(first posted 7/30/2013) The next stage of the evolution of Exner’s Ghia Specials, the 1953 D’Elegance, came by virtue of using a shortened Chrysler chassis and a very different approach to the roof compared to the K310. It may have been new for Exner (and Ghia), but not so much for Pininfarina:
Pininfarina’s milestone 1946 Cisitalia (CC here) was hard to ignore, and few did. It is considered perhaps the single most important car in the development of design in the post-war era, and was widely praised and copied at the time. Exner’s D’Elegance (lower) is of course much more elongated, but the Cisitalia’s hips, roof, and front fender line are all too apparent. Exner’s inevitable (and unfortunate) favorite affectations, the gun-sight rear tail lights and the toilet seat trunk might distract one from the clean underlying shape; or perhaps he was afraid that the similarities were too obvious.
Regardless of the degree of its originality, the D’Elegance has a terrific profile, and fine lines, and the powerful presence of its size and bearing, thanks to being a big car of its type.
But I can’t look at it without seeing the svelte little Italian Cisistalia (1100cc) engulfed inside the D’Elegance’s ample American body.
The front end is an evolution of that K310 front end, which of course wasn’t really original either. There may be older examples, but this one is from the ground-breaking 1938 Hispano-Suiza Dubonnet Xenia.
Of course, the D’Elegance is credited with the inspiration for the Karmann Ghia, and rightfully so. Some books claim that the roof was a perfect copy, but even the most casual glance tells otherwise (KG CC and design history here). Frankly, the K-G roof is as least as different from the D’Elegance as it is from the Cisitalia. Everybody borrows, except the very few.
Exner was a great synthesizer and embellisher, but not quite up to Pininfarina’s caliber. That’s not to diminish his finest work in the Ghia series, which is yet to come.
So, how much is Exner, and how much is Ghia? I don’t know who was responsible at Ghia at that time. Mario Boano left in 1953, and Luigi Segre took over. I always intrepreted Exners designs as rather fuzzy. Is is right to assume that Ghia was responsible for the beautiful fluid lines of the body, while Exner was responsible for finalizing the details? As said, the gunpoint rear lights and toilet seat trunk is pure Exner. Exner was no Farina, but Ghia was pretty close under the hands of Segre. The resemblence between the D’Elegance and the VW Karmann-Ghia is all too apparent. But in close detail, one sees that the design is not lifted outright from one car to the other. And that to me means a masters hand was involved, because the definition of a master is that different works are instantly recognizeable as coming from the same hands. The resemblence between the cars are not in detail, but because of similar artistic decisions being made from different objectives.
100% Exner’s advanced styling studio, according to “Chrysler and Imperial: The Postwar years” by Richard Langworth, They picked Ghia over Farina because Ghia could build an actual running car for less money ($10,000). They sent detailed 3/8 scale models to Ghia, who transformed into the real thing.
There’s an interesting article Langworth did for Special Interest Autos in 1974 about Chrysler and Ghia, which also talks about the Karmann Ghia. Virgil Exner, Jr., incidentally, subsequently worked for Ghia, and did the Type 34 K-G.
See also the quote VE Jr. left in the K-G article I did: http://ateupwithmotor.com/sports-cars-and-muscle-cars/145-beetle-cocktail-dress-karmann-ghia.html
One thing that I have always noticed is the shape of the Karmann Ghia’s rear fender bulge is greater than the Chrysler. The distance between the wheel opening and the top of the bulge is not as well balanced as it is on the Chrysler. If a sketch is made with a more balanced distance between the wheel opening and the fender crown the Karmann Ghia looks much better. Maybe this was done deliberately so it doesn’t appear to be as much of a copy. I have read that Virgil Exner was actually flattered that the Karmann Ghia borrowed from “his” design. Others can complain all they want but Exner never registered a design patent for this body shape, not that it could be enforced.
I see that Segre is credited with the VW , which was first shown in ’53 also.
Wow, what a car!!!
For some reason, when I squint a bit, I keep seeing a touch of first-gen Olds Toronado somewhere in there. Must be the roof line.
Still, wow….
This Toronado is the best of the entire thread. Sweet car. Not crazy about those outlandish wheels– but its an awesome ride.
’66 Toro was the first thing I saw.
Both of these are more “fuselage” than late-’60s Mopars.
I never liked with this concept car much. My favorite Mopar concepts from this timeframe would probably be the 1955 Chrysler Falcon, 1954 Plymouth Belmont, and 1953 DeSoto Adventurer.
