|
Three early Boston automobile body builders,
George W. McNear, Quinsler & Co. and J.P. & W.H. Emond, share a
common ancestry. The focus of this article focuses on J.P. & W.H.
Emond,
and William H. Emond's later career as the H.H. Franklin Mfg. Co.'s
chief body engineer and designer.
McNear was a continuation of the firm of
Quinsler & Co.,
a firm originally founded in 1870 as Emond & Quinsler. Quinsler’s
first
factory was located at 1624 Washington St. on the corner of W. Concord
St. near
the present day Boston Medical Center.
Born in September, 1844 to two German
immigrants living in
Canada named Johanas and Anna Quinsler, George J. Quinsler was
apprenticed to a
Boston carriage builder, after which his great skill came to the
attention to
another Canadian-born coachbuilder named Joseph P. Emond, (b. 1835) who
brought
him into his long-established firm, making him a partner sometime
around 1870.
The 1866 Sampson, Davenport & Co.
Roxbury (Mass.) Directory
lists Joseph P. Emond, carriage painter, Felton place, house 4 Regent
pl. An
article in the July 1911 issue of Carriage Monthly confirms that Joseph
P.
Emond started his business prior to the start of the Civil War:
“Celebrates Fifty Years in the Trade
“Leonard B. Nichols, president and treasurer
of the carriage
and automobile building firm of Chauncey, Thomas & Co., Inc.,
Boston,
Mass., recently observed the fiftieth anniversary of his entrance into
the
business. He first began as a carriage painter in the shop of J.
P.
Emond, of Roxbury. This gentleman is still alive, and together
with his
wife, was the guest of Mr. Nichols and his family on the occasion of
the
anniversary. They enjoyed an automobile ride and had dinner at
Mansfield…”
Joseph P. Emond was born in 1835 in Quebec,
Canada to Joseph
and Elizabeth Emond and after a public education made his way to
Boston, where
he was apprenticed to one of the city’s numerous carriage builders.
By the time the Civil War started he had
established his own
carriage works, and in 1870 entered into a partnership with George J.
Quinsler.
Joseph P. Edmond married Elizabeth A. Woodman at about the same time he
established his carriage works and to the blessed union was born a son,
William
Homer Emond, who was born in Roxbury, Suffolk County , Massachusetts on
November 29, 1861.
Joseph P. Emond’s first wife, Elizabeth A.
(Woodman) Emond passed
away while William H. was a youngster and he subsequently married Mary
E. Baker
(daughter William M. and Sarah T. Baker) on August 7, 1871 in Boston.
His
occupation was listed as carriage mfr. on the marriage certificate and
his son
William H. Emond was 9 years old at the time.
George J. Quinsler was married in Boston in
October 11, 1876
to Antonia G. Marten (b. April 1852) and to the blessed union were born
Geneveve M. (b. Aug., 1880) and Phillips B. (b. Aug., 1888) Quinsler.
The partner’s carriage factory was located
in the Boston,
Massachusetts borough of Roxbury at the corner of Williams and
Washington Sts.
The 1875 Boston directory lists the firm as Emond & Quinsler.
One of their two exhibits won a Bronze Medal
at the 1874
Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association Exhibition, which was
held at
Faneuil and Quincy Halls, Boston during September & October 1874:
“65. Emond & Quinsler, Boston,
Mass. — One Open Wagon. — Neat and showy.
“66. Emond & Quinsler, Roxbury
P.
O., Mass. — Top Buggy — Of the Goddard pattern; a nice carriage,
showing
fine workmanship, good proportions and style. Bronze Medal.”
During the 1870s the Goddard pattern buggy,
a drop front 4-wheel
buggy designed by Boston’s Thomas Goddard, 146 Federal St., Boston
(1861
address), was the most popular vehicle of the day, replacing the
pre-Civil War two-wheeled
chaise. An apprentice of Boston’s Walter Frost (b.1796), Goddard
enjoyed an
enviable reputation, and his hand-made buggies took a full three to six
months
to be completed, the majority of that time spent on their exquisite
paintwork.
Goddard’s vehicles were considered to be the best of the best, and
priced
accordingly. Born in Cambridge, Middlesex County, Massachusetts on July
13,
1805 to William and Sarah (Warner) Goddard , he died in Boston on
February 19,
1894 aged 88 years.
Goddard retired in 1872, and Joseph F. Pray
(b.1832-d.Mar.
6, 1904) purchased his business and with it the right to produce the
‘Goddard
pattern’ buggy. At the time, Pray Bros.
