NEW 2009 RM auction Duesenberg 1929 Model J 2dr cnvt cpe GrnBlk rvrs.JPG (1/1)-4-8

"Doby" > wrote in message
...


I love Duesenbergs. Thanks for these shots Charley.

I've often wondered about a feature that shows up in this picture and I've
seen on many Duesenbergs I've shot, and that's the rear tail lights, which
appear to be more like rear headlights than tail lights.

Laws were different then and I understand that. For instance most cars only
had a single red tail light, and of course integral turn signals didn't come
along 'til a lot later.

But other cars of that era did use RED tail lights, regardless of whether it
was one or two. These things we see on Duesy's seem to be there to flash in
the eyes of a driver who was following too close.

What was the law governing tail lights when this car was built --- or was
there even a law or lighting code for manufacturers to comply to at all?
--
Pat Durkin

I'm always so busy focusing, waiting for people to move, trying to get several
shots, I didn't even see the back lights until I downloaded the photos into my
computer. I too was wondering just why they were clear. I thought maybe the
owner put in red bulbs in the sockets but a close up of the light, proved that
was not the case. This Green model really made the Dusey famous by the sales to
the Hollywood stars. They made newspapers of the time and gossip columns.

Doby


On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:55:33 -0700, "Paddy's Pig" > wrote:

>>"Doby" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>I love Duesenbergs. Thanks for these shots Charley.
>>
>>I've often wondered about a feature that shows up in this picture and I've
>>seen on many Duesenbergs I've shot, and that's the rear tail lights, which
>>appear to be more like rear headlights than tail lights.
>>
>>Laws were different then and I understand that. For instance most cars only
>>had a single red tail light, and of course integral turn signals didn't come
>>along 'til a lot later.
>>
>>But other cars of that era did use RED tail lights, regardless of whether it
>>was one or two. These things we see on Duesy's seem to be there to flash in
>>the eyes of a driver who was following too close.
>>
>>What was the law governing tail lights when this car was built --- or was
>>there even a law or lighting code for manufacturers to comply to at all?

"John Bradley" > wrote in message
rlakestechnologygroup...

>I love Duesies, too Pat and have pictures of most all which are still in
>existence and of some no longer with us (like the two shots of one on a
>scrap drive scale).

Awww man! Bummer.

Thirty years ago a friend who owned a cross-country trucking company
contracted to ship a pair of ancient Rolls Royces from Dallas to LA inside
one of his 45' dry van trailers. Auto transport was not his specialty. His
idiot driver managed to run off the highway and roll over in a ditch.

Too bad about the Rollses.

Unfortunately the driver lived.
--
Pat Durkin

email: t o b a c c o h a t e r 1 @ y a h o o . c o m

I love Duesies, too Pat and have pictures of most all which are still in
existence and of some no longer with us (like the two shots of one on a
scrap drive scale).
As to your question, by 1932 say some few states had motor vehicle codes
relating to things like cars must have two headlights and motorcycles one
only and such. It was not until after WWII and the need to 'nurture' the
auto industry that national codes/standards/etc began to be cited in State
laws. Historians look at 1968 as the beginning of national vehicle
regulations, but I'd go back to 59-60 and the 2 v 4 headlights issue.
Continuing under JFK's push (some Pat Moynihan kid), that issue triggered an
industry-government cooperative effort to draft universal laws for all the
States to use. When the USDoT was formed it gave birth to NHTSA, etc etc etc
(Yul Brenner).
john

"Paddy's Pig" > wrote in message
...
> "Doby" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> I love Duesenbergs. Thanks for these shots Charley.
>
> I've often wondered about a feature that shows up in this picture and I've
> seen on many Duesenbergs I've shot, and that's the rear tail lights, which
> appear to be more like rear headlights than tail lights.
>
> Laws were different then and I understand that. For instance most cars
> only had a single red tail light, and of course integral turn signals
> didn't come along 'til a lot later.
>
> But other cars of that era did use RED tail lights, regardless of whether
> it was one or two. These things we see on Duesy's seem to be there to
> flash in the eyes of a driver who was following too close.
>
> What was the law governing tail lights when this car was built --- or was
> there even a law or lighting code for manufacturers to comply to at all?
> --
> Pat Durkin
>
>

1929 J417 (xJ133) chassis 2187 only Fleetwood bodied Duesy.
j

"Doby" > wrote in message
...

In article >, Paddy's Pig
> writes
>"Doby" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>I love Duesenbergs. Thanks for these shots Charley.
>
>I've often wondered about a feature that shows up in this picture and I've
>seen on many Duesenbergs I've shot, and that's the rear tail lights, which
>appear to be more like rear headlights than tail lights.
>
>Laws were different then and I understand that. For instance most cars only
>had a single red tail light, and of course integral turn signals didn't come
>along 'til a lot later.
>
>But other cars of that era did use RED tail lights, regardless of whether it
>was one or two. These things we see on Duesy's seem to be there to flash in
>the eyes of a driver who was following too close.
>
>What was the law governing tail lights when this car was built --- or was
>there even a law or lighting code for manufacturers to comply to at all?

I'm far from being an expert on Duesenbergs or American lighting
regulations, but I'm pretty sure that these lamps would show red when
lit. I think that the lower area of the lamp actually kit up "STOP." I
can't envisage it being legal to show a white brake lamp.
--
Regards

Leroy Curtis

Please replace "nospam" with "baram" in my address if you wish to
reply by Email