I know what you’re thinking – that’s a lot of nipples, but still somehow fewer nipples than you were expecting, right? I mean, on a car of that era, at least. Yes, nipples, I’m talking about nipples! Because, let’s be honest, fundamentally, I’m a child, an idiotic child, the sort who still gets a kick out of seeing the word
“nipples” in a car brochure from 1940.
Am I proud? No, not especially. Can I do anything about this? Comport myself with more dignity and restraint? Sure, sure I can. Have I?
No. I have not.
In fact, here’s more evidence that perhaps I really haven’t done much growing up in the past four decades or so:
Yes, in addition to those nipples – which, are, of course, grease fittings, and the reduction of such was indeed a pretty significant milestone about which to crow, there’s also the childishly hilarious subhead “easy jacking,” which conjures images of effortless onanism.
Also, the notation of “sills” as “abbreviated modern running boards” is interesting too. Let’s see what other interesting details are noted in this Vauxhall 14:
There’s some odd details here. For example, what the hell are “INFINITELY VARIABLE ENGINE MOUNTINGS?” How the hell can an engine mount be infinitely variable? It’s a rubber mount, I assume? I guess you could consider that to be infinitely variable as much as, you know, completely inert?
Also, “SILENT, UNFAILING WINDSCREEN WIPERS” feels a little hyperbolic.
The “VAUXHALL NO-DRAUGHT VENTILATION” entry also gets its own special section of explanation:
This has to be the most overdone and complex explanation of a vent window I’ve ever seen. Did Professor A.M. Low teach a class on Vent Window Fluid Dynamics and Ethics? I’d take that class.
In case you were wondering if the Vauxhall 14 was fast, they sure thought so. You may not agree.
I like the description of how an artist “ghosted” these people in there; I’m guessing this was accomplished via some double-exposure method?
This green and that ivory color always evoke the 1940s, don’t they? And that ashtray sure looks like a cupholder, which would have been decades ahead of its time here. Note the dual glove boxes; the brochure sure did:
I feel like this may be a bit more demonstration of how to use a box with a lid than is really necessary.
Finally, I think this may be one of the most inconvenient and awkward-looking trunks I’ve ever seen. That heavily-uniformed bellhop probably isn’t crazy about this clunky setup. Also, look how militaristic that bellhop uniform is – it looks like it has rank insignia and everything! Is that like a Major or Captain Bellhop? And why the hell is everyone so intently watching this entry or removal of that luggage? It’s not that exciting.
I mean, it kind of is, I suppose.
Thats one whole nipple more than an opossum.
The bellhop’s military looking uniform may be a Corps of Commissionaires uniform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corps_of_Commissionaires?wprov=sfla1
This was an organization to employ military veterans and shows up frequently in Sherlock Holmes stories as messengers and door men
My 53 Austin had those double glove boxes and I *loved* them. All the important stuff right at hand rather than diving across the car. Keeps your eyes closer to the road and passengers can’t easily snoop.
It also had nipples.
It may be why we refer to cars as “She”.
Cars today have none.
Is that really a good thing?
Cars have slowly become androgynous.
Euh, men have nipples too.
“…passengers can’t easily snoop.”
I recalled riding a Mercedes-Benz 240 D 3.0 in the late 1970s that my classmate’s mother owned. I was so bored and decided to browse through the owner’s handbook. I came across a sales receipt for her car. The grand total was $10,595 (about $73,000 adjusted). She yanked it and stuffed everything back in the glove compartment, “you’re so nosy!” Ever since, she kept the glove compartment locked.
That Stevenson and his easy jacking.
From the nipple to the auto I’m never satisfied…
I just read an entire article that culminated in said luggage removal, so I think it goes without saying that it is exciting to the right kind of person. 🙂
Be grateful the nipple count was reduced to twelve, else every Vauxhall Fourteen would have been able to suckle more that a dozen baby griffins of the kind whut grew up all well-housed and well-fed by the postwar welfare state to become that which terrorised (sic) Vauxhall’s summer marketing campaign of 1973.
*does some very quick math*
That trunk has 7.73 cubic feet of space. Explains why the trunk… lid? is so small. The last gen of the Impala had 18.8. The wonders of FWD, I guess.
“In case you were wondering if the Vauxhall 14 was fast, they sure thought so. You may not agree.”
Oh, yes, you’ll agree whole-heartedly after driving at those speeds on English countryside roads circa 1940.
Apropos of which, a friend & I talked with someone at Cars & Coffee a few years ago who had brought her first-gen Acura NSX and when my friend told her about her MGB Midget she said she also had a MGB; she told us she loved both her NSX and her MG because in the NSX when you’re going 100 mph it feels like you’re going only 50 mph and in the MG when you’re going 50 mph it feels like you’re going 100 mph.
Easy jacking? If you’re having a hard time jacking, you should….never mind.
I guess we now know why so many of those cars went tits up shortly after purchase.
