Footnote to "Intimations of Mortality?" post ... TrumpCare only works if you're young and healthy (or rich). Inside the CBO score ...

Intimations of Mortality?

Random Thoughts on Approaching 70^th Birthday

William Sundwick

It occurred to me recently. I hadn’t thought too much about it until now … I’m going to turn 70!

In my universe, that’s not even middle-aged any more. People have written that the boomer generation is the one that refuses to grow old. Perhaps. But, if I’m honest, I must admit I’m beginning to notice things … especially, compared to younger folks around me. Call them “intimations of mortality” (after Wordsworth).

Advancing years are clearly a mixed bag … there is the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.  First, the Good: I’ve been damned lucky throughout my life -- financial security, good health, amazing 34-year marriage, great family. There is a possibility that a nursing home could wipe out the finances, but I’m not thinking of that now (maybe never?). And, I do feel compelled to follow my doctor’s orders, keep exercising, watch my diet.

But, whatever inconvenience “doctor’s orders” causes is more than compensated for by that “wisdom card,” which I can frequently play for younger friends and family. My wisdom regarding life’s dramas is a source of some pride, and (so far) seems to garner at least a convincingly polite acknowledgement from others. However, I do have a responsibility to share that wisdom. It’s what blogs are for! And, I think people respect me for it.

So, that’s the positive side of turning 70. There is a less enjoyable part, too. The Bad: mostly, my life is past … I’d have to live to 140 to say that it is less than half over! It’s not an issue of accomplishment -- I’m happy with that. It’s more about feelings and memories. It’s about hopes and aspirations, about excitement. It’s about whether she thinks I’m sexy!

All these things are rapidly fading from reality, except in my mind. Memories, for sure. But, is there anything that can really excite me, anymore? Travel? Some new technology? Something that would make me say: “I’ve never done THAT before!” -- or, “someday, I’m gonna’ ______” (fill in the blank). Unfortunately, my typical feeling these days is “been there, done that” or “I’ve seen this movie …”. And, the cost of self-knowledge is it becomes very difficult to fool (flatter) yourself.

Perhaps I spend too much time alone these days, more socializing could be a balm.

Then, there’s the Ugly: what lies ahead! Physical and mental limitations are likely to play an increasingly important role in my future. My own father, who knew he was likely to go quickly from heart disease, took some comfort from that knowledge … but, he was still an invalid in his last years, aware that he had lost much stamina, even mobility. My mother, on the other hand, had no idea what it would mean to slowly decline over nearly a decade, from the onset of Parkinsons, until her death. Fortunately, neither of them suffered the imprisonment of the mind that comes with Alzheimers … as my stepfather did (although he died only a week after my mom, we never knew whether he was aware of her death). The future could be grim, indeed.

The early signs, possibly only a couple years away, might include no longer being able to drive at night. That, right there, would be a major freedom-reducing development. You’d then have to be dependent on somebody else to drive you to evening engagements, or church meetings!

And, what about those memories? They sustain me now, help me cope with the fact that my life is more than half over. But, when they start disappearing? Recently, I was distressed when I couldn’t remember the brand of paint we’ve always used for home projects (Benjamin Moore) … drew a complete blank, had to go to closet where old paint cans are stored before I could come up with that everyday brand name. This block (more than a lapse, I think) is likely to become more common in the future. And, merely two years since retirement, I’ve already forgotten almost all the acronyms and IT functions that were so familiar to me in my day-to-day life only a short while ago.

I expect major tax headaches when I’m forced to sell my house – a good reason for postponing that action as long as possible. But, eventually, maintenance will become too much of a burden. It WILL be necessary, someday!

Then, the loneliness … who goes first? How would I deal with being a widower? How solid are my connections to my kids, and grandkids? (Only one of those, so far.) Continuous care? I’ve seen that, physician-assisted suicide might be preferable.

Where does all this leave me? It seems that, despite the anxiety associated with a possibly grim future, for now I’m doing well. This really is the best game in town. I want to play it for all it’s worth! If I trust my doctor, who keeps declaring me healthy, and continue to feel good after workouts at the gym, or neighborhood walks, why should I complain? If I can keep people’s attention by spreading words of wisdom, why not go for it?

