It's easy to sit back now, armed with mounds of assimilated knowledge and criticize those 40 year-old publications. Since their initial publication a scant 30 years after the Model "A" had ceased production, innumerable researchers and restorers have willingly shared the benefit of their efforts with the Model "A" community and broadened our knowledge base. Compared to what was known about the Model "A" Ford when these books were published, today we're "loaded for bear"! Authors of books and articles that followed these pioneering works owe a great debt of gratitude to these early trailblazing authors for planting the seeds that eventually grew into the successful Model "A" Ford hobby we all enjoy today!

2. ...on the Other Hand...
But on the more critical, analytical side of the coin, there were a lot of mistakes in these publications that have been accepted as gospel over the years and passed along from one restorer to the next. "Look at the picture in this book, Marv. It proves that I'm right and you're wrong!" Sound familiar?

Question: How can original Ford factory photographs of the Model "A" be wrong?

Answer: They can't be! It's not the photographs themselves that are at fault, rather it's the captions added after the fact that constitute the mistakes. These published mistakes usually take the form of incorrectly identified Model "A" body styles, features and/or year of manufacture. A red herring that has also caused confusion since these factory photographs were taken includes showing prototype models with features that didn't make it into production. A cursory study of such photos would lead one to think that his production example was wrong! Occasionally some of these identification mistakes and misleading photos were addressed on an individual photograph by photograph basis in Model "A" magazine articles over the years. Unless you happened to be fortunate enough to own every single article and magazine ever printed about Model "A" Fords during the past 70+ years, you might have missed a few of these corrections.

So why hasn't someone combed through these classic reference sources and compiled a comprehensive corrections list for the benefit of newcomers to the hobby (as well as for some of us "old timers")? Well, Humble Self has taken up that challenge. The first step, at least...

3. ...and on the Third Hand (?).
To begin this process, I selected two commonly-used reference books for photographic analysis. These two works were not targeted based on the high number of errors they contain. Rather, they were chosen because: (1) they are rich in photographic documentation; (2) they're still available today in reprint form; and (3) both can be found in almost any restorer's library. The focus (no pun intended) of this article is photographic re-examination, meaning only the photographs and their captions were put under the microscope, not the accompanying main body of text throughout the rest of the books. I'm sure I wasn't able to snare all the photographic misidentifications, so maybe eagle-eyed readers can find others. What follows ought to get the ball rolling.

4. The Ground Rules
But first, let's put things into their proper perspective. Are these misidentifications a threat to world peace? Probably not. Will the sun still rise tomorrow? Probably so. Why, then, stir up a big stink about mistakes that were printed 40 years ago? Well, if for no other reason than to right a wrong, it's kind of fun to pit your analytical skills and knowledge of our favorite antique car against what the experts said was so way back during the caveman era of the Model "A" hobby.

A couple of other ground rules must be mentioned here. The authors of these books are to be commended for their groundbreaking work and the following corrections are in no way meant to slight their efforts. No author really likes to have his mistakes pointed out (even 40 years later!), but mistakes are mistakes and need to be rectified! "To err is human. To point it out is even more human".

Finally, remember: we're not "book bashing" a couple of classic works here. We're just "retroactively adjusting and re-aligning accuracy-challenged" reference sources, a politically correct statement for the 1990's if I've ever heard one!

Agreed? O.K., let's tip-toe through the yellowed pages of Floyd Clymer and Leslie Henry's "Ford Model "A" Album" (1960) and Leslie Henry's "Henry's Fabulous Model "A" (1959) and try to set the record straight on a few photographic issues. I'll wait right here while you dig out your dog-eared copies of these books for comparison.

Got `em? Good! Then let's get started with this edition of "What's Wrong with this Picture?"

"Model A Album"
(1960)
by Floyd Clymer & Leslie R. Henry

#1, page 11 - An early ("AR") phaeton, yes, but not "one of the earliest Model `A' Fords", as the caption states. Note the presence of the later closed end front bumpers instead of the super-early open-ended bumpers, which resembled `26-27 Model "T" optional front bumpers. This phaeton was no doubt an "AR", but not one of the couple hundred "earliest" with open ended bumpers. A fine point of distinction, to be sure; but to be truly considered "earliest" and not just plain "early", open-ended front bumpers ought to be present, don't you think?

