by the pompous guys who think 300's are the only FL car
worthy of attention, meanwhile they lack (at least for me) the colors and
fabrics that were so uniquely 50's. I leave the "chrome laden
barge" moniker for cars like the 58 GM lineup and other oddities like 57-9
Mercurys. I even like them for what they are, but no FL car reached barge
status like those bulky cars.
300?s are everywhere,
dozens of them at every local car show, many for sale, they just can?t get rid
of them?
Honestly ? I can find you dozens of 300 C
convertibles residing in the US today. Compared to a 58 Fireflite ragtop
or a 58 CR convertible, they are common. The fact that they had limited
variation between cars when compared to a Dodge, makes them kind of run
together. 80% were white, another 10% were either black or red. They
just about ALL got the same interior. That doesn't get repetitive ?
Having dual quads simply doesn't outweigh the plain-ness on the other
points. How is this any more a thoroughbred than a well optioned NY'er or
Fireflite ? They all performed to such a level that most drivers
could not push them to the point of showing a serious difference - and certainly
not legally. I have been chasing FL cars since the mid-70's. I have
seen no less than twenty 57 C convertibles in shows or garages. In
that same time, I have seen ONE 57 NY'er ragtop. You tell me which is more
common.
That custom was on ebay
a year or two back NOT advertised as a 300, if memory serves me correct the vin
came back as NYer?..but it was a while ago and I could be wrong.
If that car IS a 300, it wears a Windsor-NY'er nose
clip. One more stout expense to lay out if one were to restore this beast
as a 300.
Nicely done customs are
all good. We all like different things for different reasons, I kind of like the
front on view of this car, the hood and chopped windshield but that?s about it.
All my personal
opinion. Value 2 cents.
Owen
300 owner
I trust your interest in 300's is sincere and that
your car/s are beautiful. Afterall, they ARE Forward Look cars, right
? I would not trade my Fireflite for a 300 if offered. That is just
where MY taste lies. I am pleased there are people loving 300's as much as
I am about them loving lowly Plaza sedans. Both have their admirable
points. Nags to thoroughbreds, all FL cars are special, and one man's nag
is another man's thoroughbred. It all depends on your taste and
priorities.
B.
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network