• Hi Guest!
    You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Could someone identify this car

Share this page

E

Erlingur

Freshman Member
Offline
Hi all,

Here's a pic taken around WWII in Iceland. I noticed the right hand side steering wheel, thought it could be British made. If someone knows the make, model or year of the car, please post on the thread.

5301074334_65becabfe3_b.jpg


Thanks,
Erlingur
 
Erlingur - I think it's a 1936 (or 37 or 38) Buick Roadmaster. Take a look:

images


1938-Sturla_jr_sr.jpg


1936-1992-buick-roadmaster-4.jpg


https://rides.webshots.com/album/5392100eZYWAtzGHV

Note the hood vents, shape of the fenders, "suicide" doors, running lights on the front fenders, and headlamps.

Today in Iceland all cars must have lights on when running. I wonder if it was the same back in the 1940s?

Velkomin til BCFs!

Tom in Connecticut
 
Yes ! The hood vents are a dead give-away, of course it's a Buick.

You're correct on the todays lights on while running here in Iceland. It wasn't made mandatory until 1984 though, when wearing seatbelts was made mandatory as well.

Thanks Tom

r,
Erlingur
 
Sorry to rant on about Buick on a British car forum, but it seems the vents were made bigger in 1937 along with some other minor changes.

Here's a link to a homepage of a member of Buick Club of America that has a '36 Buick with the same vents as the car in my pic.
 
Prior to WW II, a lot of American cars were shipped to various parts of the world, set up for their driving regulations, especially right and left hand drive. Cuba and some South American countries still have quite a few 1930s and 40s models still on the road. Some engines were even designed to run on kerosene or other poor quality fuels. And, some were even converted locally to run on coal gas.
 
I'm just trying to figure out how Jack Skellington got in the picture!
review_oogie_1a.jpg
 
Banjo said:
I'm just trying to figure out how Jack Skellington got in the picture!
review_oogie_1a.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by this post, but if this is a gibe at departed family member in my photo I will take enormous offence!

Erlingur
 
Erlingur, Ben is talking about the 2 burn marks. They kind of look like his pic he posted.
I'm sure he was not poking offense at your relatives
 
Banjo is also a photography enthusiast, and I've been a photojournalist in a long previous career. The damage in that image is really puzzling. Looks to be on the negative but doesn't yet make sense to me. I believe (if it IS on the neg) it could only have occurred after the image was processed, not in the camera...

Have you any info, Erlingur?
 
This pic is from a negative I've scanned, the negatives in this case were about 3.3" x 2.2" for one pic, all cut to contain one pic.

Here's another pic taken on the same occation, also scanned from a neg

5300477769_dca23d1c24_b.jpg


As you can see there are two burn holes on that one as well, although in different locations. I would regard myself as a photograph enthusiast as well, but I haven't paid much attention to these burn holes before. I've scanned about 7 thousand pics that I’ve inherited, trying to piece together info about them since no one is around to explain them. Just a handful of them have burn holes like these though.

Erlingur
 
I wonder if at one point someone used a negative "viewer" backlit lightbulb box. I've seen slides get burnt like that for the same reason
 
Gentlemen - take a look at Erlingur's first picture. Those two "eyes" look like two blobs of oil on water: one blob "changes" the shape of the other, like a yin/yang symbol.

Also, the blobs in both pictures are actually positioned in what look like horizontal lines, or scratches, across the negative. That's really obvious in the second picture, but also exists in the first.

My guess: a chemical mishap during the process of developing the negatives. Something splattered - a developer chemical? - then the negative was wiped (or dragged) across the blob after the blob did its damage.

Just my 2 krona.
Tom in Connecticut
PS - Erlingur, I have some friends at the Tonmenntaskola. Please say hello to Stefan and Hanna (directors) if you happen to go there.
 
There are two dissimilar density "tracks", right side is "darker" than the one on the left. May be chemical damage, processor marks as the roll was moving through some lab's machine? Poorly mixed chemistry? It doesn't make sense to me that it was from any "viewer" tho.

Are the spots actually holes in the negs?

Curious.
 
DrEntropy said:
There are two dissimilar density "tracks", right side is "darker" than the one on the left. May be chemical damage, processor marks as the roll was moving through some lab's machine? Poorly mixed chemistry? It doesn't make sense to me that it was from any "viewer" tho.

Are the spots actually holes in the negs?

Curious.
Click to expand...

No holes in the negs, I'm not familiar enough with film development to comment on how this came about. Some of the films I've scanned are of really poor quality, there are big fingerprints on some negs, badly cut etc. I suspect some of this was done by hand during WW II here in Iceland.

Erlingur
 
Do you see any identifiers on the film for manufacturer and type. Hope they are not nitrate negs.
 
Quite familiar with the beasties. Meniscus lens, two-bladed shutter, f/11 fixed diaphragm. 2.25"x3.5" (6x9cm) image size. Can't imagine the spots/tracks being from the camera... too inconsistent.

Interesting to see images from the period, too.
 
Back
Top