Studebaker Drivers Club Forum > Your Studebaker Forum > General Studebaker-Specific Discussion > Studebaker Brochure Errors; of which ones are you aware?
View Full Version : Studebaker Brochure Errors; of which ones are you aware?
The only "way" a vehicle manufacturer can have press release photos and showroom brochures available on introduction day is to generally use photographs of pre-production and protoype cars, or line art, to depict the new models. Understandably, this results in legitimate errors going to print; cars not equipped exactly like the bulk of production, showing options not available, etc.
Studebaker had its share of such errors through the years, so how about citing some of those and see what shakes out?
This implies that ordinary two-tone colors were a legitimate 1959 Lark option, which they were not.
The '63 brochure I believe is accurate, but the '63 showroom album is one of the sloppiest efforts I can remember seeing...Regal showing Custom side trim, Custom showing Regal side trim, mention of bucket seats standard on Daytona, Custom trim on a Wagonaire (available in Canada, I know), and a 'truck section coming' mention that never happened.
There's also a competitive brochure (perhaps, fleet) for '63 where the line drawing of the Lark instrument panel is upside down in the brochure!
This ought to be a fun topic.
Engine colors come to mind! How many times have we seen a PURPLE starter on a real engine? In many of those brochures, the engines are much more colorful than they actually were!
Of course, the 1965 brochure has a few oddities, such as a silver mylar strip on the center console of the Daytona interior illustrated there, and the rear cover of the green car has several non-production trim pieces on it. And as we just mentioned, the lone 1966 Daytona with the V8 emblems on the C-pillar.
is the last sentence in the 57 Packard brochure. I think this leaves it pretty wide open on the finial product. I've been bittin by this on the purches of new motorcycles.
Uh-oh, Bill. There's a blatant error in both the small and large versions of the 1963 full-line brochure that's been properly cited here on the forum within the last two weeks.
Also as discussed a few weeks ago , the 1966 brochure shows a 66 green Daytona with the flag emblem on the rear roof line, as well as on the company post cards.
I think the 1964 brochures show the Hawks without the hood ornament.
How about this Avanti ad...it appears to have one round headlight bezel and one rectangular one. Whether that's merely from the perspective due to the angle, bad retouching by whomever made the ad it still looks like it should have been caught early on before publishing. It is correct in the second photo.
Now thats a error...someone should of lost their job for that one !
OK Bob's mention of the VERY blatant error we just talked about here a few days ago was those ugly White '63 Lark Wheel Covers shown on a '63 hawk.
People did say that they have seen several original cars that "got out" with them on, but they never were intended to be there.
The really obvious one I remember, is the special introductory brochure for the NEW '62 GT Hawk, with the Black car on the cover with the Prototype Grille Shell with "Studebaker" stamped in it.
[B][COLOR=blue]The really obvious one I remember, is the special introductory brochure for the NEW '62 GT Hawk, with the Black car on the cover with the Prototype Grille Shell with "Studebaker" stamped in it.
The 65 brochure shows a wide chrome strip on a bucket seat console and one of the cars has an unusual (and unused) hood ornament.
Way back when I actually saw a '65 Daytona Sport Sedan that had a shiny Mylar band on the console lid. I have seen plenty of '65 Daytonas since I haven't seen another one with the band.
That's it, Rich is right...the white-accented wheel covers on the Ermine White '63 Hawk in the brochure! I'd have posted earlier, but I'm supposed to be working (!) in my office and Sheila decided to move all my Stude-related stuff I had crammed in here, down to our new bookcases in the (finished) basement!
I'm supposed to be working (!) in my office and Sheila decided to move all my Stude-related stuff I had crammed in here, down to our new bookcases in the (finished) basement!
If one looks closely at the dash of the Wagonaire in the 1966 brochure, it has the 1963-5 style aluminum strip without the woodgrain insert middle section and glove comparment door.
I believe that the 65 and 66 brochures show the engine pictures that still look like the Studebaker engines, rather than the Chevy ones that were really under the hood.
Not a brochure but a magazine ad from 1946 ('47 model year). They didn't offer a two tone but should have.
Also look at the white-painted side trim, stainless only on the exposed portion of the upper B-pillar, hubcaps, C-pillar emblem & placement, and the lack of a model name chrome script on that car. And the grille appears to have the veritical lattices blacked out to emphasize width. That is why I mentioned the whole car in my above post.
