Photo by Autotour
(first posted 9/7/2012) I saw this car on the way to work this morning, cruising out the Sunset Freeway towards the coast on this perfect summer day, and just had to share it with you. It flat out stunned me. This is not my photo. I was driving my Miata with the top down, it’s just not safe and not possible for me to snap CC-worthy photos and drive at the same time. I did get up alongside, ogled it all around, and gave the driver and his companion a huge full-arm thumbs-up, which they appreciated, in spite of the fact they must get that about every five minutes in this magnificent creation. This photo is from Autotour, which has more fine photos and a good story on his genuine curbside find. I hope he doesn’t mind. Old Cars Weekly has a complete and fascinating interview with owner/restorer Steve Hudson and more fabulous photos. It’s even in the New York Times.
Photo by Autotour
Sadly, Studebaker never offered a convertible version of its classic Starlight coupe (CC here). As Jim Cavanaugh observed in a comment there, Studebaker kept its frame “willowy” on purpose to soften the ride. That did not turn out to be a good idea, not just because it prevented a factory convertible. This car was created by Frank Forster of Portland from a ’56 Golden Hawk hardtop with a caved-in roof. He strengthened the frame, added sheetmetal and trim from a ’53 coupe, and installed a ’64 Dodge Dart top, but didn’t finish the project. It sat in a barn for awhile, and ended up in Steve’s hands in ’95. He brought the car up to custom car show standards, and installed a supercharged R2 289 from a ’63 Avanti. Go to Old Cars Weekly for the full story from Steve and gorgeous pictures.
This car looks even better on the road than it does in photos. I spotted the brilliant red a mile away, asked myself as I caught up “is that a Stude?” and was floored by what I found. What a wonderful exciting creation. I believe it’s the most beautiful car I have ever seen. Kudos and thanks to Steve Hudson for sharing it on the open highway, and to Autotour and Old Cars Weekly for the photos and back story.
It’s beautiful, who knew it could come out so well.
Wow, that is gorgeous. Wonder how many of those would have left Studebaker showrooms had they been available. Far more beautiful than any T-Bird of the ’50s, IMO. That is just magnificent.
I’m certain it could have been a very profitable model, which they badly needed in 1953-54. The more I gaze at it, the more I feel this is the most beautiful car I have ever seen.
+1.
I’ve always thought this was one of the most beautiful car designs of the 1950s, and would have benefited greatly from a factory convertible, but I also love seeing what creative people with the means can be inspired to accomplish. Fantastically well done.
I’m at a loss for words (for change). Stunning indeed.
I have run across this car before doing the research on my Loewy Coupe CC, but thanks for bringing it into the light of day here.
Mark this one down as another of the many miscalculations that killed Studebaker. This car was just made to be a ragtop, as these photos attest. Imagine a white or a black one with red leather. My oh my.
What a thrill to see a car like this. The closest I ever got to this kind of a one-off was a guy who had a 94-ish Ram pickup made into a Suburban/Travelall type vehicle. Really cool, but I have not seen it in years and years.
I knew you’d especially like this car Jim, after all it’s a Studebaker with a Mopar top!
This car highlights one of the most boneheaded Studebaker management decisions, ever, when they gave the stunningly beautiful (to this day) 1953 Loewy coupe a ‘flexible’ frame.
Studebaker’s execs had a real bad habit of sabotaging themselves, and it’s what would ultimately close the doors.
I CALL IT A SPAGETTI CHASSIS–SOLID BODY ON FLEX CHASSIS DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN//–NOTHINGS PERFECT–STILL THE MOST BEAUTIFUL CAR IN MY EYES//–GEOFF GOGLE
That looks great the ultimate Loewy Stude, a great opportunity missed
Is this the most beautiful American car ever? So perfect….
Yeah, I’m in love too….
Flat out stunning, I am at a loss for words. Too bad Raymond Lowey isn’t around to see
it.
Actually a prototype convertible was built, so he did see one. I neglected to link to Paul’s article about it. The last photo shows Raymond Loewy’s daughter with it.
The prototype is white with red upholstery. What can I say, I’m a sucker for red convertibles, who isn’t? And I met this beauty personally.
Likely wouldn’t have saved Studebaker but it would have made the end a heck of alot more interesting.
All I can say is beautiful. Simply beautiful!
Drop-dead gorgeous, to say the least.
A home-made creation that honestly looks factory! I applaud the owner, as this is a stunner and a keeper!
I’m jealous…very jealous…
Very impressive. I’d like to see a shot of that next to some big 3 convertibles from the same year. What a contrast!
Here’s a ’53 Ford. There’s nothing like a red Ford convertible. Except a red Stude convertible.
Here’s a ’53 Chevy Bel Air.
AND a red Chevy convertible, I might add.
(I admit the Ford is no slouch!)
First thought was “I didn’t know they made a convertible…..” LOL
Love it! With the top up (Old Cars pic) it is equally stunning. Looks like it’s lower than stock though (?)
