Class: Cars, Sedan — Model origin:
00:38:55
Minor action vehicle or used in only a short scene
Author | Message |
---|---|
◊ 2018-10-25 12:10 |
Possibly the same car here...![]() ![]() Note: See following comments, later discounted as being the same vehicle. -- Last edit: 2018-10-29 12:48:02 |
◊ 2018-10-25 14:19 |
Extreme extrapolation, possibly an Austin 18. Whether it is an Iver, a Windsor or a Norfolk, I cannot tell either. It may even be a 28, but that is a long shot. What's more, whether the subject picture and the car in the thumbs is the same vehicle is anybody's guess. I have based my entire guesswork on the shape of the rear windows seen in the thumbs, Austin, undoubtedly. -- Last edit: 2018-10-25 17:16:33 |
◊ 2018-10-28 16:56 |
Austin 18 I think, unless it’s a 14/6 Goodwood -- Last edit: 2018-10-28 18:35:36 |
◊ 2018-10-29 01:02 |
Looks like a grooved bumper in main, which doesn't seem to sit easily with the pics I can find of mid-30s to 1950 Austins. |
◊ 2018-10-29 08:54 |
My concern would be the headlights, which look too expensive for an Austin, and a barely visible crease on the centreline of the front wing. |
◊ 2018-10-29 11:49 |
^ Following your comments on the un-Austin appearance, just a hunch but how about another Humber? The tear-drop sidelights look to be the same style and headlights and front wing seem more likely...![]() -- Last edit: 2018-10-29 11:53:09 |
◊ 2018-10-29 12:37 |
I think it’s ACO 707 again. If so the thumbs need deletion, or explanation. -- Last edit: 2018-10-29 12:39:21 |
◊ 2018-10-29 12:46 |
Actually ACO707 is seen immediately in front (I doubt any camera trickery) but another Humber 12 possibly a Vogue is likely I think. Agree about the thumbnails - vehicles at the hospital seen in the wrong context but both likely used by military. |
◊ 2018-10-29 12:49 |
^ What about numberplate trickery?! |
◊ 2018-10-29 12:54 |
I don't quite see how that would work both cars are seen continuously in the same scene with ACO707 in front. /vehicle_1197314-Humber-12-1937.html |
◊ 2018-10-29 14:12 |
It was intended as a mild witticism, which obviously failed. |
◊ 2018-10-30 13:42 |
Sorry, that missed the target completely; it had me confused for ages! |