#3, page 12 - In 1928-29, a Standard Roadster was a Standard Roadster, optional rumble seat notwithstanding. Did Ford ever really use the terms "Sport" and "Business" to distinguish between roadsters with and without rumble seats? Where is this documented in sales or service literature? Or did such a distinction first make its appearance in this book? Presumably this line of reasoning follows the "Sport Coupe" versus "Business Coupe" pattern, meaning the Sport Coupe featured a rumble seat, while the Business Coupe did not.

#7, page 14 - This is a '29 roadster, not a '28. This statement is not based on the presence of outside door handles, as they became available on very late '28 open cars. Note the electric windshield wiper motor above the windshield frame and windwings, both factory-installed features for '29. Also, the color scheme is light lower body/dark upper body, the opposite pattern of most '28 models. Although the electric windshield wiper did come out in late '28, the combination of this with the windwings and color scheme indicate this is more likely a '29 roadster.

#12, page 16 - The text claims that an oval window was added to the 1928 Business Coupe's rear quarter top panel "later in the year". Oval rear quarter top windows did become available for this plain Jane body style, but not until the '29 models (and not on all of them, either! Especially the early '29 Business Coupes). '28 Business Coupes should have no such windows.

#18, page 19 - This early '28 Fordor has a cowl band, which was not regular equipment on production models until the Town Car, Town Sedan and Cabriolet body styles were introduced in 1929. The standard `28-29 Fordor Sedan did not have this cowl band from the factory, unless specially ordered (in 1929 only) and was usually accompanied by cowl lights. The cowl band in this photo looks narrower than the one seen on later models. Because this particular Fordor has so many non-production features (cowl band, celluloid visor, cowl vent and non-black wheels), this was probably a prototype later fitted with closed-end bumpers. Note the lack of a "hump" at the back of the side splash apron and the early wheels, both of which make this car an "AR"

#19 & 20, page 20 - The Town Car did not appear until the '29 models were offered in January. There is no such thing as a "1928 Town Car", drum taillight notwithstanding (also an early '29 feature). The car pictured here is an early '29 model, before the "teacup" shaped taillight became standard.

#27-31, pages 24-26 - How was the author able to determine which color these 1929 roadsters were wearing, based on a black and white photograph? Such information was not noted on the factory photographs. Modern photographic spectroanalysis can distinguish between black and other dark colors, but this ability was not sufficiently advanced when this book was written. And it's doubtful today whether this process could distinguish between "Bonnie Gray" and "Balsam Green" in these photos with any degree of certainty. Perhaps this was just the author's way of listing the colors available for this body style?

#32, page 26 - This is a 1928 "Special" Coupe, not a 1929 "Standard" Coupe. Look at the top material in back, which stretches down to the belt line, i.e., "Special" Coupe. The dark lower body/light upper body paint scheme also hints that it's a '28 model.

#33, page 27 - Judging by the light colored windshield frame and the dark lower/light upper body paint scheme, this is a '28 Sport Coupe, not a '29 as stated. The thing that clinches this as a '28 model, however, is the angle of the hood vents. Early-mid `28 hood vents sloped downward, parallel to the splash apron, not to the hinged portion of the hood. This feature was changed during the year so that the tops of the louvers were parallel to the upper and lower panel juncture. Details, details...

#35, page 28 - Another semantics issue: "...the 40 HP engine drives the car at 65 MPH with ease". C'mon, now: "65 MPH with ease"??? Does your meticulously rebuilt and balanced Model "A" engine hit 65 MPH with "ease"? And if it does, how long will it be before you pound out the center main???

#39, page 30 - The 68-A '29 Cabriolet upholstery was gray check only, not artificial leather. The '31 slant windshield (not Ford terminology, by the way) 68-C was the only one of the three Cabriolet iterations to offer a grained leather upholstery option.

