Photographs can be so flattering, or reveal a world of flaws. This one clearly falls in the latter category.
The longer I stared at it, the more I wondered if it had been slightly photoshopped. The proportions seem just a wee bit off, the wheels look oddly a bit too large, the greenhouse looks too small, and it just doesn’t come across the like the oft-revered design whose image we might carry in our heads, inspired by those flattering ads and PR shots. maybe it’s something I ate. maybe I need to stop staring at it.
I’ve always liked these cars, but you’re right Paul from this side view it’s not as good-looking as I remember. There is something just slightly “off” about it.
It is amazing how sometimes a particular view will highlight design flaws that are normally well disguised (if not hidden). It looks like a straight profile taken from down low is not the Mark III’s best angle.
Another example that first comes to my mind is the 64 Studebaker, a car I love. But at certain angles like this rear 3/4 view, it looks decidedly bent in the way Brooks Stevens tried to bring the hood and fender lines down at the front.
Wow. It’s like the inverse of the Alfa 75/Milano’s upwards “bend” in the rear fender.
it’s the door rub strips. Lose those and it’s still luxury car perfection 😉
You got me to wonder, too. So, I found this picture of an actual Mark III on the street. Let’s compare.
One thing for sure – the front overhang has been reduced. A little snub nosed.
It looks as though the owner has installed springs that have raised the car’s ground clearance. I had a 1972 Oldsombile Cutlass Supreme, and the previous owner had done the same thing to that car. New springs that reduced the ground clearance to factory specifications made a big difference in how the car looked.
Paul, you didn’t eat anything strange. I’d say the pic “enhances” bad details. Color, lighting, background and the car’s condition conspire against it showing in its best, even when in perspective it were a good angle. The picture posted by Thomas Merjanian, in my eyes, proves that.
Tires, body color, lighting can affect proportions ? Front overhang seems almost dainty, compared to the Mk IV:
http://californiastreets.blogspot.com/2012/06/san-ramon-street-sighting-1972-lincoln.html
To me it looks mostly like the effect of “keystoning;” of the camera, positioned low and pointed upward.
My phone does not have a photo editor, else I’d try a correction.
Yes – that and lighting are at play here .
I’ve never liked the way these cars looked. The proportions would be improved with about another foot added to the wheelbase between the front wheel opening and windshield.
It looks stock to me. The flat and faded paint, ugly wheel covers, add-on rub strip and streaky windows are not flattering. I noticed decades ago that when they got a little shabby, it was hard to see anything attractive about them, unlike a rusty art deco sports car. Lee Iacocca bragged about pulling one over on the public with the pricing.
“fortune.com
Lincoln Continental Mark III 1968-1971
According to Motor City legend, Iacocca created the Mark III by directing a designer to “take the Thunderbird and put a Rolls-Royce grille on it.” The Mark III embodied all of Iacocca’s styling excesses including a padded vinyl roof, porthole rear side windows, and pseudo-spare tire bulge in the trunk — and it was enormously popular. One writer called it “far-fetched and vulgar, a two-seater sports car stretched to the length of a limousine,” but Iacocca claimed Ford made a profit of $2,000 per car.”
That’s most luxury cars though. Sports cars can be shabby, because it can be spun in our minds that they hard earned that wear and tear. Finding one in a barn is like finding dusty cobwebbed jerseys and trophies in the attic. Finding a Lincoln or a Rolls Royce however, symbols of luxury excess, is more like finding tacky old suits and jewelry in another moth riddled box in the attic. You remember how great they were, but eh, these aren’t getting polished up and proudly displayed in a man cave.
Really, is this really better than a shabby Lincoln? To me at may as well be a Granada.
The styling may be generic at a glance, but the detailing is excellent and tasteful. Not something you could say about the Granada, which is from the “If you’ve got it, flaunt it, baby!” school of design.
I’ll agree that it doesn’t look like what I carry around in memory, but that often happens to me when I see a CC and can’t help but pay attention to things that never caught my eye 40-50 years ago: wheels/tires that now seem “too small,” and track not nearly as wide as the car, and so on.