Carriage Works was one of Boston’s leading vehicle constructors, have
been
founded by his father, Joseph C. Pray (b.1810-d.Dec. 4, 1890) in, 1845,
whom he
succeeded in 1863. By 1870 the number of Boston carriage builders
numbered
close to 50, and almost every one of them offered some type of Goddard
buggy. Pray
continued to employ most of Goddard’s staff, and soon erected a
handsome brick
manufactory in Boston’s South End at the corner of James and 32-36 East
Concord
sts. built with the financial assistance of his brother, Benjamin
(b.1839) who
had become a successful commission
merchant. Although it was extensively
remodeled
into 26 condominiums in 1987, the Pray Bros. factory still retains most
of it
original looks.
Perry’s 1875 Boston Directory lists Chauncey
Thomas &
Co. and D.P. Nichols & Co. as before, but reveals 2 new firms,
Emond &
Quinsler (Joseph P. Emond and George J. Quinsler) located at 2 Williams
st.,
corner of Washington; and Sears & Nichols (Henry C. Sears & ??
Nichols)
at 1785 Washington.
The July 1880 issue of the Harvard Register
included the
following Emond & Quinsler display ad:
“EMOND & QUINSLER manufacturers of FINE
CARRIAGES.
“1858 & 1878 Medal awarded for Goddard
Pattern Buggy at
the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. Corner of Washington
and
Williams Streets, BOSTON.”
George J. Quinsler left the partnership at
the end of 1883, establishing
Quinsler & Co. at 26-34 Cambria St., just across the street from
the
present-day Berklee College of Music. Joseph P. Emond not only retained
the
partner’s 2113-2115 Washington St. factory, but kept the trade name
until 1889
when his son, William H. Emond, became a partner.
During the fall of 1884, the two firms
bearing Quinsler’s
name competed against each other at the annual Mass. Charitable
Mechanic
Association Exhibition which was held at the Huntington Ave. and Newton
St.
Exhibition Building, Boston during September & October 1884. Their
three
entries follow:
“44. Emond & Quinsler, 2113 Washington
St., Boston.— Goddard-Pattern Buggy, Brougham, Double Sleigh, Two-Seat
Wagon
(with original design in back of front seat), Top Box Buggy, and
Phaeton. — All
of good workmanship and style. Diploma.
“83. Emond & Quinsler, Boston. —
Trotting Wagon, weighing only eighty-five pounds; two Goddard Buggies,
Beach
Wagon and Double Sleigh. — Good style and workmanship. Special diploma,
affirming award of Bronze Medal made at a former exhibition,
for
continued excellence.
“208. Quinsler & Co.,
26 Cambria Street,
Boston.— Carriages, including very light Goddard Buggy, Extension Front
Brougham, Stanhope D Sleighs, etc. Silver Medal.”
As late as June 1888 Emond continued to use
the Emond &
Quinsler trade name as shown by the following display ad in that
month’s issue
of the Boston Journal of Health:
“EDMOND & QUINSLER manufacturer of Fine
Carriages
“GOLD MEDALS BY THE Massachusetts Charitable
Mechanic
Association 1878 & 1881 Awarded for Goddard Pattern Buggy. 2113
& 2115
Washington Street, Boston, Telephone 4582.2”
The 1890 edition of Clarke’s Boston Blue
Book lists a J.P.
Emond on Centre St., next to the Dorchester Industrial School
(incorporated ‘for
the purpose of training to good conduct, and instructing in household
Iabor,
destitute or neglected girls.’), in the southern Boston borough of
Dorchester.
William H. Emond was married in Boston on
October 29, 1891
to Hortense E. Shaw (b. 1867 in Roxton Falls, Conn. to William &
Elizabeth
Shaw). Unfortunately Hortense contracted cerebral Meningitis in July of
1893
and within the week was dead, passing away on July 16, 1893 at the age
of 26. Emond
remarried in Boston on Nov. 1, 1898 to Bessie L. Wood (daughter of Lyn
P. and
May E. (Jack) Wood.
The Emonds also constructed automobile
bodies and were
listed under the Auto Advertisements: Bodies and Body Parts heading in
the
March, 1907 issue of the Carriage Monthly. William was active in the
Carriage
Manufacturers Association, and in 1905 was elected secretary of
the
organization. He also was awarded 13 US Patents as follows:
Carriage - US Pat. 505,197 - Filed Nov 17,
1892 - Issued Sep
19, 1893
Carriage Gear - US Pat. 574,313 – Filed Nov.