#48, page 34 - Someone on the factory line goofed and ignored Henry's orders while assembling this roadster pickup! Note the spare tire's valve stem. It's in the wrong position! It's supposed to be at the top, pointing downward on `28-29 models (slightly backwards canted on `30-31 models), if the caption to #22, page 21 is correct. How do you suppose this hours' old, factory-fresh little pickup truck's spare tire ended up in this position? The assembly faux pas was embarrassing enough; but then to record it for posterity via a camera? How humiliating!!!
Have any of you pickup owners ever noticed this boo-boo?

#51, page 36 - Uh-oh! I think we've spotted a case of "license plate sharing" going on between this 1930 Standard Phaeton and several other 1930 body styles shown in this book! Only there are two different plates with the same number: one dark with light lettering and one light with dark lettering! And both of them clearly read: "Michigan 1930"! Note the license plate number: 24-582. The phaeton in this photo is wearing the darker plate, as is the Standard Coupe in views #64 and #66.

But the light-colored plate with dark lettering shows up on the DeLuxe Phaeton in view #54, page 37, on the DeLuxe Roadster at the bottom of page 41, on the 1930 Cabriolet in images #72 & 73, on the Town Sedan in #78 and in the very last photo in the book, which shows the rear of a 1930 Coupe on page 142. This very same plate even pops up in the artist's drawing of a 1930 DeLuxe Phaeton in view #55, page 38! This plate really got around! Me thinks that this license plate switching practice was illegal even back then! Tsk, tsk! Couldn't the Ford Motor Company afford to buy more than one license plate for its 1,485,600 1930 Model "A"s??? If we tried to pull that license plate sharing routine today with our cars, we'd be in big trouble! But then, who in 1930 Detroit is going to hassle Henry Ford about such legal trivialities?

#52, page 36 - Artist's error: hand-operated windshield wipers on open cars went away at the end of 1928. This drawing is supposed to depict a 1930 Standard Phaeton. It ought to have an electric wiper for very early models (a carry-over from the `29's) or a vacuum operated one thereafter. Also, look closely for the characteristic divide line between the front fender "nose" and splash apron, characteristic of the 1930-early '31 Model "A"s. On second thought, don't bother looking - it ain't there. This is a 1931 Standard Phaeton. OOPS!

#62, page 41 - No problems here, just admiration for probably the best factory photograph ever to be made of the Model "A". If this photo of a 1930 DeLuxe Roadster doesn't get your heart thumping on a beautiful spring day, you're in the wrong hobby! There's a companion version of this same posed country club scene where the chap with his hand on the passenger door has his head turned, looking into the front compartment. For some reason, it's not as effective as the other version. I wonder why? Same car, same people, same location. Yet not as enticing. `Must be something subliminal and primal. Where's Freud when you need him???

#68, page 44 - The artist has drawn a 1930-early '31 Cabriolet, not a Sport Coupe as identified. Note the lack of a sun visor and the two-tone paint scheme with the upper rear deck being completely painted upper body color, two sure signs of a Cabriolet. In this case, cowl lights would not be "an added accessory" (aren't all accessories "added"?). They were standard equipment on all `29-31 Cabriolets, except for prototype, extremely early '29 models. The artist's main error was not chrome plating the windshield frame, a feature that began with the 1930 models ('29 Cabriolet windshield frames were painted upper body color).

#72, page 46 - As with the '29 Cabriolet caption on page 30, grained leather was not an option for this body style until the 68-C slant windshield version appeared in May, 1931. The upholstery selections for the 1930 Cabriolet included gray check (until February, 1930), tan Bedford cloth and brown mohair.

#89, page 55 - How on earth did the author decide from this view that the body style was a Sport Coupe??? Also, this radiator shell was not the "outstanding feature of all 1930 Fords". For 1930 passenger vehicles, yes; at least until the deluxe shell (which later became the standard on 1931 passenger cars) appeared on the Victoria Coupe later in the year. For 1930 commercial and pickup trucks, the shell was steel, painted gloss black.

