MTFCA Forum

Hi all,
I've been spending too much time trying to figure out what year this T is. It's from a framed photo taken some time in the 30's because the car in the far distant background has fenders which were from that period. Anybody have a guess?
I'm stumped!
Thanks,
John

I'm guessing a 1912. One piece firewall, horn conduit on the outside. Kind of a strange, compressed perspective on the photo.

It's a 1912.

As far as the skewed perspective is concerned: that is a photo of a photo. It looks askew because whoever copied the photo with their camera did not have their lense perfectly parallel to the photo.

John, it’s a late ‘12 slab side. There’s one in my garage in Northport.

No way Steve…. Don’t you see the fancy headlamp lenses ?
It’s a ‘12.

If it’s an out of perspective photo why aren’t the two women on the right side a few yards back look the same way. The cars in the far background are in the early to mid 30’s that’s for sure but the T looks like it’s sort of overlayed in. But I’m not a photographer so maybe I’m wrong.

I took the photo of the framed picture of this car (which was on a bathroom wall, and I couldn't get perpendicular to the frame).
So this is a 12? I was confused by the steel windshield, side lights, and lack of windshield supports.
Beautiful car,
John

Large triple twist upright horn and full brass cowl lamps. Brass windshield may have been replaced. Kind of a crummy firewall tho…

Its just an old car past its obsolescence. In the back ground is a late 30's sedan.

I was thinking1912 also, but was also thrown by the windscreen and no stays down to the front of the frame. For that screen to be taking the strain of the top straps with no stays, it must have been modified at the mounting on the firewall. The headlamps are an obvious "update".

Did 1912 models have the bead rolled around the doors?

Allan from down under.

NY John T wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2024 4:13 pm

I took the photo of the framed picture of this car (which was on a bathroom wall, and I couldn't get perpendicular to the frame).
So this is a 12? I was confused by the steel windshield, side lights, and lack of windshield supports.
Beautiful car,
John

It's maybe a 25 year old car at this point. Lots of things could have been changed.

Well whatever it is, the right sidelight ain't anything on any T! Look at the bale handle and it's a 2-tier chimney as opposed to the left side. Frankenstein car.

TWrenn wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2024 6:16 pm

Frankenstein car.

Exactly! I wouldn't be caught dead in it. (What fun would that be? I couldn't drive it. )

Note that it has a Pennsylvania dealer plate - I'm pretty sure it's a 1937 plate.

Regarding the windshield staying upright without stock/factory rods from the hinges to the front of the car. Note that there appears to be short support rods from the hinges back to the body, somewhat similar to a 1913/14 Ford.

Lets have some more fun!
Headlamps look to be either electrified JNO Brown 19's or at least someone replaced the glass lens. OK, that's the easy part.
Back to the sidelights... ...all I can say...
The body...well, looks almost like it COULD be a '12 Foredor, with well, the Foredor in place! OK, sorta easy.
Windshield....here we go...where's the unique yet very classy cool forward slanted BRASS supports down to the fender iron? Hmmmm
Windshield again...hmmm....why is it black? OK, someone painted it.
And finally even tho the pic is real hard to tell, but the shape of the pumpkin on the rear axle looks like it MIGHT be a clamshell but it's really too hard to tell.

That's enuf for me tonight. Goodnight Frankenstein!

Definitely a slab side 1912, but which one? There were at least three distinctively different slab side bodies, details which in this poorly lit and twisted photo cannot adequately be seen.
I have never gotten those differences straight in my head, nor sorted out in photos well enough to put them in truly proper order. However differences include whether the rear doors opened frontward or rearward? And as I understand from a few past discussions on this forum, that difference the change went one way, and then back to the other, but I don't myself know which way was mid, early, or late.
The other key difference, was that late in the 1912 "model" year, actually beginning in late June 1912, Ford began eliminating the outside door handle on the rear doors. The passenger front "fore" door in production from the Ford factory never had an outside door handle. If you see an era photo of a "1912" with an outside door handle on the front fore door? It is probably an earlier step side, and most likely a 1911 model with after-market fore doors.
The fore doors with a simple lever inside clearly showed the cost savings and paved the way for acceptance for eliminating the outside handle on open cars. 1912s both with and without rear door outside handles continued for awhile, then the final couple months of 1912 model production did not have outside door handles.

The car in the photo due to much later cars in the background is clearly more than twenty years old. That is a lot of time for some sort of changes to have been made. Due to poor lighting, the door cannot be seen well enough to be sure about an outside handle or the location of the hinges. However, I see no signs of an outside handle. Is there one hiding in the shadow? Was there one and it disappeared at some point during the twenty years?

Another late and rarely seen change that I read about many years ago was the elimination of the long support rods from down by the radiator up to the windshield hinge. For a short time, very late in the 1912 "model" year, Fords did have short rods from the windshield hinge down to the body behind the windshield. Era photos showing that style windshield rods are hard to find, but I have seen a few over the years.
Again? Is this the way the car left the factory more than two decades earlier? Or were changes made over those years?

There is a pretty good chance this car was built around August of 1912, among the final ten percent of model year production.

Might it be an AI image? Look at the yellow rectangle. The image on the firewall is part of the image through the front window. Then too the shadows on the fender edges don't match & the position of shadow under the car doesn't agree with the top of the running board and I would expect more shadow under the car towards the woman .

I doubt it is AI.

As far as the firewall is concerned: it looks like the veneer is faded and delaminating and that is why it looks wavy and wrinkled which gave you the impression that it is transparent.

Here is another late 1912 with the short support rod behind
the windshield and has 1917 New Jersey plates. Appears to have
been in a collision on the right front and repairs made with a acetylene
Black & Brass John Brown 16 and a 1915 three rivet front fender.
Electrified John Brown 19 still on the left front. A combo solution for the
headlamps. Seems to have lost the crank handle too.

Erik Johnson wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:16 am

I doubt it is AI.

As far as the firewall is concerned: it looks like the veneer is faded and delaminating and that is why it looks wavy and wrinkled which gave you the impression that it is transparent.

Looks to m that there is a continuation of forms below the window frame.

I respectfully disagree.

It's sun-bleached, weathered veneer that has become wavy-gravy because it has let loose from the core.

What you are looking at on the left is the bracket that attaches the windshield to the firewall. There is an identical bracket on the right.

I edited the pix. If it helps any.
Its not AI. I could see the wall color gray lower left before removing some of the squish fr the camera angle.
Also adjusted exposure and contrast to allow better viewing of the door area

Using Google image search I was able to find the original image posted. The original photo has be reproduced and available in many different media, printed on wood, canvas & even a tapestry https://lens.google.com/search?p=AbrfA8 ... NiMGI5Il1d

Better photo example

I noted that it has a Pennsylvania dealer plate, most likely 1937, in one of my earlier posts.

Also, as I noted earlier, the reason why the image in the original post is askew is because the original poster took a photo of the photo, which was hanging on a wall, with his camera lense not perfectly parallel to the photo. The original poster also verified this.