The early McKinnon engines we received from GM did have yellow valves covers. Is this perhaps what you were seeing?
Actually, Stu, it isn't. Whoever was doing the brochures continued to using the 1964 line art drawings (not photographs) of the Studebaker Six and Studebaker V8 engines, even in the 1966 brochure!
I have copies of both 1965 and 1966 brochures in front of me to confirm. If you compare the "engines" shown in the 1964 brochures with the 1965 and 1966 brochures, you'll see the same line art (drawing) was used all three years, and they are Studebaker engines!
One of my favorites isn't a brochure, but an ad. The two page, black and white ad showing the entire '63 car line-up. Looking closely, you can see the Larks in the background have the '62 style wrap-around windshields.
Thats just crazy sloppy! They air brushed in all the other features on those two Larks like the rooflines, Grilles and Wheelcovers and missed the windshields!
They've made that Cruiser almost look like a four-door hardtop!
I have seen and noticed the goofs in that ad before, but had forgotten about it. Thanks for mentioning it!
Eric, I hate to admit it, but "you got me!"
Bob, I bet you have seen that one before. :) In the early '80's when Fred K. Fox did his "Literature In Review" in Turning Wheels, many did write in and point out many of the brochure and advertising errors, including that ad, which he reprinted in TW.
One that I've noticed more recently is at the end of a plant film, "Model X" (1959 Lark). Right at the end they show a grille shot of a regular (new) 1959 Lark. Look closely, the grill badge isn't production.
Well you have to remember that it was not the "Lark" yet, so it follows that they did not know what to I.D. the prototype as at the time.
It is kind of funny that it ended up being badged as a Hawk, both on the grille and the horn button. There must not have been time to do a "Lark".
Its not exactly an error, but the 54 Salesmans manual shows this picture. Did anyone ever rod a 53 to look like this? Luckily the designer had some glasses on so Ray did not burn his eye out with his roach.
Thank heaven, the final art and film was prepared in the U.S. so I can't be held responsible for it! When you think about it, it's amazing how all the manufacturers "stretched" the full side views to imply greater length than normal. I'm pleasantly surprised you guys are all this sharp! Have a Merry Christmas everyone.
AND the parklights on the convertible and Cruiser are 62 clear instead of 63 amber.
The Daytona Wagonaire looks correct right down to the side trim, but then the convertible/Cruiser side trim appears to be different, and not Daytona/Cruiser. If it was a 63 convertible, not a 62, wouldn't have been a Daytona as the only choice? Or am I forgetting a Regal convertible or something being available in 63 as well?
One of the biggest goofs, one that continues to haunt judges, is in the 50 and 51 brochures - that being bullet-nosed cars pictured in bright red.
The color charts show that no bullet nose cars were painted bright red. They had two different maroon colors (back when maroon was maroon, before everyone started calling it burgundy).
The trucks could be purchased in bright red, at least in 1951 according to color charts, but no cars. Now, some 50-51 cars COULD have been specially ordered in bright red, but that would have to be a special order.
So when I am judging 50 and 51's at a meet, I always mark down for bright red. It makes the owners crazy, but that's what they get for not researching their cars better.


A well presented, two double bedroom first floor apartment affording views across the Bristol Channel towards the Severn Crossing and Welsh coastline.
Situated on the outskirts of the Village Quarter this would be an ideal home for a wide range of purchasers with footpaths on your doorstep, leading to the many bars and restaurants around the Marina Quay. The apartment offers a light and spacious layout and briefly comprises; entrance hall, modern open-plan living space with access to a balcony which is the ideal vantage point to relax, sit back enjoy the view with a glass of wine in hand. With two double bedrooms, master with en-suite shower room and a family bathroom completing the internal accommodation.
With a super selection of new bars, restaurants, coffee shops and a convenience store appearing around the new Marina, it has never been a better time to buy here and enjoy the tranquility, yet vibrancy that this lovely location offers.
If you're looking for value for money then look no further, priced to sell with views of the estuary this apartment will tick all the boxes. Accordingly, please call Goodman & Lilley on 01275 430440 to arrange your next appointment to view.