#90, page 55 - Same blanket statement problem here as above. Not "all 1931 Fords" used the stainless steel radiator shell with painted inserts in top and bottom. The early 1931's continued to use the 1930 style shell, while the "DeLuxe" shell on the Victoria Coupe served as a foretaste of the near future. For all we know, this may be a late 1930 Victoria with the "DeLuxe" radiator shell, not a '31. Moreover, from this view the slant windshield model shown here could be a Fordor or Town Sedan, not only a Victoria Coupe. Once again for 1931, commercial and pickup trucks featured a metal, black radiator shell. Later in the '31 year, the commercial radiator got bigger and the shell lost its characteristic "widow's peak".

While we're on the subject of distinguishing between the 1930 and early 1931 models, it must be remembered that many of these cars could be either in this book. Remember the authors' caveat at the beginning of the book - the numbers below the photos do not mean anything in so far as dating when the picture was taken! The features that truly identify later '31 cars - such as solid splash aprons, DeLuxe radiator shell, non-black wheels, slant windshields, `31-specific body styles such as the 400-A or wide bed Pickup Truck, etc. - won't show up in early '31 views. So a case could be argued that minus these features, the cars pictured could be either `30's or early `31's!!! Flip a coin. Odds are, though, that much like parents with the first born - where there are lots more photographs of that child in the family album than of subsequent issuings - more factory photos were probably taken of the new 1930 models than the subsequent '31 versions. Speculation, but not without basis.

#91, page 56 - This 1931 Standard Phaeton rendition was addressed above in #52. The "two" drawings are in fact the same one, just in different printing shades.

#97, page 59 - Semantics issue: "The stone screen and propeller on the radiator are of questionable practicality". The propeller probably is a bit trivial, but obviously the author of this caption hadn't lost many radiators to flying rocks kicked up by passing construction trucks! And with most roads being unpaved back in those days, it would be likely that damage to the radiator was a much more common problem than it is today. As far as "practicality" goes, which would have been more practical in the 1930's - installing a stone guard or re-coring expensive radiators after a drive in the country???

Another point of interest here. This car may actually be a 1930 DeLuxe Roadster, not a '31. It's not because the dual side mounts were deep-sixed as standard equipment on '31 models - but still available as an extra cost option. Look closely at the two lower stanchion bolts: they are rounded and bright colored as on 1930 open models instead of the 1931 hex head style. The heads were painted upper body color in 1931. The bolts in this photo are obviously a lighter color, such as the cadmium plated 1930 stanchion bolts. I wonder if the non-visible license plate on this roadster is the ubiquitous "24-582"???

#98, page 59 - This is a DeLuxe Roadster, not a Standard. Note the wood/chrome plated metal top iron construction, unlike the Standard Roadster's black tubular design. This is the technically poorer quality brother photo of the better exposed #94 on page 57. They were undoubtedly taken during the same photo session and may even be the same photo, just cropped differently for publication.

#99-101, pages 60-61 - "1931 Tudor Sedan". What's missing in this short caption? Up until now, the captions in this book consistently specified (even if incorrectly sometimes) "Standard" or "DeLuxe", when applicable. Why change "standards" at this point? Isn't the car pictured here actually a newly introduced Deluxe Tudor Sedan, not a Standard Tudor? The caption in #101 states that "regular equipment on the Tudor are cowl lamps and hand loops on the interior door posts". These were features on the new deluxe model, not on the standard one, which had neither (unless specially ordered). This is most likely a DeLuxe Tudor Sedan.

#107, page 65 - Perception difference here: more than any other year of the Cabriolet's existence, the 68-C slant windshield Cabriolet is easier to distinguish from the Sport Coupe! Sport Coupe windshield pillars were straight, the windshield frame was painted upper body color and there was a visor. But the 68-C slant windshield Cabriolet pillars were - well, slanted -, the windshield frame was chrome plated, stainless steel (rare) or aluminum (even rarer still) and there was no visor. Additionally, the top's folding landau irons were chrome plated on the Cabriolet, but painted lower body color on the Sport Coupe.

Also, why the extra straight windshield "68-B" designation in the caption? The 68-B 1930 straight windshield design continued into about May of 1931 when the slant windshield version was introduced. The car pictured here is obviously a 68-C slant windshield model. Scratch out "68-B " in your book.

