Kool Pic Dodge Daytona's At The Dealership

[RIDGERACER383]

I found this kool pic thought I would share it.Enjoy.

[Ghoste]

Isn't that from the back lot at Creative Industries?

[RIDGERACER383]

I have no idea.Just saw the pic and grabbed it.

[472 R/T SE]

Did the factory not put grills in the '69's? 

That car up top in the middle is showing it's headlights but it's hard to tell if there's a grill in there.  I realize the 8's & 9's vacuum system & the doors' came open, but in that pic it's hard to see a grill.

[Ghoste]

It is hard to tell but it kind of looks to me like a grille might be there. 

[kikgas01]

Look at the paint on some of them.

[RIDGERACER383]

It does have a regular hood on it..It looks like a 68.

[bill440rt]

Did the factory not put grills in the '69's? 

That car up top in the middle is showing it's headlights but it's hard to tell if there's a grill in there.  I realize the 8's & 9's vacuum system & the doors' came open, but in that pic it's hard to see a grill.

Look closely at the Charger behind it. No grille in that one, either. Well... at least the headlight door is open. Coincidence? 

[472 R/T SE]

No door, no grill 

Why even put headlights in them...unless they transferred them to the nose cone?

How much of the car could they have left off & still be able to transport over to Creative?

[Patronus]

Those are those funny wingamabobs from Chrysler from back in the day. Never be worth nuttin'..

[hatersaurusrex]

No door, no grill 

Why even put headlights in them...unless they transferred them to the nose cone?

How much of the car could they have left off & still be able to transport over to Creative?

I thought the same thing, but using that logic why put the bumper on there either?  Maybe they needed to be roadworthy and were driven over?

[Ghoste]

There were some pics here once that were inside Creative but I can't recall for sure now if there were grilles leaning against the wall or not.  I would think the bumper would be one of the last things installed on the assembly line but they would be able to add or delete most anything (such as a grille) they wanted on the line.  As long as they could load them on the truck they would be fine, there wouldn't be any "roadworthy" requirements at that point.  They didn't drive them to Creative, it was in the Detroit Metro area but still 20 minutes from the plant.

[Ghoste]

Looks here like bumpers and grilles were on when the body was lowered over the engine.  The headlight doors are all open.  Of course they haven't had vacuum applied to them yet either.

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,55515.0.html

[hemigeno]

The Daytonas were made as complete cars by Hamtramck, minus the grille assembly.  You can see bumpers, valance/turn signals, and headlights in the car - but no grille or headlight doors.

Simply put, Chrysler built a complete car with every bit of DOT safety equipment on the car for which it was responsible to install.  They also installed other non-safety-related equipment that was needed to protect the car from exposure to the elements, which is why you see rear glass mouldings and the rear glass itself, etc.

This and the other related photos have been floating around the internet a while, but I do like looking at them.

[Ghoste]

Cool, thanks Gene!  (I was hoping one of you experts would chime in soon)

[odcics2]

FYI - all those Creative shots floated out of my file cabinet!   I have a TON of factory photos, but since Web Pirates take them, manipulate them, and sell them on ebay, well, I don't post them any more...    (Baker and Glotzbach on the wing of DC-93 at Chelsea with Buddy's foot dangling is an example)

I especially didn't like Randy Owens grabbing photos off of the Aerowarrior site that I gave to Ken Noffsinger and re-posting on cottonowens.com and claiming a copyright on them.  He poached a lot of them, too.     

[Ghoste]

Thats low, really low.