I don’t like the D’Elegance front-end design, and the back reminds me of a 1960 Valiant, which I also dislike. The gunsight taillights look very tacked-on with this bodystyle too. I had no idea, however, that he D’Elegance looked so much like the Cisitalia with the back stretched.
IMO, the best use of the gunsight taillights was the 1961 Imperial, where they hung down in a notch in the back edge of the fin.
+1 on the D’Elegance front end. It reminds me of a ’77-79 Thunderbird with the headlight covers stuck open.
An excellent comparison! That’s what I dislike mostly is the round headlights recessed in big square openings. The K310 and Falcon concepts suffered from a similar design.
So typical — the first one was masterful, but this one is just bloaty and tacky. Exner had a few cool ideas, but much of his output mucked it up with all the silly doodads. In the end, his work mostly stands for the triumph of marketing over engineering.
It might just be me but I see the beginings of the nose for the 300 series cars there. And of course the toilet seat on the trunk of the 60 300 F.. Though on the 300 (and other big cars) I can tolerate the bump on the trunk, on the Valiant it just looked tacky..
Exner.
You gotta love him.
He is the first guy who designed cars based on Japanese toy robots, space props from, “The Forbidden Planet”, Crosley radios, Hoover vacuums of the 1930s, and Incan amulets. How did he get away with it for so long?
This car shows that he was still pining for a big hit and that some of the big wigs at Chrysler weren’t drinking the Exner Kool-Aid yet. So he tones it down.
He just had to put a couple of chrome ray gun mounts over the rear fenders framing the round exit hatch door lifted from the movie set of “Metropolis” on the trunk lid. Coupled with his take on “Robbie the Robot” on the front of this car, and you have an – uh, Exner creation. Love the eyelids over the headlights!
How did he get the keys to the design studio anyway?
Exner had a good decade of bizarre styling successes before he flamed out in 1962.
You mention that Chrysler at this time was churning out vehicles only fit for bad black and white B movies, stodgy, boxy and uglier than a Checker Marathon. What Chrysler discovered is that they didn’t know how to curb excessive artistry. They went from bland to hideous with a stop at Tasteful in 1955, Wow! in 1957, to WTF! crash in 1962. Exner was no Loewy.
The difference was that Loewy was actually good, while Exner wasn’t. Loewy’s creations are the real thing. Exner’s creations weren’t. There is no way those two guys ever got along in a studio. I’m not surprised Exner decided to show Loewy what he could do with a Big Three auto maker, that is, turn it into a has-been Big Three auto maker with cars that look like fish with tumors growing on them.
This design? Cribbed a good design, then he Pontiaced it with Sci-Fi gimmicks.
“The difference was that Loewy was actually good, while Exner wasn’t.”Quote
Loewy wasn’t necessarily personally responsible for those ‘Loewy’ creations. He just oversaw them and took the credit.
That’s true, but you could say that about Exner too, or any big design studio head. Harley Earl never carved a clay. He had an idea of what he wanted, and he gave his subordinates guidance as to what direction they should take. The subordinates proposed their various interpretations of the given theme, and the design chief combed the wheat from the dross. So it’s perfectly OK to give Loewy the credit for his ‘creations’, because if they had stunk, it would have been his head to roll–and rightly so.
That’s pretty harsh. This is a concept car, not a production car, and Exner certainly wasn’t the only guy to turn-out an ugly or copy-cat themed concept car.
Chrysler made a lot of great looking production cars under Exner during the “forward look” era. He just couldn’t follow it up afterward, when consumers didn’t want their cars to look like rocket ships any more.
There were several reasons. A couple that I can think of: 1.He designed upscale and more plebeian vehicles with almost identical styling. 2.Management decided at the 11th hour to downsize their vehicles, and the styling didn’t scale well.
It’s true that Exner was blindsided by the hasty decision to downsize the ’62 models. The clays for the original proposals had already been completed, and when Exner was forced to do all-new clays, they were just put aside. But, IIRC, after Exner’s head had rolled, a survivor of the bloodletting went back and looked at the original clays before they were discarded. With hindsight, he thought they were terrible–they would have been as badly trounced as what actually did get approved.
I recall reading that story as well in one of the Consumer Guide publications. The car in question was supposed to be the 1962 DeSoto. The junior stylist thought that it already looked awkward and dated. Looking at the photos, it’s painfully apparent that he was correct in his assessment.
