Jump to content

MKF "Lincoln Flex" Spy pics


Bagrah01

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've no quibble with the decision to increment the numbers and call the thing a "Mark".

 

However, the use of the word 'series' as though the Mark was a rather contiguous and consistently conceived product line seems to stretch the truth.

 

Yes and no. In it's most basic definition "series" (1) it is a matter of succession, not time. In stamps (2) and geology (5) time is a part of a series. Not necessaily so for the arts (see 7) where it is continuous, numbered, volumed, related by subject or format...but not limited by time.

 

 

. pl. series

1. A number of objects or events arranged or coming one after the other in succession.

2. A set of stamps, coins or currency issued in a particular period.

3. Physics & Chemistry A group of objects related by linearly varying successive differences in form or configuration: a radioactive decay series; the paraffin alkane series.

4. Mathematics The sum of a sequentially ordered finite or infinite set of terms.

5. Geology A group of rock formations closely related in time of origin and distinct as a group from other formations.

6. Grammar A succession of coordinate elements in a sentence.

7.

a. A succession of usually continuously numbered issues or volumes of a publication, published with related authors or subjects and similar formats.

b. A succession of regularly aired television programs, each one of which is complete in and of itself.

8.

a. Sports A number of games played by the same two teams, often in succession.

b. Baseball The World Series.

9. Linguistics A set of vowels or diphthongs related by ablaut, as in sing, sang, sung, and song.

Idiom:

in series

In an arrangement that forms a series.

 

If an artist, say Georgia O'Keef does a series of flowers and interrupts it with a series of landscapes, and goes back to the flower series, is it part of the series? Of course it is. Time is not the issue. Subject matter is, or maybe style. It doesn't even have to be the same artist/designer.....it can be merely an arrangement with succession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe its a Canadian thing. By the way, I've been to Winnipeg through my travels with work....how far is that from you? I stayed in the Fairmont hotel at the corner of Portage and Main in dead winter two years ago (thank goodness someone in Winnipeg had the forsight to design tunnels underground). Talk about cold. Another thing, I've never seen whiteouts like those in Winnipeg. Still....everyone there doesn't flinch. Very nice people in Manitoba!!!! still can't figure out what they see in "Corner Gas."

 

 

Its about 3 hours north west. Actually at the current time I'm in Winnipeg for university. I forgot to change the info back now that I've returned from holidays. I love this city (and province and country lol). I'm a very brand loyal person. I don't like corner gas though. On the weather, its only -5 here right now, so nothing to complain about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ablaut? A blat?

 

–noun (in Indo-European languages) regular alternation in the internal phonological structure of a word element, esp. alternation of a vowel, that is coordinated with a change in grammatical function or combination, as in English sing, sang, sung, song; apophony.

 

[Origin: 1840–50; < G, equiv. to ab- off + Laut sound]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't even have to be the same artist/designer.....it can be merely an arrangement with succession.

1) manufacturing is not necessarily the 'arts'

 

2) The assorted discontiguities between the '39 Continental and the '99 in time, price, design, availability, designer, construction, and the lack of any connection between the original Continental, the Mark II, and the Mark III breaks the minimum requirements, IMO, for calling it a series.

 

3) I can't think of a single instance where what you posit is the case.

 

However, I can think of numerous counter examples.

 

One would not, for instance, consider "Scarlett" as part of a series including "Gone With the Wind." One would certainly not study "Scarlett" in an effort to come to a greater understanding of Mitchell's intentions in "Gone With the Wind."

 

Similarly, Douglas Adams' many and incompatible "Hitchhiker's Guide" iterations, from the radio play to the computer game to the novel do not collectively form any unified whole, and only the novel forms a basis for his 'series'.

 

Therefore, one should avoid connecting these dots with any kind of unity of thought and purpose:

 

1) '39 Continental: production model developed and sold in extremely limited quantities as a hand-crafted modification of the Zephyr inspired by Edsel Ford's personal car.

 

2) '56 Continental Mark II: Flagship of W. C. Ford's Continental division, intended to sell against Rolls Royce, etc.

 

3) '67 Continental Mark III: Developed by Lee Iacocca to compete with the Cadillac Eldorado.

 

This 'series' was started three different times for three very different reasons. The Mark III represents the beginning of the only true 'series'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll simplify and repeat the following:

 

1. A number of objects or events arranged or coming one after the other in succession.

 

a. A succession of usually continuously numbered issues or volumes of a publication, published with related authors or subjects and similar formats.

 

In an arrangement that forms a series.

 

 

1) manufacturing is not necessarily the 'arts'

Art and Science? Automotive design?

 

2) The assorted discontiguities between the '39 Continental and the '99 in time, price, design, availability, designer, construction, and the lack of any connection between the original Continental, the Mark II, and the Mark III breaks the minimum requirements, IMO, for calling it a series.

 

The lack of ANY connection? The Ford Motor Company seems to differ. It was and still is their property.

And they see it as series, and have built upon that perception from 1939 to 1998. If you don't agree it's your opinion.

 

3) I can't think of a single instance where what you posit is the case.

 

Let's see, a top of the line luxury automobile made by Lincoln/Continental, 2 door, long hood short deck, Continental trunk, "classic style" advanced technology for it's respective era.....to name a few.