For this one, camera angle seems lower than we ever would have viewed it in person, and it seems to be riding high, or too-big tires, or something…..that’s more immediately striking (to me) than any sort of PhotoShopping of the sheet metal’s actual proportions. I’ll be interested to hear how others “see” this one…
Looks to me like it’s parked on a high crowned road like we have here in Virginia. That causes a visual leaning effect and throws the proportions off. The color does this Lincoln no favors. These need to be black, dark blue or deep forest green.
The background does it no favours. I’m imagining it parked against a backdrop of yellowy-red dirt of an outback cattle station – the colour would ‘work’ there.
For what it’s worth, here are Paul’s and Thomas’s Continental photos at the same scale. It appears to me that both cars were shot at close to the same angle — admittedly, even lower than the driver’s-eye view would have it. Making the two cars identical in length — 8 1/4″ tip to tip, on my screen, with the overall image at 942 pixels wide — and then measuring other points on the images, I find that the black car’s wheelbase is 1/32″ longer than the “red” one (what color *is* that ?) while the door protector strip is 1/16″ further from the front, on the black car. (Wouldn’t any auto designer shudder when seeing his design bisected, once or twice, by an aftermarket vertical chrome molding ? Why aren’t the clear ones more often used ?)
Placing a straightedge at the top of the chrome rocker molding on both cars shows the red one sitting just a bit higher than the black; the body height measured at center of car is virtually identical. Yet the portion of fender ahead of the front wheel appears noticeably different on the two cars. This has to be an effect of color and lighting ?
Distance from the camera is one parameter we didn’t mention, I believe; perhaps that’s the culprit here ? Doesn’t quite wash, for me, when the door strip is roughly centered on the image . . .
In the end, the light color of the red car’s tire rubber (as well as the wider whitewall) seems to affect the front overhang — for me, anyway.
Yep, that’s what I thought. The stance is a bit off on the red car. It sits too high and the period incorrect wide whitewalls accent this.
Interesting. The wheels really scream at you on the red car. First, the vaned 68-69 wheelcovers were always more flattering to these cars than the flat-faced 70-71 versions. And those fat whitewalls probably hurt the car more than anything else. Those just do. not. look. right. on anything newer than about 1961, and certainly not on these. As you note the aftermarket rub strip that bisects the side does the car no favors either.
+1 on the wide whitewalls – they alone ruin the car. I remember as a kid being absolutely thrilled to see the narrower whitewalls emerge in mid-61 (I’m thinking Impala SS) and 62. I also like the earlier Mark III wheelcovers. The French Connection Mark III is perfection.
“what color *is* that ?”
I don’t think it’s all natural color. It looks more like one of those filters people use when they’re trying to be artsy.
As I recall, the color is Cranberry and it’s an original color.
The side molding on the cranberry car screams Hertz to me. They slammed those moldings on everything they rented back then.
Aha. How about leveling/air suspension — responding to the question about ride height. Which Lincolns, if any, had such systems ?
S
The Town Car didn’t get air ride until 1990. The Mark VII was the first Mark to get air ride. What year I’m not sure. I don’t think the first two or three years had air ride but I’m not as well versed on the Marks.
Great analysis, Stephen.
I think the “red” car is having a “bad hair day” which is distorting the image!!
A trip to the spa (detail shop) , removing unwanted lines (rub strip), some emollient (polish and compound), and the old girl would have the same lust factor as in the early 70’s.
I think it’s just that the photo was taken from a low height point, which makes the green house look shorter. IMHO this car looks better from eye height.
As the owner of one, it looks right to me!
The Continental Mk III was a beautiful automobile in 1968, and it’s still beautiful today. An unflattering photo of a poor example, taken at an awkward angle, does not change that.
Like anything else in this world, when seen from an unflattering angle, this car is not likely to look it’s best. But when seen as it is designed to be seen, more eyes than not will find it very attractive. Enjoy the photos below, casually taken just the other day (reverse CC Effect) at a normal angle, the viewpoint which your average human being would normally see the car. It was recently acquired by a good friend of mine who has admired these beauties, as have I, and as have countless others, for many years.
Having had the honor and pleasure of driving this fine automobile, I can tell you that it is incredible in every aspect. Very powerful, very smooth, very quiet. And this was on secondary roads in southwestern Pennsylvania (the pothole and narrow twisting road capital of the USA). I didn’t hammer on it, but I didn’t baby it, either. She flattened the hills and straightened the curves with considerable aplomb, and the stopping power (power discs) was excellent. The only variance from factory stock is the radial tires, otherwise she is as she left the factory, 50 years ago.