“Also, look how militaristic that bellhop uniform is – it looks like it has rank insignia and everything! Is that like a Major or Captain Bellhop?”
Maybe ask Billy Bellhops, Richie Rich’s friend?
Lest you think I’m making it up, here’s the cover of what seems to have been the only issue of this comic book:
http://images.wwcomics.com/images/large/RRBll_1_95.jpg
And here’s a pretty damn scathing review of that comic book:
https://misterkitty.net/extras/stupidcovers/stupidcomics125.html
Are the Glovebox Girls sisters? Blondie is paying close attention in the first photo, anticipating what Brunette has in that magic compartment. Second photo, Brunette has a smug look when it’s just gloves. I think Blondie was looking for a flask.
“I have nipples, Greg. Could you chassis lube me?”
Also controversial at the time, but apparently the radio was able to receive broadcasts from Tokyo if you adjusted them correctly.
My guess is that the ghosted image was first shot on film using a car without doors or a B pillar. Then the see-through body panels were airbrushed onto the photo. Intricate work, for sure.
I’m just here for the easy jacking and variable mounting.
What’s in your glovebox?
Somewhere Jennifer Garner is blushing
Oh come on, even I have more nipples than that.
I think A.M. Low was the copywriter’s little joke, like “aim low.” I mean, who’s going to run to the library to look it up, or admit they don’t know a “famous scientist”?
Also, yes, Jason, you would be exactly that excited over the packing of a trunk, or maybe more. Elbowing your way through the crowd excited.
ETA: I stand corrected, Archibald M. Low was a real guy. Invented a drone or something. I still like my theory better.
It would be interesting to know if A.M. Low really did 1) Exist, 2) Hold the title of Professor (most likely at Kettering University, then the General Motors Institute, in Flint) and 3) Run tests, including on the overseas divisions’ competition.
Archibald Montgomery Low did exist, but didn’t truly earn the title of professor. Wikipedia credits him developing the first powered drone aircraft for the Royal Flying Corps during WW1. “He was a pioneer in many fields though, often leading the way for others, but his lack of discipline meant he hardly ever saw a project through, being easily distracted by new ideas. If not for this inability to see things to a conclusion, Low could well have been remembered as one of the great men of science.”
LESS milk, FEWER nipples. Grammar is important, even when you’re being childish.
this is my least favorite grammar rule. It’s arbitrary and some dude named Robert Baker just decided it in 1770 for no real reason. But, fine, I’ll change it. For YOU.
If it can be counted, it’s fewer. If not, it’s less.
Thank you Adrian! It’s all about quantification – not arbitrary at all.
But don’t ever change Torch! Your ability to studiously ignore grammar rules is a hallmark of your delightful writing style, which we all love and admire. It used to make me grind my teeth, but after many years of reading your stories, I realize that it would diminish my enjoyment if you suddenly started being rigorously grammatically correct.
Split infinitive, -5 points 🙂
Ah, that’s outdated, A.Barth, but I forgive you ;-).
From Grammarly: “Is it OK to use split infinitives?The short answer to the question of whether it’s OK to use split infinitives is yes. Most usage experts today agree that there is no grammatical objection to the split infinitive and that there are quite a few circumstances in which splitting an infinitive can be preferable to leaving it intact.”
I think it’s preferable in this case. Let’s look at the alternative: “Your ability to
studiouslyignore grammar rules studiously… ”I just don’t think that flows as nicely. Plus, it puts the adverb several words away from the verb it’s modifying, which makes it sound awkward.
+5 points to you for a good effort.
Informally? Sure, but the formal writing I do [outside of here] says otherwise. 🙂
Also it was a damned good opportunity for a quasi-comedic comment, so I had to take it.
I don’t think ignoring can be done studiously.
That’s the joke. 🙂 It’s like loafing strenuously.
For somebody who is obsessively pedantic about tail lights, it feels like arbitrary rules would be your favorites.
Thank you. I am forever in your debt.
Is that a membership benefit? The ability to influence your grammatical decisions?
I hate this “rule” too. The distinction is meaningless, and “fewer” never adds anything. When someone sees or reads “less” they know exactly what is meant, without a hint of confusion. (And on the very rare, and kind of contrived, occasions when the distinction could be meaningful, it still doesn’t really work.)
I disagree. “Fewer” for quantities of things that are in discrete units and “less” for stuff that is fluid or can be treated as infinitely divisible provides information. It tells you something without have to make another separate statement. “Less” for both removes that implicit information.
Which do you use with “police?”
I think “police”can be used in both ways, referring to police officers, quantized-style, or as the general concept of police or a police force which is a nondivisible concept (short of switching to the previous definition). And in the second circumstance, police is probably more often used as an adjective rather than a noun, so fewer/less would have to agree with the noun, not “police.”
Also, another similar common mistake is improper use of “continual” and “continuous.”