Another mystery car
Discussion
Couldn't help trying out this Alpine hypothesis myself, using a quick and lazy superimposing of photos. Found a side elevation photo of an Alpine Series 2 here:
https://www.topcarrating.com/1960-sunbeam-alpine-s...
Mirrored it to face the same way. Not quite the same angle but hopefully still useful.
Tried scaling the Alpine photo to the same wheelbase as the mystery car:
Does that look right? A bit on the bulky side for a 2-seater sports car? Does it really look like that size of car compared to its surroundings in the scene? Wheels are definitely bigger than the ones on the Alpine (13 inch?). But compare the size of the front overriders!
However, if I don't try to match the wheelbases, and scale to match the wheel size approximately instead, it looks like this:
or alternatively, this:
Does that look more likely? A bit shorter than an Alpine, a bit lower in the waistline?
If the Alpine wheelbase is 2184mm (from Wikipedia), then this would make the mystery car wheelbase around 1975mm, or 78in, or a tad shorter than a Spridget, say.
https://www.topcarrating.com/1960-sunbeam-alpine-s...
Mirrored it to face the same way. Not quite the same angle but hopefully still useful.
Tried scaling the Alpine photo to the same wheelbase as the mystery car:
Does that look right? A bit on the bulky side for a 2-seater sports car? Does it really look like that size of car compared to its surroundings in the scene? Wheels are definitely bigger than the ones on the Alpine (13 inch?). But compare the size of the front overriders!
However, if I don't try to match the wheelbases, and scale to match the wheel size approximately instead, it looks like this:
or alternatively, this:
Does that look more likely? A bit shorter than an Alpine, a bit lower in the waistline?
If the Alpine wheelbase is 2184mm (from Wikipedia), then this would make the mystery car wheelbase around 1975mm, or 78in, or a tad shorter than a Spridget, say.
Also, regarding the mystery car's side window, I'm of the opinion that we're not actually seeing through the window, but are seeing a reflection of the building on the corner of Vere Street. This is what it looked like when Google first StreetViewed it in 2012:
I presume it was looking a bit more sooty back in 1962, hence the dark area in the reflection compared to the reflected sky. Note also the protruding stonework ledge above the second-floor windows which could correspond to the dog-leg in the edge of the dark area in the reflection.
No doubt this has been suggested before...
I presume it was looking a bit more sooty back in 1962, hence the dark area in the reflection compared to the reflected sky. Note also the protruding stonework ledge above the second-floor windows which could correspond to the dog-leg in the edge of the dark area in the reflection.
No doubt this has been suggested before...
Alpinweiss said:
Couldn't help trying out this Alpine hypothesis myself, using a quick and lazy superimposing of photos.
Tried scaling the Alpine photo to the same wheelbase as the mystery car:
Wheels are definitely bigger than the ones on the Alpine (13 inch?). But compare the size of the front overriders!
However, if I don't try to match the wheelbases, and scale to match the wheel size approximately instead, it looks like this:
or alternatively, this:
Does that look more likely? A bit shorter than an Alpine, a bit lower in the waistline?
If the Alpine wheelbase is 2184mm (from Wikipedia), then this would make the mystery car wheelbase around 1975mm, or 78in, or a tad shorter than a Spridget, say.
You've very much hit on something about the Alpine hypothesis that I never understood.Tried scaling the Alpine photo to the same wheelbase as the mystery car:
Wheels are definitely bigger than the ones on the Alpine (13 inch?). But compare the size of the front overriders!
However, if I don't try to match the wheelbases, and scale to match the wheel size approximately instead, it looks like this:
or alternatively, this:
Does that look more likely? A bit shorter than an Alpine, a bit lower in the waistline?
If the Alpine wheelbase is 2184mm (from Wikipedia), then this would make the mystery car wheelbase around 1975mm, or 78in, or a tad shorter than a Spridget, say.
The wheel discs were thought to be for 15 inch wheels. A set were purchased, scanned and used as a basis, by comparing the ratio of wheel to wheelbase on the original image, for calculating the mystery car wheelbase. The figure decided upon was approx. 7'2" / 2184mm.
This led to the identification of the Alpine as a posssible base-vehicle.
The difficulty though, is that the Alpine has, as you say, 13" wheels, so the basis for the calculation - 15 inch wheels - invalidates itself.........
Later research found that the wheel discs were indeed Ace Mercury for 15" wheels, but that they were of the type that sits within the outer rim of the wheel not flush with the edge, so perhasps (I don't recall the exact figure) 35mm smaller than those used for the above calculation anyway. No adjustment was made after this discovery, but the explanation, if I recall, required that the wheel discs were 15", but fitted over 13" wheels............
The research on the wheel discs is way back on page 73 (13 March 2019).
I think this is why the wheel discs, stick out beyond the tyre and seem to employ extended tyre valves........
