Talk about horrible looking customizations....

[slusher]

  On 5/7/2016 at 9:17 PM, Harry P. said:

To my eye, most (not all) cars look bad with a top chop... the more the chop, the worse the look. It completely ruins the proportions of the car. It generally works ok on some older cars, but a chopped '72 Chevelle  like that yellow monstrosity is just silly looking, IMO.

The only car I really like chopped in real life is ZZ Tops 34 Coupe.

  On 5/7/2016 at 10:16 PM, StevenGuthmiller said:

 

 

OOF!!

That would take a whole bunch of beer!!

 

Steve

I don't know if you can live after that much beer...  

[Harry P.]

Most of the well-known customs of the '50s and '60s were just plain ugly.

Somehow, we lost our ability to ascertain good design, and a lot of those cars and their builders became automotive icons for some reason. But why?

Ed Roth comes to mind. Yeah, he was a character... "larger than life," as they say... but many (most?) of his creations were just ugly! The Mysterion... Road Agent... Outlaw... I mean, come on! They were hideous! They were cartoons, not styling successes. Come on... does anyone out there actually think this is an example of a successful design? Really?

It's a train wreck!

And not to pick on Roth... there were many other well-known customs of the era that were equally bad. Yet somehow these automotive monstrosities became legendary, along with their creators. I'll never understand why.

 

[Craig Irwin]

While we are on the subject of poorly styled autos, I would like to nominate several scratch built  "Best of Show" winners at a well known model contest held every two years. They may be top workmanship, but ..............

[Craig Irwin]

Ladies and gentlemen, the Snorkelstang.

[Harry P.]

Wow.

[Craig Irwin]

The rears no better.  And it has been modeled.

[Harry P.]

Ok, it's bad enough that someone built this thing.

But someone actually created a model of it?

Yikes.

[Craig Irwin]

finished model.

[Xingu]

I like this VW better than the Chevelle.

[StevenGuthmiller]

  On 5/11/2016 at 12:48 AM, Xingu said:

I like this VW better than the Chevelle.

Yeah, at least it doesn't pretend to be "serious"!

 

Steve

[Joe Handley]

  On 5/11/2016 at 12:04 AM, Craig Irwin said:

finished model.

I think the model was built to a much higher standard than the 1/1!

[Joe Handley]

Is that Ian Roussel from Full Custom Garage staring at the back end of that Bug?

 

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Yoley moley. Talk about a collection of styling click-cheese...

[Joe Handley]

  On 5/11/2016 at 2:49 AM, Ace-Garageguy said:

Yoley moley. Talk about a collection of styling click-cheese...

Yeah, it's like every bad styling cliches done to one poor little Bug.

[blunc]

  On 5/9/2016 at 3:17 AM, Harry P. said:

Most of the well-known customs of the '50s and '60s were just plain ugly.

Somehow, we lost our ability to ascertain good design, and a lot of those cars and their builders became automotive icons for some reason. But why?

Ed Roth comes to mind. Yeah, he was a character... "larger than life," as they say... but many (most?) of his creations were just ugly! The Mysterion... Road Agent... Outlaw... I mean, come on! They were hideous! They were cartoons, not styling successes. Come on... does anyone out there actually think this is an example of a successful design? Really?

It's a train wreck!

And not to pick on Roth... there were many other well-known customs of the era that were equally bad. Yet somehow these automotive monstrosities became legendary, along with their creators. I'll never understand why.

 

Harry, I think you are measuring "show cars" with the wrong yard stick. IMHO, they were not meant to be styling masterpieces.

I think they and their creators (in many cases) succeeded in their goal of creating "automotive art".... something not practical, something so outlandish that you HAVE to look at it.  

Some of the most successful/popular show car creators (whether they created per commission or not) tend to design or utilize automotive elements in ways not done before or include them in a way that sparks interest (in at least a few people).

[blunc]

  On 5/11/2016 at 2:49 AM, Ace-Garageguy said:

Yoley moley. Talk about a collection of styling click-cheese...

Just because you have a JC Whitney catalog doesn't mean you have to use something from every page.  

[StevenGuthmiller]

  On 5/11/2016 at 3:01 AM, blunc said:

something not practical, something so outlandish that you HAVE to look at it.  

Some of the most successful/popular show car creators (whether they created per commission or not) tend to design or utilize automotive elements in ways not done before or include them in a way that sparks interest (in at least a few people).

Kind of like a crucifix in a jar of urine! 

"Modern art" befuddles me.

 

Steve

[Craig Irwin]

I'm sure everyone remembers this mess.

[Joe Handley]

That actually looks better than the Chevelle and Bug do!

[ChrisBcritter]

  On 5/8/2016 at 5:52 PM, Spex84 said:

I just spent some time trying to re-locate a classifieds ad I saw last week for a '28 or so Chevrolet hot rod, but couldn't find it again...picture this: '28 Chevy in hot pink with a molded-on later model pickup bed. It's a 3-wheeler, so the nose tapers to the stock radiator, with no front axle or wheels visible. The molded-in tailgate area has a pinstriped religious message.

Just...wow.

 

Let me guess: "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned"?

[Drake69]

  On 5/13/2016 at 3:21 AM, Craig Irwin said:

I'm sure everyone remembers this mess.

Nope. Needs more Carradine....

 

Edited May 13, 2016 by Drake69

[Craig Irwin]

The Pink Lady.

[Deathgoblin]

  On 5/14/2016 at 1:48 AM, Craig Irwin said:

The Pink Lady.

Sadly, I kinda like that one....:)

[Craig Irwin]

[SSNJim]

  On 5/16/2016 at 1:25 AM, Craig Irwin said:

What did it hit?