Of the original 1962 “S-Series” proposals, the Chrysler and DeSoto were by far the worst, followed by Dodge, then Plymouth and Imperial. The proposed Imperial was actually handsome, and the original 1962 Plymouth really does wear the “themes” better than the downsized version. The 1962 Plymouth as originally proposed would have sold better than what did make it to market. The Dodge would have been a toss-up – at least the original 1962 Dodge retained the size buyers in that class expected during the early 1960s.
Unfortunately, the Chrysler as originally envisioned by Exner would have bombed on the market, whereas the “definned” 1962 Chrysler that was produced enjoyed a very good sales year.
I spotted this fanart of one guy who imagined a “what if?” about the 1962 DeSoto http://www.whatifcars.com/gallery/What-If-Cars/62_Desoto_Adventurer
The 1st proposed 1962 DeSoto, done by Dan Kopka, wasn’t all that bad. I scanned a while ago, some other pictures of proposed 1962 DeSoto from an article of Collectible Automobile. http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/244/1962desotoproposal1ye5.jpg/
Did you see the full size 1961 clays?
Barely better than what ended up shish kabobbing Chrysler’s sales.
Actually, I always thought the ’62s were some of his better work — ahead of their time, even. But then I also love the original “fish with tumors” looking car, the Tatra…
Exner is another example of the march of history being very hard on the individual reviewed. Forty years ago, his work was considered ‘odd but desirable’, and as time goes on the desirability (and talent) of the product is seriously brought into question.
He definitely hit his stride in ’55-56 with an entire line of cars that was very attractive. ’57-58 was a bit hit and miss (Chrysler was gorgeous, DeSoto only slightly less so but more interesting, Imperial was very nice, Plymouth was way overreaching, Dodge was incredibly ugly), ’59 was the same only stretched more, and then he really got wound up . . . . . .
Except that I really like the ’61-62 Plymouth, Dodge (probably my favorite American cars of the 60’s other than the Corvair), and adore the Chryslers. Yeah, the ’61 DeSoto was hit with the ugly forest, but by then it was obvious that nobody cared. Just put something out so the dealers can’t sue.
Exner is another example?
Ford produced the Edsel, the Mark III and the Turnpike Cruiser in 1958 which were not their best styling moment. The 1958 Oldsmobile and Buick are over the top too and I believe we recognize that today. The Pontiacs from the 1990s are overstyled and cheap looking. The Aztek is simply an eyefull.
But Exner is in a class by himself. His bold late 1950s designs were better aped by GM in 1959 and 1960. By 1960, Exner goes over the guard rails of taste and Chrysler crashes and burns with designs only an absinthed French intellect could stomach. Exner didn’t know when to stop, even when dealers were burning their franchise contracts. The first generation Valiant was a superior car to the Falcon or Corvair, but Exner’s styling drove buyers away. Chrysler sales tanked at a time when Ford and GM soared, thanks to the bizarre renditions of Exner’s experimental visual stylings. Styling is supposed to attract auto sales, not turn them away. It seems that Exner was living in a bubble of his own, and that bubble looked like it was filled with hallucinogenic pink frogs.
So it isn’t just car guys from the 21st Century who see Exner as a auto styling hack, the car guys from that era saw him the same way.
My point (which came up on another post last week) is that history is getting rougher and rougher on certain car designers and designs as time goes on. The stuff I was reading back in my teens (mid-60’s) was a lot more sympathetic to Exner (among others) than postings in the last twenty years.
How can I put it better? Try this: In 1965, it wasn’t important that John Kennedy had slept with Marilyn Monroe during his administration. Now, it’s a major part of his legacy.
Also, what didn’t helped, Exner was in convalescence when his staff worked on the 1959-60-61 models, due to a heart attack. The designers often improvised. I spotted a good article on Virgil Exner on a archived site located at the Internet archive.
You are way off on Loewy’s design abilities. It was Loewy’s staff that created great designs for Studebaker, not Lowey himself. If you want an idea of what Loewy thought was great design, look at the restylings of the Lincoln Continental and Jag XK-120 that he commissioned and drove in Paris. Hideous!
One of my friends, while I worked at Dreyfuss and Assoc. in NYC, worked for the Loewy studio. We rode the train together to Connecticut and traded Loewy/Dreyfuss stories and drank beer. Many similarities. We kept “decoy drawings” close by to cover up the projects we were working on as both Loewy and a certain Dreyfuss partner had a proclivity of sketching right on what we were working on. In ink. Really pissed us off. Dreyfuss submitted his own concept for the Princess telephone for AT&T that was so hideous the partners dubbed it the “Schmoo Phone” (see Lil Abner/Al Capp).