#116-117, pages 68-69 - This purported "1931" Standard Coupe is the same car identified as a "1930" Standard Coupe in figures #64 and #66 on pages 42 and 43, respectively. Although the car has been moved away from the oil or water puddles visible beneath the coupe in those photos, this car was nonetheless photographed on the same day and in the same location, namely next to the factory. Someone in the camera crew must have noticed the embarrassing splotches beneath the brand new car in the earlier views and moved the vehicle to a cleaner spot for the "1931" photographs. Would an hours' old Model "A" leak like that already? (unless I personally put the motor together!)

How can we be sure these "1930" and "1931" photos are of the exact same car? Remember the traveling license plate from earlier? It's on "both" of these coupes. The plate is dark colored and in the first two views (#64 and #66), the first three digits on this 1930 plate appear to be "245" and final two perhaps were "82". In the "1931" view, the rear license plate reveals the first two digits as "24". Could this just be a coincidence or is this also the same license plate? It is the same plate, "24-582"- and the same car.

The question still remains, though: is the car pictured in these views a 1930 or an early '31? The split splash aprons and 1930 style passenger car radiator shell don't help us decide which. Well, we can probably assume that since the traveling license plate appeared on a whole slew of other 1930 Model "A"s in this book, we're probably looking at a '30 Standard Coupe, not an early '31. Or did that same plate travel into 1931 as well?

#119, page 70 - There were more color combinations for the 1931 DeLuxe Coupe than listed in this caption. A lot more. Just for grins, look up the number of official color combinations for this model in MAFCA's "Paint and Finish Guide". It's staggering! In fact, a customer could order just about any color combo in 1931 and the factory would oblige. Remember: this was during the depth of the Great Depression and Ford was willing to accommodate customers more than he had in the past just to sell a car. This point is only mentioned here so that '31 DeLuxe Coupe owners are aware that their color choice is considerably broader than this caption would lead one to think.

#120, page 70 - This is not a Cabriolet because the windshield is painted. As mentioned earlier, the `30-31 Cabriolets featured chrome plated, stainless steel or aluminum windshield frames. From this view, one can only guess the car is a Coupe, Sport Coupe or Tudor Sedan, all of which retained the painted, straight windshield in 1931. Judging by the following photo of a dark colored Sport Coupe with the same "M-5" license plate, this car is most likely the very same vehicle.

#109, page 65, #114, page 67, and #115, page 68 - Here we go again with the shared license plate scam, only this time the '31 Town Sedan, Standard Fordor and DeLuxe ("blindback") Fordor Sedans are each using the same "391-070" plate. Local authorities really should have looked into such continued disregard for the law, Henry Ford or no!

#121, page 71 and #125, page 73 - Yup, another flagrant example of shared license plate abuse. The '31 Sport Coupe and Victoria Coupe are sharing the "M-5" plate. I'm glad we're at the end of the book because this license plate issue is really beginning to get my law abiding blood boiling - especially every time I make out a check to our local Motor Vehicle Department for renewing our numerous antique cars' plates!

Had enough? At this point you're probably saying: "O.K., wiseacre! You've already slaughtered one Sacred Cow! Do you have to shove another one through the meat grinder?"
Yes.
For you beef lovers, here's the second book to be re-examined:

Henry's Fabulous Model "A" Ford
(1959)
by Leslie R. Henry

#11, page 16 - This "perfectly restored to original condition" 1928 Phaeton doesn't even have a contrasting upper body color, which the Ford Advertising Department played up so much. In fact, many of the privately owned cars shown in this book and purported to be "authentic restorations" today would be considered only "fair", yet incorrect restorations. Such things as missing front bumpers (#33), painted hubcaps (#45), pin striped hood louvers (#54), wrong color combinations (#79), etc., etc., can be found throughout this book. This goes back to a statement made in this article's beginning about the amount of increased Model "A" knowledge leading to better, more authentically restored cars.

In all fairness, for their time these cars probably were considered "authentic" restorations. So rather than nit-pick each restorer's car to death based on a black and white photograph, the remainder of this article will focus on author descriptions and outright identification errors. The reader is left to spot restoration errors on his own.

