VCCA Home Forums TECHNICAL - 1945 AND EARLIER 1937-1945 1941 fender markers

happy 4th of july to one and all.
and happy flint to come.
if it wasn't for flint and all the judging to take place, i might have handled this a little differently. but it begs telling and quickly.
the following are my exact sources. 1940,41, and 1942 accessory data books. these are about 8x10. and the 40,41,42 accessory catalogs. and the following jam handy salesmens training kit film strip marked p&a accesory vol 4 #11&12 color accessory film strip, on the very last frame. hopefully some amongst you have these sources.
in that final frame, it shows, a hood ornament and a red fender marker. in the data books it talks about red tenite
fender marker, no bulbs, and a gm in the chrome piece that surrounds the tenite. and like ray hollands pics, it is the one that is red and looks like a whale. so, it seems like chevrolet did all the time, nt casting anything in stone. 1940.41&42 used the same unlit red tenite fender marker. these were made by casco and the ones that did not have the gm on the nose of the chrome would have been for you name it brand cars.
i might not have said anything so as not to create a controversey, but with flint almost here, for ugh judging it might make the difference for someone to break a tie.
hope this is helpful for one and all , and not meant to confuse just to state the facts as i know them to be.
richie
i credit a 36 year friend, and fellow member, who has documentation to back up anything on a 41 chevrolet. and i would never in a million years doubt. like old joe friday in dragnet, just the facts folks, just the facts!!!!!!!!! lololol

I am glad you posted this information' GM at no time' ever offered a lighted fender marker. Casco was the mfg. however they produced exlusive fender markers with there logos (as pictured here) for GM and were sold only at GM dealers. You would think that these articles in the G&D would be factual as not to mislead fellow enthusiast.
Thanks for your post'
Mike

No time to reply. Just walking out the door for trip to Flint. Will be watching for replies.

Richie,
Thanks for the post. Finally we can nail this item down. I assume that the red, unlighted one with the "GM" in the chrome band is the correct. I have never seen one of these critters in person. WOW!
Charlie

Here are the non brand name Casco guides from the 40's era. The difference between these and the GM version are significant'and again not lighted. So much so that there would be no mistake in telling one from the other. Just a little more information for those interested.
Happy 4th to all''

1941 special deluxe. thanks for your corroborating posts to what i said. you are a class act. nice pics and all. the one that reminds me of a whale with a tale, is the same one that
holland put in the G&D article.
funny thing was,he must have been writing the article about 6-8 or more weeks ago, and asked me if i could prove that it is the red one. i did have a copy of an old montage i did for the G&D oh so many years ago, and i told him the guide in fact was red. guess that wasn't enough proof for him, so he wrote an article incorrectly and put it in the g&d, anyway. makes a fella wonder if he has made other mistakes in his other articles, wouldn't you say?
you are very correct, in saying things put in the g&d should be a lot more accurate. a lot of people read our great club magazine and it could mislead a lot of people into spending a lot of money for an incorrect item.
thanks for your honest and accurate assistance in this matter. maybe we can meet someday.
happy 4th of july
respectfully
richie

Guys,
A letter to the editor of the G&D is warranted in this case and others where incorrect information is published. It is not as good as critically reviewing an article before publishing but the fact is that no one has all the information or expertise needed to authenticate every article.

chipper,
i agree with you, as to articles appearing in the G&D. only thing is, i don't think to be fair to an editor, to be responsible for incorrect information that does appear from time to time. i doubt one editor alive today is capable of being an encyclopedia for all that content. totally impossible,
so it is then the contributors responsibility to verify all the information they write about, for accuracy. or it becomes a club members responsiblity to this great club, to speak out if something is incorrect if they can verify it. incorrect stuff can cost people money, and feelings at a judging show too. course my feelings about judging are known. peoples choice awards, are the best way to go, and more fun to just participate. oh well, there go my opinions again!!!!!! lololol
thanks for your comment. showed you care about this club like i do.
happy flint to one and all.
richie

When I first read the article in question, I did not see anything wrong with it. After reading the threads here, I reread the article (twice) and still don't see anything wrong with it. The first paragraph seems to be taken right out of the '41 Accessory book. Much of the rest of the article came from information provided by Gene Schneider. Then there are a few more comments by Mr. Holland, including one that says for him the jury is still out on what the correct marker for a '41 is. I don't have a '41 Accesssory book and can not verify its contents. I put a lot of stock in Gene Schneider's information as he is probably the #1 guru for facts and information on this site. There were, in fact, fender markers during that time period which did light up. Perhaps this is what Ray Holland was thinking about when he wrote his article. In any case, if there is no mention of fender markers having bulbs in them in the '41 Accessory book, I don't feel that is reason enough to vilify him in such a public forum as this for making such a small error. Could this vilification be due to a personal bone to pick with Mr. Holland as indicated in one of the contributor's posts? Even after rereading the article a couple of times, I was still asking myself, "What is the big deal?" People should always verify what they read and hear before taking that information as gospel. If we did not, we would all go around spouting the same crap many of today's talk radio idiots spout. No thanks!! I can think for myself and you can be sure, if I were going to put fender markers on my car and I only wanted officially sanctioned accessories, I would surely research the issue and not use only one article as my source. Beamer

I totally agree that this in not the place for personal attacks. If done at all that should be done in the realm of a PM. If there is disagreement about the accuracy of information provided in an article in the G&D this is one venue to mention that the information may be wrong to make those of us who are not "in the know" aware but that is as far as the public postings need to go. The assignment of blame does not belong here.

