Packard made some beauties. Loved the 3-color paint schemes. Now I'm no marketing genius, but Packard hit the nail on the head advertising safety. Taking the car cover off before you drive is gonna give you a safer ride than the competition. Just about every time.
The 1955's looked great; the 1956's even better. Saw an all light green 1956 Patrician on the showroom floor. Beautiful car! Never saw one again in that paint scheme. Wonder what happened to it! Still have our 1955 Patrician in moonstone and ultramarine which was an end of model year purchase.
Closest thing the US market ever had to an American Bentley or Rolls, such a shame Packard came to such an inglorious end......THANKS for posting this full length commercial......
That was Packard's decision to merge with Studebaker, close their Detroit plant and move to South Bend. Don't blame Studebaker, they took each other down.
@@richardrice40 Studebaker remained viable for several more years -- but not b/c of any resources Packard brought to the merger. It was b/c of innovative, timely designs like Lark and even Avanti. None of the independents could have survived to this day, in the face of the Big Three. The one that came closest -- AMC (Hudson/Nash) got as far as it did by offering cars in market spaces where the Big Three didn't choose to compete. The '56 Packard senior cars were OK -- I owned a Patrician -- but by the end their Clippers were a joke in terms of quality of interior materials, soundproofing, and overall heft. Packard's missteps in '55 made the need for a rescue inevitable. That's what the merger was -- an attempted rescue of Packard, which could no longer attract the bank loans needed to progress, or even pay workers.
Back in the 70s ford Utica used the infield as a bullpen for empty trailers so I use to drive my semi around that track, it was pretty cool,I could only imagine what it was like to see a bunch of Packards flying around that track
During the summer of 2004, we got up in the wee hours of the morning to take 690 mile round trip, in one day. We arrived home too late to drive it some more, but that's the way my wife and I both felt. Not exaggerating! However, at this point in time, most drive like cement mixers, no matter how good they may appear. For example, the wrong (or stiff) shocks prevent the interacting suspension, from doing its MAGICAL job. Exhaust systems touching the frame, body, or rear bumper, add to the awful experience. Could go on & on about things done wrong, that ruin the originally-designed "surreal" experience. Even cars with megabuck "restorations". It's a real shame!
One of the greatest tragedies in automotive history: the Packard merger with Studebaker. It was like a black widow sucking it's victim dry. Keep today's surviving Packard's on the road!
@@curtknight1021 Often the decision was out of their hands. They needed a plan to show the money-men who held the purse-strings on their modernization capital (required to implement the expected thrice-a-decade model changes) and even their weekly payroll. The independent auto executives didn't have every degree of freedom we think they did. Pressure from the Big Three had already backed them into a corner -- limiting their potential market share -- and banks only wanted to back a company financially which looked to be viable going forward. EVERY company ultimately fails b/c the supply of money runs dry -- not b/c of poor styling one year, or some questionable engineering decision, or ineffective advertising, or what have you. Those are only the things WE, as HOBBYISTS, can discern. In a capitalist system, however, it's all about operating capital -- about the books, which was the province of those long-gone auto executives.
You’re right. It’s Hugh Reilly. He was the announcer on a “Readers Digest” tv show sponsored by Studebaker-Packard Corp in 1956.. This commercial is probably from that show.
Beautiful cars...such a shame that Packard has merged with Studebaker the following year. That was the kill switch. Packards became rebadged Studebakers.
Packard made some beauties. Loved the 3-color paint schemes.
Now I'm no marketing genius, but Packard hit the nail on the head advertising safety. Taking the car cover off before you drive is gonna give you a safer ride than the competition. Just about every time.
Funny
The 1955's looked great; the 1956's even better. Saw an all light green 1956 Patrician on the showroom floor. Beautiful car! Never saw one again in that paint scheme. Wonder what happened to it! Still have our 1955 Patrician in moonstone and ultramarine which was an end of model year purchase.
Closest thing the US market ever had to an American Bentley or Rolls, such a shame Packard came to such an inglorious end......THANKS for posting this full length commercial......
I know this is an old post but what about Duesenberg / Cord ? ..I would dare say they were superior to Rolls / Bentley .