I have Photoshopped “Phantom Convertibles” I thought should have been made: 69 Mark III, 67 Cougar (a few have actually been done), 64 Fairlane. Even retro-created a 58 Navigator!
To actually do a real phantom takes guts!
I agree with everyone, that car is beautiful! Especially from the rear.
I will offer just a little criticism, though. It rides just a bit low for my taste.
I wonder how well the top works and fits?
The Thunderbird Sports Roadster KH wire really set it off. Its almost like a 61-63 Thunderbird a decade before it existed.
Follow the link to Old Cars Weekly. There’s a picture with the top up, and it looks just as good as it does with the top down! There are also pics of the interior and engine compartment. Excellent attention to detail everywhere.
Convertibles are cool. If Studebaker had offered one for the Starliner it certainly would have generated greater visibility in parades. And collectors would have been happier.
However, I’d question whether convertibles would have sold all that well. In a quick look through the Standard Catalog it appears that the highpoint for post-war Studebaker convertible production was 1948, when it almost reached 18,000. However, that was but a small fraction of total passenger-car production, and by 1952 ragtop production had dropped to under 4,000. When the convertible returned in 1960 as a Lark, production peaked at almost 9,000. Hardly enough to save a company.
Ford only sold about 16,000 T-Birds in ’56, and Chevy only sold 3,600 Corvettes in ’54. Nil effect on sales, but they were what we now call “halo cars”, that led to bigger things.
Studebaker could have offered this convertible with a supercharged 289 as a sports car in 1954 that would have walked away from Corvettes and Jags. (They did deliver this power plant in the ’57 Golden Hawk.)
Could Stude have stuck with coupes and convertibles, pushed performance, and developed a niche market appropriate to its size? Makes more sense than competing with big-three sedans. Nice fantasy anyway.
Photo of McCulloch supercharger demo event September 1953.
I would also argue that as beautiful and stylish as this car was, it would have sold a much higher percentage of ragtops than typical. One of the problems with the 53 was that Studebaker scheduled production of coupes and sedans in line with previous experience. Turned out that demand for coupes substantially outstripped supply, and there were many lost sales because the plant could not turn the Starliners out fast enough.
This was a very fashion-forward car in 1953. Fashion-accessory type cars always sold a lot of convertibles, and I believe that this one would have been no different.
Maybe, but what determines a model’s viability is sales over its entire production run. After the initial burst of sales in 1953, the Loewy coupes/hardtops settled down into a sales rate rate similar to the 1952 hardtop. In 1954 roughly 27,000 were produced; in 1955 production jumped to almost 35,000 but fell back to under 20,000 in 1956 and 1957.
Typically convertibles sell in much lower volumes than their sibling hardtops. For example, in 1959 Ford produced a total of roughly 93,000 T-Birds but under 11,000 convertibles. So if Studebaker had offered a convertible in 1955 I suspect that it would have had trouble cracking 5,000 — and then dropped in subsequent years.
Studebaker was clearly having trouble amortizing the costs of the Loewy coupe/hardtop body even without a convertible, so I get why they didn’t dig themselves an even deeper hole. Unlike the Big Three, Studebaker couldn’t afford to throw a bunch of money into halo cars. Consider the Continental Mark II, which apparently lost Ford money on every car they made despite its high price tag.
That’s why the Starliner and Avanti were so tragic. They were iconic designs yet arguably helped kill Studebaker because they didn’t make sense from a business standpoint.
Imagine the mess Studebaker would have been in trying to produce these as well back in ’53! But if they had…..
The stance is just right
Just beautiful. Even with the top up it looks great. Personally the only thing I’d do is change the wheels, but I’m not sure what I’d change them to.
Thanks for all the kind remarks and yes Mike, I do remember your very enthusiastic “full-arm” thumbs up, although I was a little embarassed we were still running with the the top up. On our way to the “Wheels & Waves” show in Seaside, and had a great time, although it got a little wet toward the end of the weekend.
We now have over 40,000 miles on the convertible and although I had high hopes during the build, I’m still astounded at the positive reactions we get from people wherever we go.
Hi Steve;
I was looking for the Dennis Gage video on his site about your car.
Would you know the date and year it was shown?
I know it is four years later, but the interest is still there.
When you consider the other cars available in 1953, this car gets more remarkable as it gets older. I have had a Commander Starliner since 1971 and enjoy just looking at it still.
Had a convertible version been built to luxury//exotic car standards of the day, it could have been sold at any price.
The 1953 and 1954 Studebaker starliner has always been my favorite car in the world! Until I saw your convertible and I want one!!!!!!!! White with tan leather interior /Tan top,and wire wheels! Where can I get one?
I want the red one! Sublime …
I can’t find a bad line anywhere on this car – simply gorgeous. And no stupid wraparound windshield either!!!!!!!
I have the old 60s vintage AMT `53 Studebaker coupe model car in 1-25th.scale. After seeing this beauty, I think I`ll remove the top and make it into a convertible, and paint it the same colors. Thanks for the inspiration.