[nascarxx29]

Those are the creative industries back lot before cars were shipped to dealer theres a small amout of actual wingcars on the lots back in the day.As we were told many sat unsold

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,47587.msg520062.html#msg520062
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,79356.0.html

[nascarxx29]

Of 10 pages of vintage dealerships on this forum seen 2 birds and 1 Y2 daytona at the dealer

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.mopar-forum.eu/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmopar%2Bgermany%2Bforum%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1424%26bih%3D736%26prmd%3Dimvnsfd&sa=X&ei=FP7UUMODAsqp0AHmlIG4DA&ved=0CCEQ7gEwAA

Mopar-Dealer - vintage photos
[ Gehe zu Seite: 1 ... 4, 5, 6 ]

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.mopar-forum.eu/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmopar%2Bgermany%2Bforum%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1424%26bih%3D736%26prmd%3Dimvnsfd&sa=X&ei=FP7UUMODAsqp0AHmlIG4DA&ved=0CCEQ7gEwAA

[tan top]

FYI - all those Creative shots floated out of my file cabinet!   I have a TON of factory photos, but since Web Pirates take them, manipulate them, and sell them on ebay, well, I don't post them any more...    (Baker and Glotzbach on the wing of DC-93 at Chelsea with Buddy's foot dangling is an example)

I especially didn't like Randy Owens grabbing photos off of the Aerowarrior site that I gave to Ken Noffsinger and re-posting on cottonowens.com and claiming a copyright on them.  He poached a lot of them, too.    

,  the audacity of some people  to do something like that  
& spoil it for those who love seeing old back in the day any dealer / factory /racing pictures etc ,  

Thats low, really low.

yeah  ,

[A383Wing]

It does have a regular hood on it..It looks like a 68.

there should not be a 68 in that pic

Bryan

[nascarxx29]

  You can watermark your picture reference material with clear plastic overlay durng a scan.And share whatever .I dont mind seeing my ads or material republished .In Gregs K case they should acknowledge credits of source as done here.Greg K And Anthony Young were the source of daytona shipments

http://mopardealer.com/test.htm

[1970Moparmann]

I found the cat!

[472 R/T SE]

As long as they could load them on the truck they would be fine, there wouldn't be any "roadworthy" requirements at that point.  They didn't drive them to Creative, it was in the Detroit Metro area but still 20 minutes from the plant.

That's why I said transport & not drive.   
Although I've heard that driving them off the assembly line to the storage area was done rather quickly if say 2 A12 cars were going out at the same time.




Thanks Geno.  I figured enough "deer in the headlight" questions would shake loose an expert.

May I ask, considering rad. support paint, was it just the Daytonas' that had black out on the vertical top part of the support? 
I don't seem to remember seeing 'birds done that way.

[tan top]

You can watermark your picture reference material with clear plastic overlay durng a scan.And share whatever .I dont mind seeing my ads or material republished .In Gregs K case they should acknowledge credits of source as done here.Greg K And Anthony Young were the source of daytona shipments

http://mopardealer.com/test.htm

good link thanks for posting 

 

[WINGIN IT]

FYI - all those Creative shots floated out of my file cabinet!   I have a TON of factory photos, but since Web Pirates take them, manipulate them, and sell them on ebay, well, I don't post them any more...    (Baker and Glotzbach on the wing of DC-93 at Chelsea with Buddy's foot dangling is an example)

I especially didn't like Randy Owens grabbing photos off of the Aerowarrior site that I gave to Ken Noffsinger and re-posting on cottonowens.com and claiming a copyright on them.  He poached a lot of them, too.     

Understandable, but since they are factory photos they are not your intellectual property either are they?
It's ashame that you have to keep any photos unseen from public view.
They might as well not exist.
You could post them on a site and make them "uncopyable" .
That way everyone wins. 

[odcics2]

FYI - all those Creative shots floated out of my file cabinet!   I have a TON of factory photos, but since Web Pirates take them, manipulate them, and sell them on ebay, well, I don't post them any more...    (Baker and Glotzbach on the wing of DC-93 at Chelsea with Buddy's foot dangling is an example)

I especially didn't like Randy Owens grabbing photos off of the Aerowarrior site that I gave to Ken Noffsinger and re-posting on cottonowens.com and claiming a copyright on them.  He poached a lot of them, too.     

