Talk:Alvis 12/50

Enthusiasts

Copied from User talk:Fairfielder1920 Thanks. I have made a few corrections, and altered the subheads (it is not as straightforward as 'S series' and T series' for a number of reasons, unfortunately!). I have also swapped the header picture for another shot of the same car, which shows the pointed tail a bit better. Sorry you don't like it - it is rather ugly with the hood up, but it is the archetypal 12/50. Re the missing info for the SD 12/50, I cannot fill in the coach builder, as I am not sure that this is an original body. I may replace this picture in due course.Fairfielder1920 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Its really nice to find someone interested in one of these articles. There is something called, I think, bold editing. See something bad then go fix it if you see what I mean. Except for new information — if it is properly referenced to a reliable source it is always welcome — when changing someone else's work it is more comfortable all round to discuss it first and that is what this page is for.

You are right, it is a nice photo. Trouble is that while it is also a pretty picture the car driver and onlooker and general environment are now a part of it too. So I think this crop would be better. Would that be OK?

This article is all all-about the Alvis 12/50 or 12-50. We do not need the name yet again under the photo. Slightly less than usual (there is exposed undercarriage as well as radiator and bonnet (and possibly "mudguards") but it remains true that what we all primarily see is the work of Carbodies or Cross & Ellis. We need to say the type of body (because now so many are hopelessly unfamiliar with the proper names). The year of manufacture or whatever is important but less important than everything else. Yes I know normal speech is to say a 1923 Alvis but this is an encyclopaedia and it is an important part of identifying a car though not all because production changes do not fit so neatly with years and that's why the registration information can be very informative (and it is usually easy enough to obtain). I know precious cars go to gatherings on trailers or transporters (unregistered?) but registration records do seem to be kept for decades. Is there any reason to keep a car (as distinct from an owner) anonymous or respect its privacy? I ask all these questions because it looks as if you might know the answers.

You have added caps to sports tourer. Why did you do that? Surely it is not a proper name but a description like sports car? I will now go and categorise your new picture in Wikimedia. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the caption for the image in the inbox — you don't think maybe that Alvis is responsible for the SA part of the car and the 2-seater - almost all we can see - is by Carbodies? Eddaido (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added despatch dates for three of the pictured cars (I do not have registration dates, but despatch dates are usually better anyway). Hopefully the captions are now in a form that you are happy with. Thanks for cropping the duck's back picture - a big improvement.

I added initial capital letters to Sports Tourer and to Sportsman's Saloon, as these are not generic body type names, but specific model names used by Alvis to denote a particular catalogued body style. Re your query about the form of the captions - while it is true that much of what we can see is by the coach builder in each case, the body designs - at least in some cases - were probably drawn up by Alvis and then passed to the coach builder. The duck's back body, for instance, was made (under subcontract to Alvis) by both Carbodies and Cross & Ellis. The captions are not quite as I would like them, but I am content to leave them as they are at the moment. Fairfielder1920 (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Eddaido, You'll see I've replaced the Beetle back picture with another, showing a car with a documented original body. If you fancy cropping this I would be delightedFairfielder1920 (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all this. About the bodies it does seem to be the manufacturer rather than designer that gets the credit. I suppose because everything else is assumed to be down to the manufacturer of the chassis. Though I think if you wanted the local coach builder to make something different for you on a Morris 12 chassis in the 1930s warranties would be invalidated unless Morris approved the design and were happy with workmanship. But that's not the shape of the body is it. I'm happy with the captions. I've cropped the new picture as requested. I am no photographer. I just always marvel at the way modern digital pics let the viewer look for minor flaws in the paint finish! Marvellously clear and detailed. But the new picture has too much contrast or something on the lower portion of the car. Can something be done about that so we can see what goes on down there? I mean contrast or colour balance. Thanks very much for your very much valued input. We still lack citations to sources. I will have a go at that and come back to you to get your thoughts on my draft but don't hold your breath because its low priority for me just now. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)