In the meantime, I can always look with great pride at my progeny … they make it all worthwhile. And, I should be able to morph those intimations of mortality into paths toward immortality – if I can remain convinced that a good person is remembered longer than a not-so-good person!

Lessons of GA06: Dems still need better candidates ... and, grass roots support just isn't enough!

Making of a Lefty

Populism Isn’t Only for the Right

William Sundwick

Things have changed in American politics over the last hundred years. In 1917, there was a Democratic Party that had embraced the soul of the Progressive Era (started by Republicans), seemingly dedicated to a “Fair Deal” for working men (and some women, mostly in the garment industry). There was a peace between the Democratic Party and capitalism based on capital’s earnest desire for labor. The coming war in Europe would further constrict the supply of labor. Big industrial employers were competing for workers – they were eager to accommodate the Left, at least that part of it that didn’t threaten their survival.

In 2017, however, we are looking at low growth in the short term … greater productivity of workers, for sure, but no labor shortage on the horizon. Both technology and immigration are reducing demand for American workers. And, with these economic changes, the political power of organized labor has dwindled to virtually nil.

Initially, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and its wave effect throughout the industrialized world, struck fear into the hearts of capitalists everywhere. They felt weak and vulnerable, and began to shore up their defenses. In the U.S., they invented an ideology: “The American Way” … it didn’t include any security for most industrial workers, and people of color were still excluded. But, we were “free,” they said. The Frontier, Horatio Alger and self-reliance, were heroic. Generations were indoctrinated accordingly.

The Left took a big hit. The Cold War didn’t help, when it seemed like the world was divided between two giant superpowers facing off – one “Communist” and one “Free.”

Saving Capitalism

There was an interruption to this story in the thirties and forties – capitalism nearly collapsed worldwide. It was saved by two things: rediscovery of that turn-of-the-century “progressivism,” and total mobilization of the state to fight an existential threat from fascism. The Soviet Union beat us at the latter, as their economy had been mobilized by the state since the Revolution.

In the United States, 1945 showed us that “The American Way” had triumphed … but, what really triumphed? Stalin would say the very same thing to people in his half of the world: “socialism” was triumphant. The Cold War seemed to prove both views correct!

The progressivism of FDR’s New Deal became institutionalized in the U.S. throughout the forties, fifties, sixties, even the seventies with Nixon-Ford-Carter. Both American parties subscribed to the same ideology, despite the still unacceptable public association with the Left (progressives became known as “liberals” in the U.S.).

The Socialist International of the nineteenth century became the basis for democratically elected center-left parties throughout western Europe, and Latin America. The term “liberal” was associated with center-right parties. The Soviet Union grew its own economy, along with its new imperial domain in eastern Europe, although at a somewhat slower pace than the West. By the end of the century, that competition finally got the best of the Soviets. They were ultimately outproduced into oblivion, probably due to structural weaknesses of their overly centralized economy.

But, “victory” in the Cold War did NOT come only because of the free market ideology of the Reagan years. Capitalism won because of those many decades of collaboration between industry and the state. It was the progressive left that saved it. Capital remained privately owned (or, publicly, through shareholders), but was subject to regulation by the state, for the common good. Fascism used a similar economic organization, but its “common good” was defined as furtherance of national interests vs. the rest of the world -- hence, World War II.

Post-Cold War, Dems Fail

By the beginning of the 21^st century, it was becoming increasingly clear that most American working- class people saw less hope in the future than their parents had known in the past century. The Russians hadn’t been their enemy, but powerful forces in their own society were. However, propaganda for the “American Way” intentionally made these forces difficult to identify.

Exceptions to this malaise were now people of color (POC), women, and those fortunate enough to find their way into growing economic sectors (tech), rather than retreating sectors (manufacturing). Everybody else tended to look backward rather than forward – they drifted to the right, politically. The Republican Party seized on this opportunity, since they had a similar group of supporters already (rural and small-town folks). Democrats started losing elections when Republicans portrayed them as the “powerful forces” keeping people down. As Dems were the leading proponents of the meritocracy of the professional class, there was some truth to the charge.

