'36 Greyhound ??
- Thread starter TagMan
- Start date
petehoovie
Well-known member
Well, it certainly is not a Canadian Ford part....Apparently, Stant never applied for a patent for their '36 dog. Do we have a case of patent infringement by Stant in the manufacture of their '36 greyhound?....
So, can it be said that the Canadian Fords were equipped with an aftermarket greyhound in 1936?
So, can it be said that the Canadian Fords were equipped with an aftermarket greyhound in 1936?
Last edited:
Brian
Well-known member
Tagman, the patent pictures you show of 1935 greyhound resemble closely the photos of your 36 version at beginning of this thread. So, possibly is Stant brand...
The photos of literature posted by Don, that show 36 greyhound; that greyhound is completely different. It resembles the Fulton 1935 style. So possibly is Fulton brand...
And the repop 35 greyhound, currently on my 35 differs again...
Just how many manufacturers of greyhounds were there?
The photos of literature posted by Don, that show 36 greyhound; that greyhound is completely different. It resembles the Fulton 1935 style. So possibly is Fulton brand...
And the repop 35 greyhound, currently on my 35 differs again...
Just how many manufacturers of greyhounds were there?
deuce lover
Well-known member
The way I can tell if made by Don Sommer is that the ribs are cut in on Sommer's.The others are moulded with the raised ribs
billbob412
Junior Member
The obvious difference besides the ribs is one is made of stainless steel and is probably in better shape. i know i take pretty good care of mine,I can still remember paying for it.
Don Rogers
Well-known member
Brian, the Greyhound I have (in the photo) is the same as the Patent drawing. I found the drawing with the aid of the patent number on the my Greyhound. No idea if it's "Stant" or not.
I went back to the Patent application and found I hadn't read or copied the most important part - the Manufacturer! Here's the missing part of the Patent application:
"AUTOMOBILE ACCESSORY Filed May 9, 1935 23 [5%.: /7 I lilium l Wl N/ Patented Jan. 7, 1936 UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE Ill., assignors to Faith a corporation of Illinois Mfg. Co., Chicago, Ill.,"
So, mystery solved - my Greyhound was made by the Illinois Mfg. Co. The name "Faith" in the heading, was the name of either a designer or executive, as the patent application was signed by a "Stephen Faith". I believe patents have to be applied for in a person's name, not a company's name.
Now I know who manufactured the Greyhound, but now I'd like to find out who MARKETED it.
DavidG
Well-known member
Kevin,
I'm away from my '35 and '36 Canadian chassis parts catalogues at present and therefore cannot refer to them at this time.
I do not have the two pieces that Don and I have posted as they are his. The mark that you refer to appears on a lot of Ford of Canada literature and I'm satisfied that both pieces are of the Company and not of the dealer body on their own. I think you do not understand the relationship between Ford and its dealers during the period in question. It would be unheard of for the dealers to put those folders together without Ford of Canada's blessing if for no other reason than the warranty implications to the Company of the dealers selling something under the Ford name. To this day, unlike in the U.S. and perhaps elsewhere such as Australia, a Canadian Ford dealer can only be a Ford dealer and not a dealer of brands A, B, and C along with Ford. The franchise agreement is exclusive.
Lastly, if it turns out that there is no part number for any of those unique offerings in the Canadian catalogues, it would not change my opinion as the catalogues are full of errors of omission and commission. Further, a spring-time promotion such as is likely the case herein could very well be covered by a separate communication announcing it to the dealers on a one-time basis. Examples of those abound both in Canada and the U.S.
I'm away from my '35 and '36 Canadian chassis parts catalogues at present and therefore cannot refer to them at this time.
I do not have the two pieces that Don and I have posted as they are his. The mark that you refer to appears on a lot of Ford of Canada literature and I'm satisfied that both pieces are of the Company and not of the dealer body on their own. I think you do not understand the relationship between Ford and its dealers during the period in question. It would be unheard of for the dealers to put those folders together without Ford of Canada's blessing if for no other reason than the warranty implications to the Company of the dealers selling something under the Ford name. To this day, unlike in the U.S. and perhaps elsewhere such as Australia, a Canadian Ford dealer can only be a Ford dealer and not a dealer of brands A, B, and C along with Ford. The franchise agreement is exclusive.
Lastly, if it turns out that there is no part number for any of those unique offerings in the Canadian catalogues, it would not change my opinion as the catalogues are full of errors of omission and commission. Further, a spring-time promotion such as is likely the case herein could very well be covered by a separate communication announcing it to the dealers on a one-time basis. Examples of those abound both in Canada and the U.S.
Don Rogers
Well-known member
Kevin, This mid year brochure was from Ford of Canada. I have included an image of the back page of the brochure showing both the maple leaf and the declaration from Ford of Canada.
I also have the mid year piece published by Ford U.S. Both pieces were published to promote the mid 36 improvements to the Ford line and each included additional accessories to help promote the line.
I also have the mid year piece published by Ford U.S. Both pieces were published to promote the mid 36 improvements to the Ford line and each included additional accessories to help promote the line.
Attachments
petehoovie
Well-known member
David - Can you expound on this statement?
David & Don, thanks for your explanations on my (incorrect) theory re the 1936 Canada Ford brochure. Don has proved with his close up pics that it is indeed a company brochure. As to the ID of the greyhound we need some more research it appears. Very interesting subject. Regards, Kevin.
