1953 Chrysler - Mesh warp factor nine.

Here's a nicely painted ad for the 1953 Chrysler. No model name. Just The 1953 Chrysler. Again, we find a car featured in a rather fecal shade of brown or "rich caramel", depending on your point of view.
Actually, with the tan roof, I could actually begin to like the butter cream tonality of this car, but I'm not telling YOU that.

Nice lines on the car, too. It seems that not all cars in the fifties were tail-finned and bat-winged monstrosities (one man's opinion).

Comparatively speaking, this Chrysler shows a great deal of restraint. No whale tails on the rear quarters. No chrome boobs on the bumper (but it's close). It's almost as if a grownup designed this thing (another one man's opinion).

In fact, it looks so creamy smooth that it's almost worth peeling off the background and saving out as a PNG on a transparent background. Add it to your P.A.G. multicar pileup. Click through the pictures for biggerness, as always. Rude fingers ready in three, two, one.

I do have to find one little thing to complain about or it wouldn't be the internet, right? As usual, the designers of this car made it too darn LONG. In 1953, Chrysler offered a soccer field as an optional extra in the engine bay. The very well-moneyed could also get it with a vineyard in place of the spare tire. All that unnecessary longness is easily fixed with some deceptively complicated Photoshopping. Nose and butt shoved inwards. Midsection cut out and both ends shoved together. Also, lots of mesh warp all around to keep the parallel lines parallel. That was the tedious part. Please enjoy your stubby brown Chrysler that no one in their right 1953 mind would buy.

UPDATE: Here is the aforementioned AMC Metropolitan, along with my Chevy Nomad, My Gremlin, my Pacer, My Citroen DS, garbage truck, highway maintenance truck, etc etc. I hope Craigf approves! Sometimes the desk is so crowded, I can hardly run my media empire.I'm sure you know how it is.


Sue said...

You've just designed my dream car in the right color! I wish two doors were easier to find (and not in a SmartCar design). People should have to fold into the back seat. Love it!

PhilAreGo@gmail.com said...

Thanks, Sue! While doing the Photoshop molestation on this picture, I was just focused on keeping the lines connected and technical stuff. After it was done, and I looked at the result. I liked the shortened version quite a lot actually.

There actually were some cars produced that looked a bit like this. I have a Johnny Lightning toy car on my desk of an AMC Metropolitan. do a Google image search on that and see if your heart goes pitter pat. Mine does. Also, look for a 1959 Ford Popular. That was a British car that also inspires the lust.

Thanks for reading, Sue!

AMC metropolitan link:

Craig F. said...

The car was never really that long. The standard trick to all this brochure-ware was to stretch the wheelbase to make the car look longer, lower and wider than it really was.

A 1953 Chrysler looks a lot more like this:


Similarly, check out any tire ad from the 1960s. The tire renderings are these 40-profile meats that would look more appropriate on the back of Don Garlitsezesz dragster than on your mom's Satellite Sebring.


Craig F. said...

I know the pic I posted was a four-door, but the front quarter is exactly the same part number, whether it's a coupe or a sedan.

Now look at the difference in space between the trailing edge of the wheelwell and the door opening. The one in the rendering would be at least two and a half feet, where in actuality, that space is about a foot long.

This is how McCann-Erikson faked the moon landing, too, BTW.

Steve Miller said...

The real car lay someplace between the two extremes. The illustrators (and, later, photographers) always made the car appear longer and lower than life. There's a great book on Boulevard Photo, detailing the techniques they used to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the image; the takeaway was that when the wheels appeared oval, you'd over-done it.

And for Sue, look for a 1966-or-so Volvo 122. Styling was highly reminiscent of this Chrysler and the size close to Phil's :little car."

Craig F. said...

Hey, that song Abracadabra sucked.

PhilAreGo@gmail.com said...

Thanks CraigF and NewSteve! I looked for this book on Boulevard Photo, and what I found doesn't seem to be the right place. Can you link to the book, Steve? Interested!

Thanks for your typically encyclopedic car lore, gentlemen. Steve is right. That Volvo is very wantable.


Craig F. said...


Awesome book if you can find it.

It talks a lot about the techniques they used to stretch photos, which were a lot easier to pull off when an illustrator could just add a foot or so behind the wheels.

PhilAreGo@gmail.com said...

I think I'll take the used one for twenty bucks, shipping included. $135 new is a little steep for an impulse purchase. It would have to be super extra new, in order to be worth it.

Thanks Craigf!

Sue said...

Ooooh, Steve, you're right. I do like that car!
Thank you for the info.

Post a Comment