#36-38, pages 47-48 - The factory Station Wagon body style wasn't available until 1929. There is no such animal as a "1928" factory-built Station Wagon.

#39, page 48 - Judging by the top iron configuration, this is a DeLuxe Roadster, not a Standard. Standard roadsters used black, tubular top irons, not plated metal with wood bows, as seen here.

#43, page 52 - Wayne Steinmetz's acres of Model "A" Fords. No photographic problems here, just a question: "Why can't I have neighbors like that???"

#52, page 58 - Dolores Del Rio's "1929" Sport Coupe is in fact a 1928 model, and an early one, to boot! Look at the downward slanting louvers at the rear of the hood, a sign of the early '28 models. This publicity photo was used in early 1928 to promote not only the Model "A", but also Miss Del Rio's acting career.

#70, page 68 - "Brewster Green" was not a standard color option on 1929 Town Sedans. The "Brewster Green"/black color combo was a Town Car option. If the author's Town Sedan still had the original factory paint and it was in fact "Brewster Green", this combination must have been specially ordered from the factory.

#74, page 74 - This can't be the firewall of a phaeton! The firewall is that of a '29 Murray or Briggs body with a concealed gas tank and cowl band (no cowl bands on production 1928 cars). Knowing that the author of this book owned a 1928 Phaeton - whose engine compartment is featured in the photo above this one - and a 1929 Town Sedan, this engine compartment is more likely in his sedan, not his '29 Phaeton.

#80, page 82 - Nothing incorrectly identified in this factory photograph; just two points of interest to mention. Firstly, note that the whitewalls of that era were white on both sides of the tires. Technically, any whitewalls appearing on restored cars today are incorrect unless they are double-sided white. But who sells double-sided white walls for Model "A" Fords these days? Besides, 99.999% of new Model "A" Fords probably wore black wall tires from the dealer, anyway.

And secondly, notice that the bottom portion of the windshield frame has been pushed back into the passenger compartment, near the right side's windshield post. Wind hitting the windshield causes it to pivot in this manner, generally when the top is down. It still happens to my roadster and I've seen other open cars with the same affliction. Somehow it's comforting to know this condition has existed since Day One and is not due to poor restoration - it's a designed flaw, built into the car at the factory! No special restoration effort is required to duplicate this factory feature today!

#86A, page 102 - The 1929 Cabriolet depicted here should have a concealed gas tank, as did the Fordor, Town Sedan and Town Car. There should also be cowl lights and a cowl band, except on very early prototype models.

#87A, page 103 - Production `28-29 Fordors had the more common "military" sun visor, not the one depicted here. This straight celluloid visor appeared on prototype models. Even if some early '28 Fordors did have the visor shown here (doubtful), these certainly would have been replaced by the time the '29 models appeared, as this drawing is supposed to depict.

#95C, page 109 -This is a 68-C slant windshield Cabriolet, not a roadster.

#95D, page 109 - If you were to say "convertible touring" to any Model "A" person, he or she would be sure you were talking about a phaeton. The car pictured here is obviously a 400-A (also called "A-400" by collectors) Convertible Sedan. This is the official Ford designation for this body style, not "convertible touring". Semantics, semantics...

5. And Finally, Folks...
Enough nit-picking and splitting gnat's hairs already! Leave well enough alone, Marshall! OK., o.k., But before I do, I'd like to ask the readers if they had spotted these same errors. Admittedly some of these are arguable, but the vast majority of them are undeniable incorrectly identified. Maybe readers have found other errors in these books?

It might be interesting to publish a follow-up article with readers' additional nit-picks from these books. With this in mind, get out your magnifying glasses and send me your favorite "OOPS!", which I will compile for future publication:

Marshall V Daut
e-mail address: marshall.v.daut@intel.com
5102 E. Fellars Drive
Scottsdale, AZ. 85254

And don't forget to include the name of the book, which figure number, the page number and an explanation of what you've spotted. Hey, this might be fun!!! What other classic "accuracy-challenged" Model "A" reference books can we know-it-alls "retroactively adjust and re-align"?

This page © copyright 1996, 1997, 1998 Model A Ford Club of America, Inc.
and R.W. Black & Associates, Medford OR USA