Obviously I’m no professional photographer. But here’s proof that a low camera angle doesn’t have to be unflattering. Any car can be made to look bad, any car can be made to look good.. It’s all in how you take the picture, and how you feel about the subject
I like it and I don’t care if Lee did a ‘skin job’ or if it’s a Thunderbird with a different grill, on a standard chassis or anything else. it’s a great looking car and still looks crisp. How many other designs from that year still look this good?
Actually Michelin radials were an option starting in ’70.
Wasn’t the Continental Mark III the first American car to feature radial tires as standard equipment?
Michelin radials were standard equipment on all 1970 Mark IIIs.
Lovely car, HM Leland.
The low angle enlarges the body and shrinks the hood. A wide angle lens would increase the effect.
Only answer. I’ve stared at the two and can’t put my finger on a difference.
I’ve been looking more at Mk IIIs lately. I remember them back in the day as very impressive. I’m not sure I’m so impressed now. But I haven’t seen one live in some time.
I think my decreased admiration for the car comes from knowing, now, that it was a Lee Iaccoca creation on an ordinary Ford chassis. A skin job.
I, too enjoyed Stephen’s analysis but think the difference is in the vertical angle. Look at the plane of the ground, which rises up more in Paul’s photo. I feel like I’m looking from too low, whereas Thomas’s pic feels higher and closer to how the car was meant to be seen. Overall, a huge car masquerading as merely large.
For my money the ’72 Mk IV is the winner in this derby of excess.
Indeed the car’s ride height is higher than stock, the ugly side molding and wide white wall tires all mar the Continental’s allure. Drop the ride height, delete the side molding and ditch the pimpish wide white walls with a nice set of thin line white stripe tires and the Continetal will be picture perfect.
Frankly, the whitewalls and ride-height bother me less than the add-on side molding.
I think these are beautiful cars and the last Continental ‘Mark’ coupes I would want.
Unlike the statement in a previously posted critique here, I don’t recall the Mark III ever having “porthole rear side windows” And at least one got a full, padded vinyl roof, not half an un-padded one as what became fashionable during the ’70s.
Happy Motoring, Mark
As a (non-automotive) designer I’m happier with the Mk IV: the swept wheel arches are replaced with symmetrical ones which respond directly to wheel shape; the front and rear corners are brought into unity; even the side marker lights are made alike. But, to each his own . . . ! The front overhang is revealed as entirely unrelated to function — unless there’s a FWD drivetrain under all that sheet metal ?
http://californiastreets.blogspot.com/2012/06/san-ramon-street-sighting-1972-lincoln.html
Ha! All Marks were rear wheel drive. Having owned one of every series, the Mark III was the only one you could drive the hell out of and survive to tell the tale until the Mark VII arrived: The rest didn’t have enough power to get out of their own way. If you somehow found yourself sliding one of them sideways your day was going to end in a very bad way.
The Continental Mark III is a elegant design flawed by shared platform compromises. Although it has the 117” wheelbase shared with the four door Thunderbird, its two door body mounted to add the 2” to the front axle-to-cowl length, this latter dimension still appears inadequate. This can be partially attributed to the sweeping wheelhouse shaping, stylist should have swap those for the squared T-Bird version.
Note also of the long hood/short deck ratio, the latter is a tad too long relative to the hood; the higher deck and sloped rear redeem it to a degree. The low top, broad sail panel and close-coupled passenger compartment perfectly conveyed the exclusive luxury aura. Those who complained about the lack of rear seat legroom simply revealed their poor understanding of what these personal luxury coupes were all about.
Of the styling features, the proudly offset character-line highlighted with bright work from front to rear is segued nicely into the prominent corner lights. The styled bumper, wind-split headlight doors and hood plateau all frame a Palladian grille, though clichéd, defined a classic look. A central grille more on the order of the ’70 Lincoln Continental Cord-themed version would have been more appealing. Stylist might have even looked to the Classic 1932-33 Lincoln KB radiator grille to create a modern interpretation. Iacocca was going for the relatable, easy-to-grasp, so Rolls-Royce imitation it was.