Those groups remaining tied to the Democratic Party thought their current favorable status, vis-à-vis the future, was a direct result of Democratic priorities. They won the presidency in 2008 and 2012, but otherwise were localized in the cosmopolitan urban centers of the coasts (and Chicago) … there were many of them, but they WERE the privileged class in America!

I am one of them, but hopefully I can see that I don’t represent the majority.

The Impoverished

The majority in America are not people like me. They are people who couldn’t afford college, and weren’t eligible for sufficiently debt-free financial aid. They are younger. They struggle. They won’t have many resources to pass on to their children, either. Their skills may well be in dying occupations. They need relief, and mostly it’s Republican politicians who promise it … by favoring their employers, and their communities.

When Democrats attempt the same, they are generally bargaining with capitalism from weakness. In high growth sectors (like tech), they’ve sometimes managed to work with entrepreneurs. But, entrepreneurship tends to breed reaction … from the established money, their competitors in the market. Entrepreneurship is so twenty-five years ago, not so much now. The Citizens United decision of 2010 sealed the fate of any attempts to influence elections with “grass roots” support alone.

Democrats are now left competing for the same big donors that Republicans use. This requires them to cater to capitalist-centric interests, and remain silent on opposing interests – like things that benefit workers. Only the most cynical (or courageous) donors would take a chance on a politician who travels around campaigning on any kind of restrictions, much less any outright attack, on them. Instead, Dems will usually be content to emphasize positions which support their established base, and have no economic consequences for their big donors. They are never allowed to grow that base, they are always on the defensive.

Those “Deplorables”

The 2016 election did something profound. It etched in clear relief who was on which side. That traditional blue-collar workforce (both male and female, but white) voted overwhelmingly for the candidate of the right: Donald Trump. Other parts of the Democratic coalition held, but turnout was lower than for Obama’s two elections. In the end, the “band of deplorables,” as Clinton memorably named them, won.

The Left needs to get them back. As “deplorable” as they seem, it seems to me that an economic message about capitalism may be just the ticket to get their attention in the 21^st century. If enough people can be convinced that they have something in common with the other cultural groups that remain in the Democratic coalition, Dems can start winning again. Since they are in no danger of losing any more of their base, the time is ripe to think about expansion. And, the most promising avenue for this strategy is to “go left.” Here’s why …

1.    Only old people who remember the Cold War have any negative association with socialism (maybe some “Gen X” libertarians, too … but, they can either vote for a third party, or Republicans, they’re not needed for a left coalition).

2.       Given a few more election cycles, the old folks will die out.

3.       White racism, sexism, social conservatism are all expressions of frustration about not knowing how to deal with “the other” … social engineering (via advertising, social media, and entertainment) can easily remedy that, helping people cope with others. Millennials already have this covered. People in large urban areas are better equipped than those in rural areas and small towns – and, they’re more numerous!

4.       The main thing that keeps people from participating in the democratic process is lack of trust in candidates for elected office – there’s a stench of corruption around the whole thing that keeps many from even voting. Openness about financing would go a long way to help this.

The formula for a winning “lefty” candidate, then, would be one who could marshal the hearts and minds of young people struggling economically, but who have never learned to hate any groups competing with them for the crumbs at the bottom of the food chain. The final ingredient would be willingness of the candidate to fully disclose where their money comes from, and why they’re proud to represent those interests! Yes, some big money IS from socially responsible organizations, or individuals. It should not be a handicap to get large donations from George Soros or Donald Sussman.

Barack Obama managed to marshal those young hearts and minds, but faltered on the openness requirement – even though it dogged his party more than him.

So, what’s stopping the Democratic Party from fielding candidates like this? They sometimes do, but a primary challenge of incumbents, or their designated successors, may be required (as in Virginia this month). Primaries can be just as brutal as general elections against Republicans, if not handled adroitly. The incumbents have lots of resources, and loyal networks of people they have helped (or, who think they’ve been helped).

What Is To Be Done?

Message to idealistic young people who want to push “lefty” candidates for office: keep trying, always resist attempts to divide voters along cultural lines (don’t talk about “deplorables”), your political foe is a competitor, not an enemy. And, think about the larger community your candidate seeks to serve – it may be an opportunity to build a new network. Remember, you’re probably luckier than most people in the community – don’t forget that privilege. Share your talents, don’t use them as weapons.