Entrance via a secure intercom controlled entrance door to the communal hallway, stairs lead up to the first floor where the apartment can be found.
Secure front door opening to the entrance hall, intercom system, uPVC double glazed window to the side aspect, radiator, two storage cupboards, doors opening to all of the accommodation.
uPVC double glazed windows and door combination to front opening to the balcony that takes full advantage of the late afternoon and evening summer sun whilst enjoying a delightful open vista over the Bristol Channel towards the Severn Crossings. radiator, radiator, TV & telephone point, open-plan to Kitchen.
Fitted with a matching range of modern, wood fronted base, drawer and eye-level units with work surfaces over, inset stainless steel sink unit with single drainer unit, extractor fan, wall mounted gas fired boiler serving heating system and domestic hot water, plumbing for washing machine, space for fridge/freezer, fitted electric fan assisted oven, built-in four ring gas hob with extractor hood over, uPVC double glazed window to rear aspect.
Fitted with three piece modern white suite comprising; low-level WC, pedestal wash hand basin, tiled double shower enclosure with fitted shower, tiling to splash prone areas, extractor fan.
Fitted with a three piece white suite comprising; low level WC, pedestal wash hand basin, panelled bath with hand shower attachment, radiator.


text:
Center for Produce Safety funds UGA food science produce safety research
By Sharon Dowdy
Three University of Georgia food scientists are among the recipients of grants awarded by the Center for Produce Safety (CPS) as part of its $2.7 million program. The grants will fund projects focused on food safety issues related to fruits and vegetables.
"Right now, you hear a lot about Cyclospora causing issues with fresh produce, or about how transference of pathogens in water is initiating problems in general in our industry," said Dave Corsi, chair of the CPS board of directors and vice president of produce and floral at Wegmans Food Markets, Rochester, New York. "If you take a step back and look at the Center for Produce Safety's latest grant recipients, their project topics address the most pressing, relevant produce food safety issues."
Xiangyu Deng, an associate professor in the UGA Center for Food Safety on the Griffin campus, will receive $186,733 to continue his research into foodborne pathogens, specifically Listeria monocytogenes, and the tolerance it may develop to sanitizers used to destroy it in food processing facilities.
"Through this project, we want to help settle the debate on whether Listeria monocytogenes develops tolerance to common sanitizers," said Deng, a faculty member in the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (CAES). "We will further explore if such tolerance is relevant to sanitizing practices in the produce industry by studying its possibility, duration and genetic predictors."
Ynés Ortega, also an associate professor at the UGA Center for Food Safety and CAES faculty member, will receive $231,861 to determine the prevalence and persistence of Cyclospora in California and Florida, the two major produce-growing states in the U.S.
An acclaimed parasitologist, Ortega's goals are to determine the best method for environmental testing for the parasite, to identify where it is being distributed in the U.S., and to implement monitoring and intervention strategies in the U.S. and other countries where the parasite is prevalent.
"We propose to test river and canal water … and examine the prevalence of Cyclospora in fresh produce," Ortega said. "The significance of this project is that we will be able to determine if Cyclospora oocysts are present in surface waters in two states where agriculture is intensive and we will be able to recommend a suitable method to test for Cyclospora in agricultural settings."
Cyclosporiasis, an intestinal illness, is caused by consuming food or water contaminated with the parasite. Historically, Cyclospora outbreaks have been associated with the ingestion of imported fresh produce, but the number of cases linked to produce grown in the U.S. is on the rise, Ortega said.
Laurel Dunn, assistant professor of food science and technology at CAES, will examine the environmental microbial risks associated with vented produce in distribution centers. She will receive $317,563 to evaluate pathogen prevalence in facilities that handle unsealed produce and industry practices that might contribute to increased or decreased food safety risks.
Produce is typically packed in vented bags, plastic tins or boxes that are vented to accommodate the gas and vapor exchange that occurs naturally after fruits and vegetables are harvested. Dunn will partner with more than 20 produce distribution centers with a goal of developing guidelines to reduce any potential hazards.
The Center for Produce Safety funds science aimed at finding solutions to food safety issues and fueling change in all parts of the supply chain. To learn more about the UGA Center for Food Safety, visit cfs.caes.uga.edu.
Sharon Dowdy is a news editor with the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.