At the rear, those who were familiar with the 1956-’57 Continental Mark III Berline styling concept intended to succeed the Mark II, instantly recognized where the styling features arose. It was worthy of recycling, a very attractive interpretation of the Continental themes.
BTW, most cars don’t photograph well in an axle level shot.
In reading a bio on Virgil Exner recently, it was noted that when his 1966 Dusenberg prototype was being shown, Henry Ford II was notably impressed by it. It is not difficult to see some influence on the general shape of the Mark III. The details are toned way, way down (of course) and some other details are added, but I am inclined to see the connection.
Thanks for the ’66 Duesenberg/HFII information, I hadn’t made that sweeping wheelwells, prominent classic grille and conceptually re-skinning a production body into a new ‘classic’ connection to the Mark III development. Makes perfect sense.
Here is the Continental Mark III Berline styling concept for reference.
Ah — so that’s where the wheel arches come from. Thanks for the nice big pic of this rare bird . . . which follows both the earlier four-door Continental and Exner’s Classified ’57 Imperial ?
So let’s take a look at a low angle photo of its predecessor, the Mark II.
The Mark II is a beauty, but far from my favorite. I was car aware when the ’52 was introduced, and think the Mark would have been more impressive if introduced for 1951, giving an exclusive preview of the game changing styling of the 1952 Ford line.
Interesting point. The ’52s are handsome — sort of “baby Lincolns”; did they share any mechanicals with the Ford and Mercury models of the same generation ? The new Lincolns are rectangular in a way the Cosmopolitans were not; perhaps that’s what you have in mind ?
It’s always interesting to see the commercial illustrators subtly distorting their automotive subjects, certainly at the direction of the client or of an in-house merchandizing wizard. In this case, the Lincoln hardtop has had its tail extended a bit, I think. Even taking into account the laws of perspective, where objects closer to the eye are naturally enlarged, there are a few extra inches of length occurring aft of the Lincoln’s rear glass ?
The Mark II was intended to update the styling of the ’48 Connie Mark I with cues from the ’53 Mercury. It was an attractive blending, but took too long to get to market to seem modern.
Hello. Curtis Perry here, the guy who took this photograph. The photo was taken with an 18-200mm zoom lens, with the focal length at 26mm, which makes it a pretty wide-angle shot, so there is some distortion. In spite of this distortion, the car is still pretty funny looking when viewing it up close and in the flesh. And, to be clear, I didn’t use any filters, nor was I necessarily trying to be “artsy.” Sometimes it all just comes out artsy. I try not to question it. The color you see in this photo was the actual color of the car.
Something about these Lincolns always seemed slightly off to me, and while this photo isn’t a true representation of this car’s appearance, the reality of seeing it in person isn’t anything that’ll change your life. At best, it’s ho-hum, maybe even a little tacky. But it is important to judge it by the standards of its day, and compared to a boat-tail Riviera, or the awkward styling of a contemporary Imperial or Cadillac, this Lincoln is no different in its stylistic audacity. A car like this made sense when it was new. Now, it really doesn’t, and it’s hard to remember how it ever did.
In spite of all of this, this Lincoln played a pretty crucial role in the movie The French Connection, which makes it cool in my book. When I was photographing this car, I had a strong desire to take it down to the crime lab and tear it apart looking for heroin.
Howdy Curt! Thanks for dropping by and adding your thoughts, which are spot-on. You should be posting these pictures here with your commentary, which would be most welcome.
Curt, I totally agree with you. When these first came out, I thought they were breathtakingly beautiful, but that impression quickly faded. It seems a little off to see a car with a classic European grill, but no curves or even a sloped rear end. Not that I would kick a prime example out of bed!
Thanks, Curt.
Your photo of the Mk III can’t be too badly distorted; the wheels appear perfectly round, a good sign ?
. . . not to be confused with this oddly-compacted Ford, which appears in an image by a world-famous architectural photographer. He couldn’t have done much for the mangled fender and missing wheel covers, but still . . .
(Dear old Dad, when he found I’d become a fan of “custom cars,” in the ‘fifties, would point to an accident victim like this one and say, “Look, Steve — custom !” What a wag . . .)
This detail of a much larger image is found at the far right lower corner. A diagonal line drawn through the center of that front wheel — the long axis of an ellipse — would point directly to the center of the image, I believe. Wrong lens, Curt, or an inevitable side-effect of wide-angle photography ?