Be like Vera Pavlovna, the main character in the 1863 Chernyshevsky novel, Chto delat’.

Once you’ve committed yourself to social justice (to “the revolution”), and become a genuine “lefty” like me, you need to appreciate that change is a big job … indeed, it will likely take many election cycles, uninterrupted by reaction, with many people working toward the same goals.

Your goals are to reduce wealth inequality, and to be sensitive to various emotional and cultural predispositions in your community. Your tools are organizing, contributing, and steadfastness in your dedication to justice.

Whatever you do, it won’t be enough – even if your candidate prevails, they need to be re-elected to complete their mission. If they fail, another candidate will need to take their place. The candidates themselves are only means to an end.

And, others will be needed to take your place, as well – they will be there when you lose your resolve. 

10% isn't nearly enough, but it is a renewable energy milestone. Could be much greater with federal incentives -- not likely in a Trump administration (despite Rick Perry's history as a wind farm promoter in TX)

Not sure a "non-human" language is necessarily bad ... especially if it improves negotiating skills of robots!

Exploring the Sundwick Automotive Photo Library: Part II -- Customs

William Sundwick

What is a “custom car?”  This library will use the following definition:

Custom: any car or light truck that has been altered in appearance significantly from a model available in the manufacturer’s original catalog for that model year. The alterations may be done professionally, or by the amateur vehicle owner. They can include custom paint jobs, sheet metal work, replacement of exterior visual components by non-standard components, or any combination of these things. Custom wheels are not enough, by themselves, to constitute a “custom car.”

Note: this definition is limited to physical appearance of the vehicle. It must be noticeable from the photo.

The obvious question that arises about custom cars is one that still mystifies me – why? Why would anybody want to spend their time, and often a great deal of money, to create a vehicle which most likely will fetch less in resale than a similar vehicle that was restored to “mint” historic condition?

It is not financial reward that motivates the custom designer, although there certainly are custom car shows that the vehicle could enter, with prize money of sorts; but, it will never match what the amateur owner would have spent producing his work of art. On the other hand, buying a custom that somebody else has created, can be much easier than buying a restored “classic.”

Is it the desire to create something? A true artist’s craving? I maintain this comes closest to describing the motivation of custom car builders. And, what’s more, the people who may be bitten by this craving are a very select group – probably rural, non-college educated, with few other opportunities for individual creativity (presumably with some body shop, and sheet metal, skills).

This peculiar (one might even call it “deviant”) fetish about cars has been impressively captured, in the American mid-west and southwest, by the CarNut.com web site. Most of the entries for custom cars in the Sundwick Library come from that site -- specifically: carpicsindex.com.

Let’s look at some representative examples, with commentary on each.

Early Rods – the “Classic” era of the ‘20s and ‘30s 

Chevy, Ford, Plymouth --   many professional custom car builders, like RODriguez, below (photo credit: Frank Filipponio), have used platforms from early Fords for their creations. Likewise, there are fiberglass or aluminum replica customs from several shops based on early Fords from the thirties, like this ’37 “convertible hardtop” … 

  

 

 “Hi-boys” and “Lo-boys” refer to fenderless hot rods from the era, which may be chopped (lowered roof) or channeled (lowered body on frame), or both – these two early Fords are good examples, one for show, one possibly a competition dragster.   

Although never as popular with the hot rod and custom demographic as early Fords, the other sales leaders of the thirties, Chevrolet and Plymouth, also have received some attention over the years. Here’s a great example of a “chopped” custom sedan, a ’34 Plymouth, and a Chevrolet sedan delivery from 1935.

Sedan deliveries became popular models for California customizers in the forties and fifties, as “surf wagons.” 

 

Finally, the category of “street rod” has been popular for conveying the sense of a car which can be driven on the street, attracting much attention, especially with suitably tuned exhaust note, but the best examples, like the ’39 Plymouth here, are strictly for shows.