Had to google “Shmoo Phone” and came across this intersting page of vintage phone prototypes: http://paul-f.com/weprotot.html
Sometimes, when I look at Exner’s Ghia-built designs, I’m kind of led to wonder how much of the designs were by his hand, as I have seen a few non-Chrysler (European) models designed and built by Ghia around the same period that share some styling cues with the Exner models.
The comparisons between Exner and Loewy are inevitable. It always seemed to me that Loewy was always about understatement, good taste and old money. Exner, on the other hand, was about the bold, the muscular and the new (though with an eye towards pulling some of the elements of the classic era into the modern world.) Loewy seemed to be a European at heart, and Exner was American through and through.
As for the comparison with the Cistilia, the taillight issue is an interesting one. As beautiful as the car is, it looks as though the little nondescript taillights were stuck into some quiet place to draw as little attention as possible, sort of a necessary evil. Exner went the other way – “We gotta have taillights, let’s celebrate them, in fact let’s move them up and out of the flow of the metal.” I kind of like their use on this car.
“It always seemed to me that Loewy was always about understatement, good taste and old money”
JP, one look at the 1950 Studebaker with its propeller beanie nose would seem too refute your statement.
The ’53 Starlite coupe was the apotheosis of US car design. The Avanti not far behind. Too bad Loewy rubbed too many Studebaker execs the wrong way. This led to uneven design and ultimately less than desirable products.
I was thinking that the bullet nose and 1952 facelifts were in house efforts, as was the planned 53 sedan. I think Bob Bourke led those efforts (going on memory here.) Loewy pitched the 53 Starliner as more or less an outsider.
Remove the toilet seat and integrate the taillamps and it would look much better great effort and it looked great as a VW. Exners cars were ok looking Ive always liked the 50s early 60s Chrysler stuff nobody I knew that had them complained much several farming families locally drove Chrysler products these cars spent their lives on gravel roads people in these places drive Toyota Landcruisers and the like nowdays and change them regularly because you can. When these Chryslers and their ilk roamed here they were hard to get so they were kept any farmers car that did 100,000 miles was well worn those were the ones my friends and I were buying in the 70s, I ve been airborne in a 58 Plymouth Savoy Plodge it was fine great car flathead 6 headers no hubcaps two previous careful owners, one not so much the stuff you sent here was ok
From an overall design standpoint (minus the details), I see a strong connection to today’s Chrysler 300, particularly the first generation. On purpose?
Such a beautiful car no wonder all the celebrities wanted one. The modern car that come to mind for me when I look at the pics is the Bentley GT.
It looks quite like the 1952 Bentley Continental R too
Other than the finned wonders, this is Exner at his finest
If I’m not mistaken, I think I read somewhere that one of those Ghia prototypes was lost in the sinking of the Andrea Doria.
Not these. There was a car called the Norseman (I believe), notable for not having A pillars. That’s the one that went down.
Yes, the Chrysler Norseman. There are quite a few pictures online of that one.
You are correct (well, not one of these, but a Ghia prototype), it was the Chrysler Norseman, a stunning looking automobile. There is a lot written about it, notably an August, 2009 article in Hemmings Classic Car, titled “Deep-Sixed Dream Car.” Pretty fascinating stuff. Interestingly, we just passed the 57th anniversary of the sinking of the Andrea Doria, an event that mesmerized me as a nine-year old back then.
All right you guys, enough with the “toilet seat” insult! I’m stepping up to defend the false spare tire cover as a styling feature. K. T. Keller loved Continental kits and asked for them on early-fifties concept cars. To satisfy the boss while keeping the rear end styling Space Age sleek, Virgil Exner came up with its echo on the deck lid. I’ve always liked it, and there’s evidence buyers at the time liked it too.
If I’m not mistaken, it first appeared in production in the ’57 Imperial. Quoting from How Stuff Works: “That deck lid could be ordered up plain or fancy. The standard job was nicely accented by a crisp peak down the center. But for a mere $39.60 additional, which more than two-thirds of Imperial buyers spent, came the Flight-Sweep deck lid, into which was stamped a tire impression. Outlined in chrome, its center was accented by an attractive brushed aluminum cap topped with a small circular medallion whose black center showcased a gold crown. Inspiration for this bit of visual derring-do came from Exner’s K-310 and D’Elegance, where the actual spare tire was set into the decklid. On the Imperial, it permitted Exner to add a touch of “pure automobile” styling to his beloved wedge.”