Alpinweiss said:
Also, regarding the mystery car's side window, I'm of the opinion that we're not actually seeing through the window, but are seeing a reflection of the building on the corner of Vere Street. This is what it looked like when Google first StreetViewed it in 2012:
I presume it was looking a bit more sooty back in 1962, hence the dark area in the reflection compared to the reflected sky. Note also the protruding stonework ledge above the second-floor windows which could correspond to the dog-leg in the edge of the dark area in the reflection.
No doubt this has been suggested before...
I've always thought it was a reflection of the building, and not the driver (and certainly not the inside of the car).I presume it was looking a bit more sooty back in 1962, hence the dark area in the reflection compared to the reflected sky. Note also the protruding stonework ledge above the second-floor windows which could correspond to the dog-leg in the edge of the dark area in the reflection.
No doubt this has been suggested before...
uk66fastback said:
I've always thought it was a reflection of the building, and not the driver (and certainly not the inside of the car).
The angle of the car is correct for that. You can try an old shoe box and a shiny toy car to test it for yourselves......Edited by borrani72 on Thursday 22 April 23:08
threespires said:
It's a bit like a Falcon at the front. It seems to have gull wing doors.
Not sure if this has been raised before but is it certain the image isn’t “photoshopped”.Edited by threespires on Friday 18th September 19:09
I just noticed when I was looking at it on another forum that the lighting around the bottom of the rear wings looks odd - there is a very obvious bright line running along it. Likewise the lighting at the front looks off to me.
The more I look at it the more I’m convinced the car has been added on after the photo was taken.
eldar said:
I think the photo pre dates photoshop, it would have been cut, paste and airbrush with scissors, paint and the like.
The picture is about buses, the car is incidental.why waste hours of skill doctoring a sunbeam alpine to fool random people 50 years later
Have you got a copy of the book?The picture is about buses, the car is incidental.why waste hours of skill doctoring a sunbeam alpine to fool random people 50 years later
This would have been 'scanned' from a continuous tone print, so a lot of touching up may have occurred to that - the white brush stroke under the front and rear to bring it 'off' the background. I don't believe the car to have been 'added on' - why would it have been? As has been said, the buses are the focus of the picture.
We're very lucky this pic was chosen for inclusion in the book and that 50+ years later it is being discussed online by enthusiasts and no-one really has much more idea after many pages and hundreds of posts. Without that picture we'd never know of its existence - if something else existed of it it would have come to light by now I am sure.
We're very lucky this pic was chosen for inclusion in the book and that 50+ years later it is being discussed online by enthusiasts and no-one really has much more idea after many pages and hundreds of posts. Without that picture we'd never know of its existence - if something else existed of it it would have come to light by now I am sure.
uk66fastback said:
This would have been 'scanned' from a continuous tone print, so a lot of touching up may have occurred to that - the white brush stroke under the front and rear to bring it 'off' the background. I don't believe the car to have been 'added on' - why would it have been? As has been said, the buses are the focus of the picture.
We're very lucky this pic was chosen for inclusion in the book and that 50+ years later it is being discussed online by enthusiasts and no-one really has much more idea after many pages and hundreds of posts. Without that picture we'd never know of its existence - if something else existed of it it would have come to light by now I am sure.
Have you got a copy of the book? Does anyone have a copy of the book?We're very lucky this pic was chosen for inclusion in the book and that 50+ years later it is being discussed online by enthusiasts and no-one really has much more idea after many pages and hundreds of posts. Without that picture we'd never know of its existence - if something else existed of it it would have come to light by now I am sure.
Why retouch the car if the buses are the focus? Look at the road just in front of the car, it looks odd.
The fact nobody can find any info on it at all anywhere could also mean it doesn’t exist!
Jader1973 said:
Have you got a copy of the book? Does anyone have a copy of the book?
Why retouch the car if the buses are the focus? Look at the road just in front of the car, it looks odd.
The fact nobody can find any info on it at all anywhere could also mean it doesn’t exist!
I have a copy of the book.Why retouch the car if the buses are the focus? Look at the road just in front of the car, it looks odd.
The fact nobody can find any info on it at all anywhere could also mean it doesn’t exist!
What would you like to know?
My dad had a copy of the book when I was a child. You can buy a copy on ebay for a few pounds.
Buses, Trolleys & Trams by Chas S Dunbar.
ISBN 0 7537 0970 8
First published by The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd in 1967, new edition (Octopus Books) 2004.
The picture is on page 54.
According to Wikipedia, photoshop was first released 19th February 1990.
Buses, Trolleys & Trams by Chas S Dunbar.
ISBN 0 7537 0970 8
First published by The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd in 1967, new edition (Octopus Books) 2004.
The picture is on page 54.
According to Wikipedia, photoshop was first released 19th February 1990.
Good obs on the reflection.