The "Letter to Editor" is not typically aimed at the editor but instead to inform the readers of additional information or documentation, correct errors and comment on items published in a magazine. They should be clear and to the point clearly stating what are facts and what is opinion. They also can be used to publish information that is not worthy of a separate article.

In this case I was thinking more about additional facts and documentation as the reason for a "Letter to Editor".

Editors are almost never experts on the subjects that they publish. They need to rely on the author and possibly consult with others if they suspect errors or misinformation. They also correct spelling and grammatical errors.

To add to the confusion the text mentions the 1934-1936 marker and 1937-38 markers which I included pictures of and Ray refers to the pictures as if they were shown. Was this an error?
Will try to get some one to post the pictures along with my replies to Ray.
I don't think Rayknowingly posted incorrect info - just the wording in the text is confusing.

I agree with Gene that Ray did not knowingly include incorrect information. He is one of the most diligent in researching topics before sending in to the G&D.

My point is that if there is additional information or something that will provide clarification of something in the article then a "Letter to the Editor" is a good avenue to use. Also posting it here on ChatII is another but only reaches a limited number of VCCA members.

I would consider doing an article on fender markers - 1934-1941 - but do not want to offend Ray in any way.

I would think that "letter to the Editor" is the proper approach to state what one believes may be incorrect information that appeared in a previous edition of a publication. It allows the Editor of the publication to post opposing views of the readers (subscribers) without getting the Editor of the publication in the argument. I have seen these pro vs con views of readers go on for months just in order that everyone get's a chance to dispute what they believe are errors.

I have a 41, that previously had Fender Markers. I know because the fenders have "marks" from them bring installed. Oh well, off to the Body shop soon any way.

Ray, has contributed a lot and at times, such as possibly this one his info may not be 100% correct. I do know and respect 41specialdelux and he may own or use to own a larger supply of 41 parts and accessories that anyone. So I do take his info as "on-target.”

I have had the pleasure of meeting and getting to know a lot of gentleman in VCCA. And what strikes me as a common core is, when it comes to Chevrolet specifications, parts etc., they have an overwhelming pride about dispensing "correct" information."

As a quick review from my occupational chair I read and reread the posts. I did not see/read/find any personal attacks, personal discounting or other reviews, other than some comments regarding possible "misinformation." Which as I see it, ALL members have a right to make comments. Unless the forums are not supportive to the process of open dialog.

Beyond my views, there’s an answer for ALL VCCA Members. Since G&D has a new editor, he/she may be setting up a letters to the editor page {s}. That would allow views, comments and interesting dialog. Although VCCA.ORG does a dam good job currently. As a side bar, according to the membership survey only about 40-50% of current members use VCCA.org, or the "web site." So a page or two in G&D may offer some additional thoughts and corrections at times.

I say; the "new editor, he/she MAY be setting up a letters to the editor page." Because I sent him/her a private message {s} asking for some of his/her goals and ideas for a "new" G&D. But I never got a response {?}

Enjoy the ride,
Michael41

Here is just a little more info on this subject for those interested.As you can see the car in the data book is a 1940, the other photos come from Chevrolet Dealers News dated August 1940. Which would perhaps conclude that this marker was used for both 1940 and 1941? who really knows?

The 1940 and 1941 have the same part number so they wold be the same...The 1939 has a different part number but have the same description.

SPECIAL DISPATCH FROM "GENERAL HOSPITAL", room 1941

The report is that Mr Holland is progressing well from the numerous knife holes in his back. It is pretty well assured that he will make full recovery, but has indicated he holds no ill will against any of the parties that can't read. Any "Get Well" cards should indicate the withdrawal of any harsh comments made along with the knife stabs. END OF DISPATCH

GOSH-GOLLEY!!!!... Mike41! We are up to 40-50% of VCCA members actually using VCCA.org and the ChatterII, from time to time?
A good way to re-new memberships!

BOY-Howdy!!! haven't we come a long way from the days of "The Fly on the Wall" and all of that kind of stuff?


Post Scrip for the thread......
Down here in Texas we didn't use them Fender Do-Gijjers back in them days. We just learned how to drive, without any crap like Fender Do-Gijjers and Fulton sunvisors and curb feelers.

POST SCRIP TWO......Don't you know why Ramundo H. don't mind a blade or two in the back?
Heck he is a Razorback, by birth!

speaking of fenders, does anyone know what year fenders will fit a 41 master deluxe rear?

1941=1048

gene is correct as usual. 1941-48 would be the same, except for the sedan delivery and or the master deluxe and special deluxe business coupes of 1941. i can't speak for 42-48. the business cpe's and sedan delivery had gas fillers mid vehicle on the right side not in the right rear fender.
hope this helps you. in addition another difference on a 1941 special deluxe business coupe and other special deluxes was the front floor mats did not have a carpet insert, but were the same brown color and the master deluxes had just black front floor and trunk mats.