That's an insult to Packard. I'd agree that the Brit. interiors were more elegant but in all other respects, Packards were vastly superior.
@@Autojones The Cord was innovative and beautiful, but, extremely flawed as far as reliability was concerned
That's great to see this video, because I drive a 1956 Packard ...
Alright, I'm convinced! I want to buy a new 1956 Packard. Now to decide what model to get. (If only...)
56 Caribbean vert in 3 tone.... If I ever come into real money
A car that never deserved to die... thanks a lot, Studebaker!
That was Packard's decision to merge with Studebaker, close their Detroit plant and move to South Bend. Don't blame Studebaker, they took each other down.
@@richardrice40 Studebaker lied about their financial circumstances and it was Studebaker management that close the Packard plant in Detroit.
@@richardrice40 Studebaker remained viable for several more years -- but not b/c of any resources Packard brought to the merger. It was b/c of innovative, timely designs like Lark and even Avanti. None of the independents could have survived to this day, in the face of the Big Three. The one that came closest -- AMC (Hudson/Nash) got as far as it did by offering cars in market spaces where the Big Three didn't choose to compete. The '56 Packard senior cars were OK -- I owned a Patrician -- but by the end their Clippers were a joke in terms of quality of interior materials, soundproofing, and overall heft. Packard's missteps in '55 made the need for a rescue inevitable. That's what the merger was -- an attempted rescue of Packard, which could no longer attract the bank loans needed to progress, or even pay workers.
Back in the 70s ford Utica used the infield as a bullpen for empty trailers so I use to drive my semi around that track, it was pretty cool,I could only imagine what it was like to see a bunch of Packards flying around that track
During the summer of 2004, we got up in the wee hours of the morning to take 690 mile round trip, in one day. We arrived home too late to drive it some more, but that's the way my wife and I both felt. Not exaggerating! However, at this point in time, most drive like cement mixers, no matter how good they may appear. For example, the wrong (or stiff) shocks prevent the interacting suspension, from doing its MAGICAL job. Exhaust systems touching the frame, body, or rear bumper, add to the awful experience. Could go on & on about things done wrong, that ruin the originally-designed "surreal" experience. Even cars with megabuck "restorations". It's a real shame!
The final Seniors were OK, but the Clipper series was thrown-together junk in '56.
One of the greatest tragedies in automotive history: the Packard merger with Studebaker. It was like a black widow sucking it's victim dry. Keep today's surviving Packard's on the road!
Equal to what happened to Hudson.
When they were tricked into joining Nash Rambler !
@@curtknight1021 Often the decision was out of their hands. They needed a plan to show the money-men who held the purse-strings on their modernization capital (required to implement the expected thrice-a-decade model changes) and even their weekly payroll. The independent auto executives didn't have every degree of freedom we think they did. Pressure from the Big Three had already backed them into a corner -- limiting their potential market share -- and banks only wanted to back a company financially which looked to be viable going forward. EVERY company ultimately fails b/c the supply of money runs dry -- not b/c of poor styling one year, or some questionable engineering decision, or ineffective advertising, or what have you. Those are only the things WE, as HOBBYISTS, can discern. In a capitalist system, however, it's all about operating capital -- about the books, which was the province of those long-gone auto executives.
You cropped off the end of a Vintage Packard Commercial to tag on that nonsense selfie ad ? Pure Genius .
"...pure and stainless brainlessness..." --- John Astin, "The Brothers O'Toole", 1972.
Announcer sounds like Timmys Dad from Lassie.
You’re right. It’s Hugh Reilly. He was the announcer on a “Readers Digest” tv show sponsored by Studebaker-Packard Corp in 1956.. This commercial is probably from that show.
Which was the Fine Car "X"?
Soren Kuula It looks like a GM product, then it should be a Cadillac...but the covered car's rear end reminds me of a Buick.
Sadly, also the last true Packard
Beautiful cars...such a shame that Packard has merged with Studebaker the following year. That was the kill switch. Packards became rebadged Studebakers.
I hope pete shea isnt here to bust packards chops. Great cars but ultramatic trans finicky. I know, i rebuilt many when parts were availible