Neil stopped by to comment on our story, “1959 Studebaker: Was it really design theft?” He wrote:
“I think this is a useless exercise. Tho it seems to me as the Valient came later, it’s quite the opposite of what this story suggests. At any rate, this type of spying was so commonplace, that is how each brand kept up with new trends. Look at what Packard had been proposing since the early 50’s with a vertical grill, then voila Edsel shows up with one in 58 nearly identical to what would have been the 57 production Packard.”
It’s unclear to me what Neil is trying to say, but if he considers the article to be “useless” then he may not find Indie Auto to be his cup of tea. A big part of what we do is debunk myths by taking a closer look at the factual record.
I’m also not sure what he means when he says that the Valiant “came later . . . quite the opposite of what this story suggests.” I wonder if Neil didn’t see where the story compared the development timelines of the Lark and Valiant.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Studebaker (1959)
Be the first to comment