Other makes -- The basic styles of customs and hot rods were also applied to other makes besides the three main market leaders of the thirties. This excellent channeled ’31 Essex sedan is an example (Essex was a popular-priced brand of Hudson).

Or, these two radical customs – an airflow Desoto and a wild chopped Hudson: 

Often, the special characteristics of a certain model might be just what the custom builder is seeking – e.g., the unique radiator/grille shapes on a ’34 Olds, or ’37 Chrysler (below) …

The replica business has not totally ignored other makes, either. The same fiberglass custom replica bodies made for Fords can sometimes be found on other cars, like this Lincoln Zephyr coupe by DeConides:

One final category in this period which bears inclusion in my definition of “custom.” These are the customs built for wealthy customers who could specify a bespoke body designed just for them, and placed on whatever Packard, Cadillac, Rolls Royce, or other expensive chassis, they select. Here is one of these, a very exotic French Delage town car (body by Fernandez, not well known in U.S.):

 “Lead Sleds” and “California Customs” – the ‘40s and ‘50s

Perhaps it was the “New Look” that postwar cars began to take in the forties -- elimination of running boards and pontoon fenders, body entirely enclosing wheel wells, more streamlined models – but, for whatever reason, the new look in customs reflected those changes. The primary objective was to make the car as low to the ground as possible, often weighing down the body with lead (hence the slang term “lead sled”). Then, typically, heavy chrome was added, especially from other contemporary makes.

The wilder variations became known as “California” customs, since the Golden State seemed to foster the most creativity in this area. As with many things that originate in California, it soon spread across the country.

Predominant in the period were the “shoebox” Fords and Mercurys (1949-51), but the Chrysler “Forward Look” (1955-59) featuring monstrous tail fins captured some imaginations, as did the similarly befinned ’59 GM bodies. The more discerning types liked the elegant, yet sporty, Raymond Loewy Studebakers of 1953-55. “Step Down” Hudsons (1948-54) and Nash models (1949-54) were, likewise, worthy of note to some customizers.

Here, then, are some examples from this wild and crazy post-war period in car design …

Shoebox Fords (including Mercurys and Lincolns) –  Somehow, the early focal points of custom projects were the “shoebox” generation of Fords and Mercurys (sorry, no explanation found for where the nickname originated). These were not necessarily more streamlined than the competing designs from GM, Hudson, Nash, or Studebaker (they were sleeker than Chrysler products in those years, however). Possibly because of the hot rod legacy of the Ford flathead V-8, they came to dominate the custom field. While the Ford body designs evolved in the fifties (and the flathead engines were consigned to history), the custom builders’ loyalties to Ford remained.

Typical “Merc” customs, the most popular by far, were chopped, and had a grille from some different car of the fifties (DeSoto was common), or something with heavy chrome teeth made by a custom shop, often chrome trim from a different car (Pontiac in one example here) was added … and, of course, the mandatory custom paint job. Note the “canted” quad headlights on the ‘50 Ford shown above, maybe from ‘58-’59 Lincoln?

 GM, and Harley Earl – The forties belonged to General Motors. It’s chief designer, Harley Earl, created a classic look eventually shared by all GM bodies – pontoon fenders which, after ’41, included part of the front door (on ’42-’48 Buicks, front fenders presented a continuous ridge all the way to the rear skirted pontoons). The fastback, or “torpedo,” body style in either 2-door or 4-door versions was all the rage. Their elegant lines have been a favorite among classic collectors, as well as customizers – as seen in these examples.

  The Loewy Studebakers, Step Down Hudsons, and Nash– Raymond Loewy was the designer responsible for the very first “new look” postwar car: the 1947 Studebaker. No front fenders were visible on lower body, which entirely enclosed frontal area – and, only vestigial traces of a rear fender line (see the 1950 Stude pictured here).

Hudson introduced its similar “step down” body in 1948, and Nash in 1949. By this time, the fully enclosed lower body was universal in Detroit.

Loewy, however, despite dire financial straits at Studebaker, continued with a truly exotic new design for 1953. It was inspired by Italian body styles on expensive sports cars, both elegant and sporty. Yet, it was made for a popular-priced car in the U.S. Studebakers were intended to be competitive with Chevy, Ford, and Plymouth! The ’53-’55 Loewy designs have long been prized both by collectors and customizers. 