I like it because it’s a circle. Circles are dynamic. They echo the rolling wheels and bring relief from all the straight or nearly-straight lines. Big round headlights up front, small round emblems on the side, and the spare cover out back all work together. Is it a coincidence that the rise of highly styled wheels coincided with the fall of round headlights? My eye likes motion on a car so it likes those Space Age Mopar circles.
My 59 Fury had the Flight Sweep decklid. I liked it too on that car. What I did not like was its birdbath-like quality of holding water. When the water evaporated in dry weather, there was always a dirty ring in the stainless fake wheelcover to show where the water usually lived. Clean it and rain would come in 3 hours, guaranteed.
At least once someone wrongly identified my Fury as a “Chrysler Imperial”. Wrong on two counts, but I could see how he got there.
Sorry but I have to say “lose the toilet seat and gun-sight tail lights and all she needs is a bag over her face to be a real dream date”
I like the stamped tire impression too. Classy and distinctive. Not overwrought like a continental kit spare.
On the other hand, there is an experimental car that can reach 114 mph on processed poop. If a bio-gas fermentation unit could be self-contained and packed into a ’57 Imperial’s ample trunk space, its spare tire cover could easily be repurposed into an ideally located input facility.
I can’t quite say “it’s the same as a continental kit” because it is not logical to carry the spare tire on the underside of the trunklid, or on top of all your luggage. On the concept cars, which are fastback coupes it (barely) works because it apes the spare tire on top of a trunk-filling fuel tank as you would find in a racing car.
Does this concept have a trunk lid, or is the ‘fake spare’ actually the trunk lid?
Such a beautiful concept car. Reminds me of the 1995 Chrysler Atlantic concept I drooled over as a kid.
Um, isn’t the elephant in the room that hideous front end styling. The rest of the car is beautiful but how can you take it seriously with that ridiculous mug? It makes the Acura-beak and Mazda3-manicial-grin look like understated beauties by comparison.
@ Kevin Martin: I read an interesting article online somewhere quoting one of the designers working under Loewy as saying that Loewy was apparently rubbish at drawing vehicles-I wonder if he actually DID conceive and draw his other designs himself?
I kind of put Loewy in the same category as Walt Disney. Not the greatest at actually doing the job, but being able to recognize and develop/manage a good idea. That’s an even rarer quality.
Also totally agree with Syke on the changing eye of history. And not just for auto designers..
The other day, I walked past a circa 2005 Chrysler 300 and suddenly it hit me. The front end looks highly influenced by the Chrysler D’Elegance! From the grill which looks like an upside down version of the D’Elegance, to the round headlights which give the impression of being inset similar to the D’Elegance, to the hint of fender blades protruding from the front end, it just seemed so similar to me.
I totally see this. Great discovery / observation, Matt!
It only took me 15 years to notice!
What a peculiar synthesis of beauty and ugliness. Someone could get all philosophical and mystical about that concept; I’ll just say I don’t like it.
That front end is just all kinds of wrong. It looks like one of those backyard customs young guys used to build when I was a kid, with a grille from another car turned upside down to look different. Different but not right. Not all difference is good. It reminds me of the face my autistic grandson pulls if you ask him to smile for the camera, frowning, mouth pulled down at the corners, showing his teeth. Belligerent and definitely unhappy. I can understand ‘belligerent’ on a big powerful American coupe (I assume there’s a hemi), but ‘unhappy’? That sunken-in bit between the fenders and grille just looks plain odd. Without the fender ‘blade’ across the top to join them, you would think you were back in the early forties. With the blade on top, it adds to the belligerence, like a frowning forehead. Not nice.
Then around the back there’s more gorped-up detailing. There’s those awful freestanding taillights that just don’t look right on anything, and the toilet seat which can look okay (like on early Valiants) but really doesn’t belong on a fastback coupe. Remove these warts and give the front end a facelift, and you’d have something like a Cisitalia blown up 170%! Where did the Exner go? 🙂
I feel as though Exner walked the line between European and American design. Sure, he wavered sometimes. Exner did do some beautiful cars, but this sure isn’t one of them. But score points for Ex recognizing good design to start with, even if he had to futz around with it. This isn’t something Harley Earl could have imagined.
Good looker for “53”.Those add on “trailer taillights make no sense though.
Did this inspire the Crossfire?
I think its beautiful, I wouldn’t change a thing, the front has a scowling get out of the way look, befitting a car, or Automobile of this sort.
All this and a Chrysler V8, and I bet those tail lights look great at night.