Sharon Dowdy
Ynes Rosa Ortega
Xiangyu Deng
Laurel L Dunn
The surprising impact of sunlight on food safety 01/10/23 Jennifer L Reynolds
The World Health Organization estimates that there are 600 million cases of foodborne illness every year. One way harmful pathogens can enter the food supply is through irrigation water, but researchers are using precision agriculture to create a cost-effective and environmentally friendly way to combat the bacteria that makes us sick. And the tool they are using is available to everyone — the sun.
Building chops 12/28/22 Becky Mills
In academia, "experiential learning" has become a buzzword, but the concept has been around a lot longer than the catchphrase. In simplest terms, it means hands-on learning, and the faculty and staff at the University of Georgia Meat Science Technology Center are masters of the craft.
UGA researchers develop market for jellyfish proteins in Georgia 12/12/22 Lillian Dickens
The protein collagen can be extracted from cannonball jellyfish and used in dietary supplements and other areas, creating a U.S. market for jellyfish, according to a study led by researchers at the University of Georgia.
UGA Extension specialist, agents honored with industry 40 under 40 awards 11/30/22 Amanda Budd
Four experts at the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences and UGA Cooperative Extension have been recognized as members of the Fruit and Vegetable 40 under 40 Class of 2022. The list honors 40 early-career agricultural professionals for exemplary accomplishments, representing "the best in the industry."
Pass the Tofurky! 11/17/22 Lillian Dickens
Thanksgiving is the quintessential American holiday for food. On the fourth Thursday of November, people across the country sit down at the "good dining table" (or the broken folding table for the kids) and eat the same thing — copious amounts of turkey. Vegans and vegetarians may find this holiday to be a more difficult one. What can a person on a plant-based diet eat on Thanksgiving without missing out on the holiday fun?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Commentary: U.S. Needs Clear Rules on Genetically Engineered Crops
Page 32,955
Three separate agencies now try to address the complexities of genetically engineered crops with a patchwork of regulations based on outdated legislation. With billions of dollars of crops at stake, we need a better approach.
By Kristina Hubbard On Aug 2, 2019 Last updated Aug 8, 2019
(Photo by Ian Sane, Flickr, Creative Commons)
Last month, genetically engineered (GE) wheat was discovered in a farm field in Washington state. That's a big threat to wheat farmers, because, while biotech traits are prolific in major agricultural crops like corn and soybeans, all global wheat grown for the marketplace is GMO-free. In other words, GE wheat is currently not approved for commercial sale or use.
We're talking about a $5 billion export industry.
So how did this wheat, which contained the Roundup Ready trait allowing plants to survive applications of glyphosate herbicides, unexpectedly show up in a fallow field?
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) says it's trying to find out. This wheat and other varieties like it have been grown in experimental trials in Washington since 1999. The last experimental trial on record with Washington listed as a possible location was in 2016. (I say "possible" because exact records are unavailable to the public and, at times, regulators themselves, according to the USDA's own Office of Inspector General.) The agency said the two unapproved wheat varieties discovered likely did not enter the food supply. A test kit is being made available to trading partners, including Japan and South Korea, to alleviate this concern.
This is the second time GE wheat has turned up in Washington in an area where it wasn't expected to be found (the first was in 2016), and it's the fourth identified occurrence in the U.S. In 2013, an Oregon farmer surprisingly discovered GE wheat in his field, and another event was identified at a Montana research station the following year.
By the Numbers: Genetically Engineered Wheat Trials in the U.S. (1994 – 2019)
Total trial applications to USDA-APHIS: 560
Total sites: 1,152
Total acres: 8,979
Total states and territories: 30
States and territories identified within applications: AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, MT, ND, NC, NE, NJ, NY, OK, OR, PR, SD, TX, WA, WI, WY
Source: USDA's Biotechnology Regulatory Service Interstate/Release and Release Permits and Notifications. Link
GE wheat hasn't moved forward as a commercial product because of market resistance from buyers overseas. Monsanto petitioned the USDA in 2002 to approve Roundup Ready wheat, but pulled its application for regulatory approval in 2004 amid growing resistance. Since that time, economic studies reveal ongoing opposition among buyers.