Forward Look Chrysler Corporation –  Suffering from loss of market share in late forties and early fifties, Chrysler Corporation embarked on a rebranding project for its 1955 line – it was called “Forward Look,” new bodies throughout the line, inventing the fashionable “tail fins” in 1956, and carrying it to extremes with a second new body shell introduced for 1957 models. Perhaps the finest example of the Chrysler tail fin is seen on the 1959 Plymouth shown below. DeSotos, Chryslers, and Imperials were nearly as magnificent, though.

An interesting side note: the 1956 Plymouth wagon on the left is an example of a small sub-genre of custom – the passenger car body placed on a 4x4 truck (or Jeep) chassis. Strange, but true, for a few imaginative custom car builders!

General Motors, 1959 – Tail fins, unashamed! Buicks, Cadillacs, and gullwing Chevys – all with soaring fins. 

This Buick convertible also shows another fashion statement of the era: a “continental” spare kit (named after the iconic original Lincoln Continental of the forties).

Many consider the ’59 Cadillac as the most outrageous statement of the age of chrome and tail fins ever dreamed up. That makes them a good source for customs – since little needs to be done to alter the original, save a special paint job, wheels, maybe some de-chroming.

Low-end Chevy models (like this Biscayne) were faves among the street rod set, going back to the classic ’55 –’57 model years. This ’59 maintains a simple minimalist approach to customization, despite the natural gullwing fins.

For the strip –  organized drag racing, under the auspices of the National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) began during this period. Originally, as the name of the governing body implies, the sport consisted mostly of modified (“built”) early Fords, what we usually call “hot rods.” But, soon there was a proliferation of cars running the quarter mile in various classes, with certain models from the forties becoming early favorites in the free-for-all “gas” classes (only restriction: they run on regular pump gasoline, with normal octane ratings, as opposed to nitrous oxide, or some exotic blended fuel). Among the early favorites on the strip were English Ford Anglias from the late forties, and Willys Americar models from the thirties and early forties (Willys abandoned passenger cars for the Jeep during World War II). 

Later, the popularity of a variety of custom “street rods” forced the NHRA to add other classes to accommodate these customs – they were known as pro-street, pro-comp, or pro-mod. As with the earlier “gassers,” there were no restrictions on engine or drive train modifications. Pro-street machines were allegedly “street-legal,” but, otherwise, anything was allowed.

The early fifties produced further classic dragstrip contenders, like the Henry J (a small car added to the Kaiser line, for a production run of three years, 1951-53), the iconic ’55-’57 Chevrolets (everybody’s favorite street machine), and all the popular makes, given appropriate modifications to stock engines. But, there were limits to body modifications depending on where you intended to compete – pro-mod allowed fiberglass or aluminum body parts as replacement for stock steel. Early gassers did not allow substitute body parts, only removal of bumpers and chrome, cut out wheel wells, and the like. 

 

Muscle cars and “tuners” – the ‘60s and beyond

Custom cars continued to be built, both by amateurs and professionals, through the sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties, and aughts. Only recently have manufacturers begun to compete directly with the performance “tuners” who had been building limited run high-performance versions of popular (or exotic) cars.

Perhaps the amateur customization market has faded out due to costs, but also fewer old car platforms survive – people keep their cars and trucks much longer now than previously, replacing them simply costs too much. In case you haven’t noticed, the demographic most active in the custom car market is not getting richer!

Detroit iron –  while the amateur customizing styles started in the fifties continued through the end of the century, the popularity of trucks and SUVs started a new style of tough-looking off-road vehicles, including “monster trucks” in the eighties. And, “muscle cars,” light-weight mid-sized sedans with large displacement V-8s, then the “pony cars” (Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Barracuda and Challenger … and AMC Javelin) also contributed their bodies to customization.

Here are some examples:

This Corvette follows the show/strip custom style started in the fifties …

But, the advent of the big-block V-8 muscle cars in the sixties supplied a wide range of cars for customization not seen in the previous decade. 

And, some purely artistic renderings continued to be built, like the ’70 Camaro below. 