Understandable, but since they are factory photos they are not your intellectual property either are they?
It's ashame that you have to keep any photos unseen from public view.
They might as well not exist.
You could post them on a site and make them "uncopyable" .
That way everyone wins. 

Never said they were mine. Never implied it either.  When they ended up on the owens site and have a claim THEY owned them, well, that's when I got ticked.   The reasonable way would have been to ask Ken N. for permission to use them from his site and NOT claim a copyright.  (various car magazines have done this in the past)  All those old vintage pics were taken by Chrysler, so they own the copyright.    I have an issue with others grabbing Chrysler photos and making copys of them for sale on ebay so they can make money.  I'm sure you can see my point.

Where can pics be posted and not copied?   That sounds like a good idea... 
I have no problem with guys like us sharing photos for personal use.  That's what they are for.

[held1823]

is there truly any way to make a photo non-copyable? i've never seen one. various hosting sites (flicker, etc) allow you to disable the "right click/save" feature, which will work to stop the vast majority of people, but even "protected" photos can be copied, in mere seconds, by someone with a bit of technical savvy. while many do this with no thought of abusing what they save, there are certainly people who will exploit this ability for personal gain.

the uploaded resolution limitation on most websites isn't high enough for making quality reproductions, but not always. i understand the irritation of someone profiting from something that isn't theirs, but outside of simply not sharing info/photos with fellow enthusiasts, there is no fool-proof way to stop them. a search through the ebay listings is proof positive of this abuse. it is definitely a shame when the few opportunists ruin it for the majority.

gk, you won't remember it, but i believe you and i had conversed twenty or so years ago about daytonas in general, and the one here in specific. your willingness to share info then, and your reputation within the hobby for an even longer time, are without question. that someone's actions have caused you to reconsider what to share, is truly a huge loss for the wing car community.

[1970Moparmann]

is there truly any way to make a photo non-copyable?

No.  Like you said, there are websites that do not allow you to right click and copy or save as, but there is plenty of software that can do this for you.  

If you want to "protect" a picture, put a big watermark logo or name on it which is imbedded into the picture.

As an example -

[Nwcharger]

Even if there is a way to prevent I picture from being copied You can still just take a pic of the pic with your phone. I do it all the time on toyotatrekker.com where they don't allow you to copy a picture. I don't do it repost them and claim as mine, I just like to have an archive of automotive photos that i think are cool or unique.

[held1823]

the watermark above is rediculously extreme in size, but still better than a non-transparent one. as stated, it is the way to prevent unauthorized profiteering or ownership claims.

btw... toyota and unique/cool used together? blasphemy !!!

[WINGIN IT]

I agree with all you guys.
Oddcic2,  like I said it's understandable you would be upset about someone taking images and trying to profit from them when they are not theirs.  I agree entirely.
What is ashame is that it's stopped you from sharing some great histortical photos.

I am not tech savvy enough to know the process behind how to not make a photo "uncopyable" on a website yet, but that along with watermarking the photos should allow you to post the photos without them being sold for profit.
As stated it will deter 99% of people who are not as tech savvy to copy them , and those who are, will need software to do so.
And even if they did, they'd have the watermark on them to deter them further.
Fullproof? Nothing is fullproof.
But it's probably the best available solution unless someone else has one.
Question is, is this something YOU are comfortable with ?

[WINGIN IT]

Lots of good ideas here:
http://www.webresourcesdepot.com/10-ways-to-protect-images-from-being-stolen/

Again, is it 100% full proof ? No.
But it'll certainly deter most of the scum suckers who look for low hanging fruit to take and use as their own .

[472 R/T SE]

You don't need to take a photo to get a copy.  Just hit the "Prt Scrn" on your keypad.  It stands for Print Screen which is a screen save of whatever is on your monitor. 

Best way would be to load it up with those watermarks like 1970Moparman posted that way the picture takers & screen savers can't have their way.

