Advertising Last completed movie pages
1959 Standard 10 [Pennant] 
Class: Cars, Sedan — Model origin: 
— Built in: 
— Made for: 
![1959 Standard 10 [Pennant]](i979073.jpg)
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Background vehicle
Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2016-11-22 16:41 |
Some English car (Standard Pennant)? |
|
◊ 2016-11-22 18:15 |
More likely Indian produced Standard Ten. According to Wikipedia the Pennant name was not used, but I have no second source for this. |
|
◊ 2018-12-02 17:18 |
Local assembly Pennant was badged as Ten in India. |
|
◊ 2019-10-01 09:58 |
Badged 10, not Ten: From Wiki: "From 1955, versions of the Standard Eight and Ten were produced, with ever-increasing local content. The Pennant joined in 1959, although it too was curiously branded "Standard 10" and devoid of bootlid trimwork." ![[Image: 57582d1223492085-standard-cars-india-img_1597.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/5605/57582d1223492085-standard-cars-india-img_1597.jpg) (from Link to "www.team-bhp.com" ) |
|
◊ 2019-10-01 14:10 |
.. which leaves us with a choice to make. It's fairly trivial, but one we should probably flag up so people remember it for the future. (a) ignore 10 and keep this small bunch of Indian-builds of what in UK was 1957+ Pennant (finned body, 2-tone) as Ten to sit happily within the general family group (b) switch the small group of Indian-builds to 10, but keep the previous style (1955+ smoother body, less trim, UK and India builds) as Ten. (c) switch all 1955+ Tens from everywhere to 10. (c) should also mean all 1954+ Eights from everywhere have to beome 8 to match. Most sources (online, books etc) say Eight and Ten rather than the numbers, but it's inconsistent. Brochures have both Ten and 10 - and the selection found online might suggest this was changed with the 1957 Phase II facelift (new grille). (b) seems a bit clumsy - having both Ten and 10 groups, but is workable if all Indian 1957+ 10s have [Pennant] attachment - we just have to remember down the line that there's a small specific Indian batch with 10. (c) may seem neat at first glance, but clumsier on a bigger scale with all the pre-1954 Eights, Flying Eights etc, staying as they are within the general Standard sequences of words (Nine, Twelve etc), so we'd have big clumps of both 8 and Eight and over time examples probably straying into the wrong field. So I don't like (c), but don't have strong opinions between (a) or (b). Comments?? |
|
-- ◊ 2019-10-01 14:11 |
Here's a pic of a brochure: Link to "www.team-bhp.com" |
|
◊ 2019-10-01 14:43 |
My preference is for words if possible, as Flying Nine looks less clunky than Flying 9, for instance, and having started down a path it is probably better to stay with it. Having said that, however, the demands of the software will no doubt take precedence, and no problem with that. |
|
◊ 2019-10-01 14:44 |
Standard 20 (van) had advertisements with "Twenty", but manuals and instructions with "20":![[Image: 289239d1266340462-classic-automobile-books-workshop-manuals-thread-img_5072.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/5605/289239d1266340462-classic-automobile-books-workshop-manuals-thread-img_5072.jpg) Link to "www.team-bhp.com" Link to "www.team-bhp.com" |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