On the professional side of the customization world, there were entrepreneurs who specialized in conversion of coupes into convertibles, since Detroit decided to stop building most convertibles as production body styles, in the early seventies. The ’86 Capri drop-top here is an example of this.

First, pickup trucks, then SUVs became very popular in the period. Custom builders wasted no time finding ways to modify the stock appearance of these popular vehicles. Often, the look desired was a tough, off-road appearance, like this early Jeep Wagoneer, but the more familiar custom sheet metal and outrageous paint jobs also continued to draw some practitioners …

The “roadster pickup,” like this GMC, is a throwback to Model T and Model A Fords. It is something which is perpetuated by the Jeep Wrangler in production, but hasn’t been offered by too many Detroit truck makers.

Another institution that made its appearance in the sixties was the “stretch limousine.” These were always custom bodies, often produced in limited numbers by “coachbuilders” … much like those of the ‘20s and ‘30s. Some are really bespoke, others are from catalogs.    

      

This Stutz is a truly bespoke vehicle built for the President of Gabon, in Central Africa. 

Finally, there appeared in this period some elegantly designed luxury coupes … Thunderbird led the way, followed by the Buick Riviera, Olds Toronado, and Lincoln or Cadillac versions of same. Buick and Olds versions, especially, have lent themselves to some visually appealing reworks:

This T-bird was cleverly designed to look like a “shoebox” Ford of about 1950! Apparently, built by a real retro fan.

Japanese “rice burners” – Not yet apparent in the sixties (or even seventies), but by the early eighties, we had an entirely new source for custom cars – Japan.

Because many models were popularly priced, affordable by the many, builders soon popped up specializing in these “rice burners,” to use their early colloquial nickname. Parts, both for alteration of physical appearance and getting increased performance from the little 4-cylinder engines, became available from domestic specialty shops. Customizing of the imports followed the same pattern as they had in the previous generation for Detroit iron. 

As the East Asian imports became popular, the globalized U.S. automakers acquired some of the Japanese manufacturers, or at least had cooperative marketing agreements with them, so they could sell the Japanese cars here, branded as Chevrolets or Dodges … and, of course, custom builders would get hold of them, and modify them. Look at the Chevy Aveo (Korean Daewoo) and Dodge Colt here (Chrysler had controlling interest in Mitsubishi for a time, later sold it). 

Mitsubishi found that some of its models, in the nineties, were popular in the U.S. market under their own moniker … like the Eclipse sports coupes and cabrios. 

But, the Japanese market leaders were also the leaders in amateur and “tuner” modifications. Honda and Toyota dominated, with Nissan (formerly marketing its products under the “Datsun” brand) not far behind. Then came Mazda (Hyundai, too, after it entered U.S. market in the nineties).

           

                     

The design study of a Datsun “Z-car”(above) is what an earlier generation would call a “radical” custom. And, the popularity of small trucks from Japan beckoned the custom builders just as did their bigger Detroit cousins.

Other imports – of course, European imports continued to be popular after the arrival of the Japanese on our shores. Volkswagen had a long history of customization, going back to early days of the “beetle” in the fifties. Dune buggies were especially popular in the sixties and seventies, based on beetle chassis, but other creations could be found as well – like this “hi-boy” sedan from 1969.

In the sixties, there were also British sports cars, in the eighties and nineties, Volvos and BMWs … all had their adherents among the custom builders. If a car was popular, somebody would build a 

custom from it.

The bespoke world for the ultra-wealthy did not ignore German or Italian exotics, either. This Ferrari 456 “shooting brake” for the Sultan of Brunei is a good example … 

Or, the odd case of a car with a clearly foreign provenance, but an American branding as a custom, like this Pontiac “sport truck” (really an Australian Holden, like the Pontiac G8, itself) …

Then, there is the case of the popular-priced American car (Pontiac Fiero) styled to look like exotic Italians (Lamborghini/Pantera mix) …

All these cars were crafted by enthusiastic and skilled hands, all involved considerable expenditure of resources … both temporal and financial.

One might ask: to what end? The only thing they all have in common, over multiple generations now, is that their owners considered them to be works of art.

Tastes may differ, but to the artist, the only tastes that matter are his own!