[WINGIN IT]

Right one can always hit print screen on most anything, that's why I suggest a 2 prong approach at the least.
Watermarks can put in so they cannot be cropped out and not overshadow the picture content. 

[hemigeno]

Thanks Geno.  I figured enough "deer in the headlight" questions would shake loose an expert.

May I ask, considering rad. support paint, was it just the Daytonas' that had black out on the vertical top part of the support? 
I don't seem to remember seeing 'birds done that way.

I'll admit to being an expert (on Daytonas) only if I'm also allowed to make mistakes 

As to your question about radiator support paint, I'm not too well versed in Superbird details.  The majority of Daytonas received two separate applications of radiator yoke paint - once at Hamtramck (which didn't normally but certainly could have included the top "cross" piece of the support) and another dose at Creative.  With this second application, they used blackout paint in varying degrees on the front inner fender braces (the part visible to the right and left of the Z-braces with the hood open), and usually across the top of the radiator yoke.  This was all done towards the end of the cars' conversion, after all the front end's body-color paint had been applied.  A few cars received little or no blackout paint at all, but these are the exceptions since most cars did get it.  With regard to the yoke's top crossbrace blackout paint, I don't think the purpose was as much to black out the radiator yoke bracing as it was to apply paint to the spot-welded bracket to which the latch tray had been affixed.  Normally, this piece was installed bare - probably to facilitate spotwelding - and to leave it in that bare condition would be to invite a nice coating of ugly flash rust in no time flat.  A quick spritz with flat black kept that from happening, and the radiator yoke top crosspiece was more or less collateral damage.

Whether Superbirds were assembled in the same fashion or had the same rust prohibitive concerns, I do not know, sorry.

[Aero426]

No blackout treatment was performed on Superbirds.   

[472 R/T SE]

Again...THANKS Geno.  So I can remember, now's a good time for me to "Prt Scrn".   

No blackout treatment was performed on Superbirds.  

May I ask, was that completely?  Are you saying they left the factory with no black out prior to even Creative?  Makes sense, saves a step which saves money.  Guess I've never paid that much attention which is unlike me.  I always tend to pay attention to radiator support black outs collecting as many pix & labeling which factory if at all possible.  Yeah, I'm an odd duck.  

[Ricomondo]

Very cool pictures!

Isn't there one similar to this one taken from the roof at creative?
I believe it shows the same holiding lot?


Also, to the poster who was complaining about his photos being pirated. I have a friend who sells photos to Getty and Stockphoto, and he watermarks his photos with a copyright as stated above with a program he has.

Now this next part is interesting, he told me he checks for piracy by drag/drop the photo into google images.
He said it works better in FireFox than I.E. Hoep this helps you.

[Aero426]

Again...THANKS Geno.  So I can remember, now's a good time for me to "Prt Scrn".   

No blackout treatment was performed on Superbirds.  

May I ask, was that completely?  Are you saying they left the factory with no black out prior to even Creative?  Makes sense, saves a step which saves money.  Guess I've never paid that much attention which is unlike me.  I always tend to pay attention to radiator support black outs collecting as many pix & labeling which factory if at all possible.  Yeah, I'm an odd duck.  

Superbirds did not go to Creative.    They did go from Lynch Rd to the Clairpointe pilot plant for work.    They did not receive a radiator black out. 

[odcics2]

Very cool pictures!

Isn't there one similar to this one taken from the roof at creative?
I believe it shows the same holiding lot?


Also, to the poster who was complaining about his photos being pirated. I have a friend who sells photos to Getty and Stockphoto, and he watermarks his photos with a copyright as stated above with a program he has.

Now this next part is interesting, he told me he checks for piracy by drag/drop the photo into google images.
He said it works better in FireFox than I.E. Hoep this helps you.

I think I'll continue to give them to aerowarriors.com for posting...   That way they'll get a watermark and be in an easy to find location.