Open-air experimental trials still happen, however, and oversight of these trials has been inadequate since day one, coming at a great cost. Unapproved GE wheat isn't the only crop type to disrupt markets. In 2006, the U.S. rice industry lost upwards of $1 billion when an unapproved GE strain entered the long-grain rice supply, half of which is exported. Following the first GE wheat event in Oregon, several Asian countries temporarily halted imports from the U.S.
Most field trials happen under the USDA's notification system, where GMO manufacturers simply notify the agency of trials, providing limited information that isn't always shared at the state level. Farmers typically don't know if an experimental trial is happening in the vicinity of their commercial production, making it impossible for them to gauge if their crops could cross with experimental traits in the area. Successful coexistence hinges on transparency, regardless of what you grow and for what market. Unapproved experimental traits continue to pose a unique market risk that is rarely discussed.
Policies Don't Fit Technologies
Following the Oregon and Montana discoveries, the USDA made a minor internal policy shift and moved all GE wheat field trials over to the agency's permit system, which theoretically should provide more regulatory oversight. Though a welcomed change, the permit system doesn't assure complete containment, and this policy change doesn't address wheat trials conducted prior to this decision, trials representing thousands of acres across the U.S.
The Coordinated Framework for Regulating Biotechnology, the regulatory umbrella overseeing the introduction of GMOs, was first developed in the 1980s. Instead of creating a new law to address these novel organisms, the U.S. government chose to patch together existing laws that predated the technology, adapting eminently unsuitable laws to the regulation of commodity crops that now posed unique market, environmental, and social challenges. Three agencies – the USDA, Environmental Protection Agency, and Food and Drug Administration – had to apply these laws, such as the Plant Pest Act and Plant Quarantine Act, through contorted interpretations of their new authority to oversee GMOs. This patchwork approach left many holes: the absence of mandated practices to mitigate cross-pollination between fields, post-market monitoring of approved products, a mechanism for compensating those harmed by adventitious presence, and a holistic look at the combined environmental, economic, and social impacts of the technology, to name a few.
Will States Take Matters into Their Own Hands?
States and local municipalities have attempted to fill the gaps left by the federal government's patchwork approach through their own initiatives. For example, some counties have banned the production of GE crops to protect the diversity of their markets. And, last month, Vermont's governor signed a law that creates a committee for reviewing new GE crop traits before they can be sold, distributed, or used in the state. This is the first time a state has required additional approval beyond what's required by federal regulators.
Vermont's legislation was spurred, at least in part, by the threat of GE soybeans that are resistant to dicamba, an herbicide that volatilizes and has wreaked havoc on specialty crop and non-GMO soybean producers across the Midwest and South. Yet the USDA claims, dubiously, that it doesn't have the authority to look at indirect harms, such as herbicide drift or the development of herbicide-tolerant weeds, both of which pose enormous threats to biodiversity and to production agriculture as a whole.
The USDA Needs to Hear from Us
GMOs have now been in our fields and marketplace for more than two decades. We've learned a lot about the risks and benefits associated with these technologies from an agronomic, environmental, economic, and social perspective. We've also learned a great deal about the shortcomings of current regulations, including the examples of unapproved GE varieties, like wheat, continuing to show up where we least expect them.
The U.S. government could have avoided the muddled, rather uncoordinated, approach we now have for regulating biotechnology if it had directed Congress to craft a law that adequately fits the science and products associated with agricultural biotechnology. Moving forward, the only way for old statutes to fit modern technologies is to ensure that new regulations under these statutes are properly updated.
If you're concerned about GE traits showing up where they're least expected, the time to speak up is now. The USDA is in the process of updating its biotechnology regulations for the first time since they were developed and is accepting public comments through August 6. Unfortunately the agency is proposing to further weaken its oversight by allowing developers of GMOs to self-determine if their products should be regulated in the first place. This hands-off approach would greatly reduce the number and diversity of GE crops going through regulatory review, and therefore no oversight of most experimental field trials. This could ostensibly lead to a free-for-all in our agricultural landscapes with no prerequisite for being transparent with neighboring farms.
You can read more about our take on the proposal and take action at this link.
Kristina "Kiki" Hubbard is director of advocacy and communications at the Organic Seed Alliance.
By Kristina Hubbard
Kristina Hubbard4 posts 0 comments
Commentary: The Cost of Rural School Consolidation
Q&A: Scholar Says Rural Working Class Finds Politics Pointless