Taking it one stage further ,the height of the camera must be about 8ft. Looking down on the car you can see the far side of the roof. Also the car height is about 3-4ft judging by the men walking behind it
One other point
The numberplate
The bonnet appears to have a slight camber, but not enough to hide the RHS of it. So i would hazard a guess that the reg is a very short one
Is that a small intake on it?
Level with the woman in red head is that a flush hinge for the rear glass, or another reflection?
Cannot remember if mentioned before ( it must havebeen) but the buses are eastbound
The talk on an Alpine being remodelled seems a bit OTT. Who would butcher a new sports car back then?
Still think it is a GRP body on an older chassis Ford eg E93A Austin 7 . IIRC back then complete kit cars were a bit of a rarity Lotus 7 being one. The norm was to fettle up an old chassis and go from there, Wheels possible steel with generic trims Agree the front window is a factory back one, if that makes sense.
I did suggest that any PH'er in NW London going to the British Museum reading room to check on Mags of that period, there could well be a write up or an ad. ( Remember the onesfor asbestos garages for 37/6 or something similar)
Would Kew have something similar as i am 49 mins from there.
Taking it one stage further ,the height of the camera must be about 8ft. Looking down on the car you can see the far side of the roof. Also the car height is about 3-4ft judging by the men walking behind it
One other point
The numberplate
The bonnet appears to have a slight camber, but not enough to hide the RHS of it. So i would hazard a guess that the reg is a very short one
Is that a small intake on it?
Level with the woman in red head is that a flush hinge for the rear glass, or another reflection?
Cannot remember if mentioned before ( it must havebeen) but the buses are eastbound
The talk on an Alpine being remodelled seems a bit OTT. Who would butcher a new sports car back then?
Still think it is a GRP body on an older chassis Ford eg E93A Austin 7 . IIRC back then complete kit cars were a bit of a rarity Lotus 7 being one. The norm was to fettle up an old chassis and go from there, Wheels possible steel with generic trims Agree the front window is a factory back one, if that makes sense.
I did suggest that any PH'er in NW London going to the British Museum reading room to check on Mags of that period, there could well be a write up or an ad. ( Remember the onesfor asbestos garages for 37/6 or something similar)
Would Kew have something similar as i am 49 mins from there.
The bit that is still by far the most puzzling is how it can be possible that this is the only photo of such a vehicle in existence, or that has come to life after how many years and how much publicity, or even a positive recollection by anyone?!
It doesn't matter whether it was a manufacturer special/concept, built by one man in his shed or anything in between. Something like that would surely have been documented and caused a serious stir when it was seen. Someone must have painted it, supplied bits for it etc etc and it's shown being driven through London, so it's hardly been kept under wraps!
It doesn't matter whether it was a manufacturer special/concept, built by one man in his shed or anything in between. Something like that would surely have been documented and caused a serious stir when it was seen. Someone must have painted it, supplied bits for it etc etc and it's shown being driven through London, so it's hardly been kept under wraps!
TonyRPH said:
Jader1973 said:
Have you got a copy of the book? Does anyone have a copy of the book?
Why retouch the car if the buses are the focus? Look at the road just in front of the car, it looks odd.
The fact nobody can find any info on it at all anywhere could also mean it doesn’t exist!
I have a copy of the book.Why retouch the car if the buses are the focus? Look at the road just in front of the car, it looks odd.
The fact nobody can find any info on it at all anywhere could also mean it doesn’t exist!
What would you like to know?
The subject of the image is the buses, not the car.
mbwoy84 said:
The bit that is still by far the most puzzling is how it can be possible that this is the only photo of such a vehicle in existence, or that has come to life after how many years and how much publicity, or even a positive recollection by anyone?!
It doesn't matter whether it was a manufacturer special/concept, built by one man in his shed or anything in between. Something like that would surely have been documented and caused a serious stir when it was seen. Someone must have painted it, supplied bits for it etc etc and it's shown being driven through London, so it's hardly been kept under wraps!
In the age before digital cameras, mobile phones and the internet there were a lot less pictures taken and sharing of information. I can easily believe that unless the creator contacted magazines or took the car to shows then it would go undocumented.It doesn't matter whether it was a manufacturer special/concept, built by one man in his shed or anything in between. Something like that would surely have been documented and caused a serious stir when it was seen. Someone must have painted it, supplied bits for it etc etc and it's shown being driven through London, so it's hardly been kept under wraps!
Scrump said:
In the age before digital cameras, mobile phones and the internet there were a lot less pictures taken and sharing of information. I can easily believe that unless the creator contacted magazines or took the car to shows then it would go undocumented.
Don't think that would be possible.Today, a good number of people would have snapped pictures on their phones as it drove past them on the London streets and it would have spread like wildfire, but even in the early 60s, it certainly wouldn't have gone unnoticed. People would have seen it and talked about it. The build would have been documented. Whoever built it, it's clearly been done properly and not thrown together. The person's friends/family would have known about it if it was a personal project. I still think it looks too good for that though.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff