Here is a letter by Mr. Flanders that accompanied the certified copy of the resolution by the officers of EMF in regards to its new sales policy. After reading through this letter I am able to determine that the letter I previously posted by L.H.R. is Mr. L.H. Rose. Happy New Year!

Here is a letter from L.H.R - whose full name I cannot tell from the signature - to the men at Studebaker in San Francisco about the Flanders car and new developments in the works. I assume these were developments contemplated for 1911. This is after the blowout in 1909 regarding the sale of EMF cars by Studebaker. I should be posting more of those documents in the future.

This is a telegram Chester Weaver appears to have sent from South Bend to his office in San Francisco about the EMF deal falling apart. I have some others that refer to the subsequent publicity in the San Francisco papers and how they tried to control the situation. Interesting stuff.

This is another J.M. Studebaker letter from my collection. It's an interesting example of how J.M. showed his concern for his employees and their relation to the company.

About 1990 I chanced upon some interesting old Studebaker letters at an antique shop in California. Here is one of the signed letters from J.M. Studebaker. Even though this was late in his career, it clearly shows him as a man who knew his business and stayed involved with it on a personal level.

Here are two pictures showing the differences between an original 1962 GT hawk emblem (left) and the so-called reproduction (right). There are several differences. First, the original is either a thin casting or, more likely, a stamped metal part. You can see when they are upside down that the "reproduction" is a solid casting, with no detail visible on the back side. Second, because the new part is a casting, the pins are cast in and have to have a certain amount of draft. The originals were soldered or welded on the back and are basically cylindrical rather than conical and are longer than the pins on the "reproduction". Thirdly, the original has sharper details and the wings are longer, as is the bird's body. The original on the left has just been replated in gold over nickel (as it came from the factory) and still has sharper detail than the "reproduction". You can click on the pictures to make them larger.

These differences are important for several reasons. The conical pins on the new part do not fit into the original barrel clamps on the car and almost seem too big for the holes in the trunk, glove box door, etc. The solid casting of the new part may or may not take the bending required to get it fit on the trunk of the car. I have one on my car now, but neither my body man, nor I have the courage to seat it the way it should be. We believe it will probably crack - although I honestly can't say it will. I will be putting one of the replated originals there instead. Another problem is the loss of some sharp detail in the "reproduction". By itself it looks OK, but next to an original it looks rather crude.

The point here is to BEWARE of people claiming to offer reproduction parts. This new part is emphatically NOT a reproduction since it is cast rather than stamped, has slightly different dimensions, pins that are conical, not cylindrical, etc. Don't be fooled by false advertizing. If you choose to use them, at least I hope this will show you what you will REALLY get, and keep you from unrealistic expectations.

When I have the chance I will show the difference between the front factory spears for the GT Hawks and the so-called "reproductions". I'll just have to take one off my car to get some pictures of why they don't fit, etc.

Here's another view of the Hawk. The rear bumper has been replated and the back overlay stripped and repainted (mostly one square at a time!).

Here is a picture of the new seat covers in place. They're so much better than the old worn out ones.