Advertising Last completed movie pages 1956 Daimler Conquest Century MkII Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2005-10-16 01:29 |
Daimler Conquest |
|
◊ 2005-10-16 11:34 |
or a Majestic?...but you're may be right as the Majestic seems to have rear wings much more flat than the vehicle seen here |
|
◊ 2007-08-03 11:53 |
It is not a Conquest or a Majestic but a Regency |
|
◊ 2007-08-03 13:14 |
Because of the rounded rear wings: 1951/1952 Mk.I ? |
|
◊ 2007-08-03 18:37 |
Because of the rear window too. It doesn't look like the Majestic's or the Conquest. But Regency is very rare |
|
◊ 2007-09-25 08:55 |
How do you all pronounce the name? In English, it seems to me it'd be DAME-ler; but guess I'm wrong and it's DIME-ler. (German origin?) Revealing ignorance, I guess. How does it sound in other languages? (We hear "DIME-ler/Chrysler" since the merger, & subsequent break-up.) |
|
◊ 2007-09-25 12:05 |
It's not ignorance at all, Leeshore. As is so often the case in the British English/American English debate, the American version is the more correct. 'Dimeler' echoes the German pronunciation, 'dameler is how the Brits say it. It's a bit like derby versus darby and clerk versus clark. And as for 'You say tom-ay-tow and I say...', well don't let's go there any more!  |
|
◊ 2007-09-25 12:19 |
In spanish we read as its writen, i dont know if you are understanding me, so DAIM-ler is what we say  |
|
◊ 2007-12-14 20:40 |
tipi9 and DynaMike agree about the rear window not Conquest but Regency (Mk.I probably). This is Mk.II - different bumpers, double-section. ![[Image: daimlerregencyiivb1.5650.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/0is91/daimlerregencyiivb1.5650.jpg) |
|
◊ 2008-08-13 08:18 |
The number plate "C*1" denotes the Australian Prime Minister's car. |
|
◊ 2013-01-20 02:32 |
I'm not sure why folks think this could be Regency Mk 1. The giveaway is the hubcap style which would not fit a Regency Mk 1 owing to that car's extended stub axle which required a deeper hubcap. The Regency style hubcap was also partly painted in the body colour. Also the petrol cap position indicates a Conquest. The Regency's was much higher on the rear mudguard. The lack of a chrome strip on the rear window indicates a 75 bhp Conquest. If you need more evidence, the overriders on the rear bumper also indicate a Conquest. -- Last edit: 2013-01-20 02:33:38 |
|
◊ 2013-01-20 02:56 |
@maudslay - interested to read your comments - I'm far too young etc to have known these cars in period, so enjoy seeing an expert at work. Why did Daimler not just standardise their axles - seems a frivolous idiosyncracy not to make things easier for production simplification? Can you suggest a date for this one? Also, any comments on our Conquests welcome in view of what you've said about Regencys and One-O-Fours - /vehicles.php?make=Daimler&model=Conquest&modelMatch=1&modelInclModel=on . |
|
◊ 2014-03-17 09:13 |
Maudslay on the money again, it is Conquest. From the poor picture, it looks to have the wrong rear overriders fitted, and could possibly be a Mk2 version. As an aside: Only one Mk1 Regency saloon is believed extant, and is currently in Ireland. |
|
◊ 2015-08-09 03:07 |
Having looked again at this, the CHASSIS is definitely Conquest Century, even though the trim level suggests Conquest. |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
— Made for: 
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