 

 

Therefore, one should avoid connecting these dots with any kind of unity of thought and purpose:

Don't avoid it, connect the dots LOL. I see it every year when I go to Fabulous Fords: they are lined up Mark I to Mark VIII. Go to any Lincoln meet and see how they are grouped.

 

1) '39 Continental: production model developed and sold in extremely limited quantities as a hand-crafted modification of the Zephyr inspired by Edsel Ford's personal car.

 

2) '56 Continental Mark II: Flagship of W. C. Ford's Continental division, intended to sell against Rolls Royce, etc.

 

3) '67 Continental Mark III: Developed by Lee Iacocca to compete with the Cadillac Eldorado.

 

This 'series' was started three different times for three very different reasons. The Mark III represents the beginning of the only true 'series'.

 

I will agree with that....but.....that hardly precludes it from being a series. Three different generations, three different variations on a theme of personal luxury. "Lincoln's most intriguing development for 1968 was the $6585 Continental Mark III. Not a revival of the leviathan '58 Mark III, this was the putative successor to the charismatic 1956-57 Mark II. It bore the personal stamp of company president Henry Ford II, just as his brother, William Clay, had influenced the Mark II and their father, Edsel, had hatched the original 1940 "Mark I" Continental..... this new one was true to its heritage, at least in spirit. The project had begun in late 1965 as a personal-luxury coupe with long-hood/short-deck proportions in the Continental tradition. Exterior styling was naturally supervised by corporate design chief Gene Bordinat. Hermann Brunn, scion of the great coachbuilding family and a member of Bordinat's staff, was chiefly responsible for the interior, endowing it with large, comfortable bucket seats and a dashboard with simulated woodgrain trim and easy-to-reach controls. Henry Ford II himself selected both the interior and exterior designs from numerous proposals submitted in early 1966.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/lincoln-cars9.htm

 

Three different series/generations of Ford men (and their top designers), Edsel, W.C. and HFII brought three series/generations of Marks to the public. The first was a personal whim that saw production, the second an extension of that to limited production, the third was a mass produced car for the wealthy. (Even that is a progressive learning curve....a series.)

HFII didn't want his Mark baby to be still born. He wanted it to succeed in the market place. So it had to be competitive, and the Mark III 's competition wasn't the Mark II's competitor: the even more expensive 57 Eldorado Brougham. http://www.car-nection.com/yann/Dbas_txt/Brg_chap.htm it was the less costly (compared to their 56/57 counterparts) 68 FWD Eldorado. And the 68 Mark III did quite well, as did the Mark series for several more generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look up "putative" in a dictionary and you'll see my beef with referring to the Continental Marks as a coherent 'series' unified in purpose and conception.

 

Yes Richard, I knew what it meant.

 

putative

 

Main Entry: pu·ta·tive

Pronunciation: \ˈpyü-tə-tiv\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin putativus, from Latin putatus, past participle of putare to think

Date: 15th century

1 : commonly accepted or supposed

2 : assumed to exist or to have existed

— pu·ta·tive·ly adverb

 

 

.... (the commonly accepted) successor to the charismatic 1956-57 Mark II. It bore the personal stamp of company president Henry Ford II, just as his brother, William Clay, had influenced the Mark II and their father, Edsel, had hatched the original 1940 "Mark I" Continental..... this new one was true to its heritage, at least in spirit.

 

Hence my comment:

HFII didn't want his Mark baby to be still born. He wanted it to succeed in the market place. So it had to be competitive, and the Mark III 's competition wasn't the Mark II's competitor: the even more expensive 57 Eldorado Brougham. http://www.car-nection.com/yann/Dbas_txt/Brg_chap.htm it was the less costly (compared to their 56/57 counterparts) 68 FWD Eldorado. And the 68 Mark III did quite well, as did the Mark series for several more generations.

 

No, it no longer was the hand built personal car designed for Edsel Ford (negligible sales), nor was it William Clay's "by invitiation only Millionaire's Club" Mark II ( that lost $1000 on each one made, even though it was 2X the price of a new Caddy in 1956). HFII wanted his baby to be competitive. It had to be successful as Ford went public in 1956 and they now had to answer to shareholders thus one of the reasons the unprofitable Mark II was canceled (along with the Continental division).

 

Yes, it lost some of exclusivity. But they actually SOLD them! There was a rich waiting list for the "putative" spiritual successor of the Mark II. Remember that the Mark II was priced at $10,000, the same as a Rolls Royce, by 1969 the Rolls was $20,000. A 70 Mark III with every option might hit $8,000. Today a Rolls starts at $340,000.....even adjusted for inflation that seems absurd though.............Imagine today if Lincoln made a $340,000 Mark X!

 

Clearly, by 1969 a $20,000 Lincoln Continental was out of step with reality and simply not feasible for a publicly held company that made $1995 Mavericks. If your "purpose and conception" were to be equaled, the Mark III, IV, V etc. couldn't and wouldn't have been made at all, and a $340,000 one today would be laughable. Is the modern Mark still part of the series? Yes, because Ford drew on that heritage and concept ....if not the hand built exclusivity of the originals, it's the "off the rack" version of a designer gown. Stll original, still 'true", still exclusive....but not a one-off either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...