As others have said, so much potential wasted by Studebaker on this car. The Starlight / Hawk sold the better car part of 80,000 cars its first year, and was about half of Studebaker’s volume. Yet, it was mismanaged to the bitter end in 1964. Studebaker sort of nailed the personal luxury category before there was one, and bowed out of the segment just when it was really starting to roll.
The car suffered poor structural design, initial poor build quality, the oddities of Studebaker’s naming conventions, the indignity of losing its hardtop and being a rather awkward two door sedan only in the late ’50s, an excessively delayed restyle in the early ’60s, and never picked up logical options such as power windows.
And, it never got to be convertible.
Local dealer here in Belford NJ, Werner Dodge, (now gone) had a grainy period photo of one of these on their wall a few years back. When I asked about it, the general manager came out an told me the tale. They were a Stude dealership in the 50’s when his dad ran things and a customer made the request. They chopped the top off, welded a couple pieces of square stock to the frame and delivered the car! Not really a convertible but an open car none the less. Looked sharp!
Oh my… *swoon*…….. what a drop dead beauty!
Very European looking in the Italian tradition. Nicest convertible I`ve seen in a long time. Pity Stude never produced one. Probably would have been a game changer at the time.
Me wanty!! 🙂
Stunning lines on this baby! Would’ve given both the Thunderbird and Corvette a run for their money.
This car is SO breathtaking that no one noticed the Daihatsu Rocky across the street in the lead photo.
Like Paul, I’m speechless!
As others have mentioned it does look lowered – a little unfortunate.
But oh wow…
To my eye this general approach to car styling – I’m sure there’s a proper name, but I’ll call it ‘crisp pontoon’ for now – has never been surpassed for simple elegance. It could make even the Vega desirable.
That’s one beautiful Loewy rider.
This is one of the most beautiful material objects I’ve ever seen. And the best thing about it? Its owner/builder drives it! Thousands of miles! It always makes me sad to hear about cars that sit in garages and ride around on trailers because actually driving and enjoying them might drive down their value. Bravo.
Absolutely, positively stunning! And it gets driven too? Perfect.
That is lovely, indeed!
Hemmings Classic Car published a profile of another convertible built by a former Studebaker employee (I think?). It’s not NEARLY as gorgeous as this one!
Here’s a link to the article, for anyone interested:
https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hcc/2006/08/Custom-Commander—1953-Studebaker-Commander-Convertible/1318809.html
No, if Studebaker management hadn’t bunged-up the launch of the stunning 1953 Starliner, it wouldn’t have saved Studebaker in the long-term. But just imagine if they had given the Starliner a proper, solid frame (and not screwed-up the sheetmetal stamping process, to boot), allowing for a beautiful convertible. In fact, the car was so good looking (to this day), I’d go so far to suggest it had the potential for a Mustang-like success a full decade before the Ford stunned the auto world.
OTOH, if there had been a Mustang-like demand for a non-flexible flyer ’53 Starliner (including a convertible version), Studebaker would have undoubtedly pulled a Chrysler Forward-Look debacle by spitting out wildly badly-built cars just to meet demand. So, the point is probably moot. Still interesting to ponder what a much larger Starliner success might have meant to the company.
Studebaker still would have been squashed by Buick in 54.
This car is justly famous in Stude circles, as it should be. Flex chassis or no, Studebaker should have built it. We would be living today in an alternate universe , where Studebaker survived. An Indianapolis Studebaker dealer — memory suggests Stuart (on Meridian street) — built a similar one-off contemporaneously.
There was one 53 coupe convertible built by the factory. it was used for parades and other events around South Bend for years. I think that the farmer conservative mind set just cold not justify building it at that time. That mind set did a lot to eventually sink the ship. Another great convertible would have been the GT Hawk. I have seen one convertible GT Hawk used in a commercial and it was stunning, The Avanti is another late blooming convertible that is also beautiful. So Studebaker did miss some opportunities by not offering the more sophisticated bodies as convertibles. The coupe is beautiful.
Studebaker made 2 1953 convertibles. 1 was destroyed on the test track. The second was bought by an employee when Studebaker’s close. Here is a photo of the original. Was originally white in color with a reddish interior.
I’m building a ‘roadster’ cruiser from a ’54 Commander 4dr sedan body (no glass, $300) on S-10 frame, IROC-Z engine/5-speed, etc.) as a final retirement project. Won’t be as pretty as example, but nice enough! Wick Humble
The Directors of Studebaker did not exit the car business because of product mistakes, although Studebaker did make a few.
They decided to put the compnay’s capital into enterprises that could be profitable having made a number of bad business decisions including their labor agreements for years and their failure to improve plant efficiencies and more.
This beautiful car would certainly have created more “buzz,” but we could all write a long list of automakers whose products were exceptional in one respect or another but which failed in the market. Studebaker’s auto side deserved a better fate, perhaps, but it is a business.