17, 1894 -
Issued Dec 29, 1896
Turn Plate for Vehicles - US Pat. 601,559 -
Filed Oct 5,
1897 - Issued Mar 29, 1898
Cushion Tire - US Pat. 778,850 - Filed Feb. 12, 1902 - Issued Jan 3,
1905
Carriage Axle - US Pat. D32,703 - Filed MAr.
19, 1900 - Issued May 22, 1900
Vehicle Body Design -
US Pat. D40,143 - Filed Apr 6, 1909 - Issued Jul 13, 1909
Vehicle Body Design -
US Pat. D40,420 - Filed Oct 13, 1909 - Issued Dec 28, 1909
Motor Body and Rotating Seat
- US Pat. 1,250,155 - Filed Jun 13, 1913 - Issued Dec
18, 1917
Vehicle Body Door Construction - US Pat.
1,387,773 - Filed
Nov 15, 1919 - Issued Aug 16, 1921
Body Construction For Vehicles - US Pat.
1,570,560 - Filed
Sep 13, 1923 - Issued Jan 19, 1926
Door Construction for Vehicles - US Pat.
1,592,657 - Filed
Sep 13, 1923 - Issued Jul 13, 1926
Closed Vehicle Body - US Pat. 1,622,098 -
Filed Jul 2, 1925
- Issued Mar 22, 1927
Adjustable Seat - US Pat. 1,860,612 -
Filed
Jan 15, 1929 -
Issued May 31, 1932
The August 1907 issue of the Carriage
Monthly carried an
article written by William H. Edmond that encouraged carriage builders
to look
into manufacturing automobile bodies:
“The Carriage Builder and the Automobile.
“BY WM. H. EMOND, OF J. P. & W. H.
EMOND, BOSTON, MASS.
“[note.—Believing that those members of the
vehicle building
industry who have for various reasons not taken up the work of autobody
construction in addition to their regular vehicle lines would be
interested in
hearing from those who have done so, and made a success of it, The
Carriage Monthly recently
called upon several members of the profession for an expression of
their views
as to the carriage builder's fitness for automobile body construction,
and why
carriage builders should take up the work. In response, we have
received some
very interesting and instructive replies, which furnish the trade with
much
food for thought, and we take pleasure in publishing herewith the first
article
of the series which is written by Wm. H. Emond, Boston.
“We shall be glad to hear from others,
either for or against
the advisability of carriage builders taking up auto work. The question
is
timely, and a thorough discussion of it can not fail to be instructive
to
all.—Editor.] —
“There are two primary reasons why the
builder of high-grade
carriages should be in the business of doing whatever he is equipped to
do in
the automobile line. First the carriage builder needs the automobile,
and
secondly, the automobile manufacturer needs the carriage builder. With
two
conditions indicating such mutual dependence, how are you going to, or
indeed,
who wants to, keep them apart?
“Looking back to the horse-car days, and to
some of us they
seem not far away, when the car driver, spying you on the curb, thrust
out his
fist toward you with the index finger pointed heavenward, and shouted
"Ride?" his appeal was to your laziness or your tired feet; never in
any sense to your desire to get anywhere in a hurry. Many a time as a
boy have
I started even with a horse-car at the South End, and in a square
heel-and-toe
walk finished ahead of the car at Summer Street; and in later years,
when the
streets became more congested with the growth of the city, it would
have been
an easy task indeed.
“In the days of the horse car, therefore,
the business man,
the physician and all others needing comparatively quick
transportation,
resorted to the horse and buggy, and the horse and buggy to them were
as
necessary as gas light and city water. It was this making of business
vehicles
that was the backbone of the business of the average city builder, even
though
he may have ranked high as a designer and builder of light and heavy
pleasure
vehicles.
“With the coming of the trolley car,
conditions changed.
Rapid transit then became the chief feature of public service
transportation.
The business men found they could get about as quickly, or more
quickly,
without their business turnout, and even a considerable percentage of
physicians cast aside their pride in their buggy as a part of their
professional equipment, and got about more economically at least on the
trolleys. In a comparatively short time approximately 75 per cent, of
the
business vehicle trade, and with it the profits, disappeared from the
city
carriage builder's business. Then came the automobile, and did to the
swell
trade what the trolley did to the buggy business. Under these
conditions can
there be any doubt of the carriage builder needing the automobile?
“Now to consider the second reason. When the
manufacturing
of automobiles first began to be an industry in America, those mainly
responsible for its promotion ignored the American carriage builder's
art,
experience and knowledge of applied mechanics, elements which
subsequent events
proved to be of vital importance. Detail after detail of construction
designed
by alleged mechanical engineers, and supposed to be superior for the
purpose to
the carriage builder's tried and proven devices, have been cast into
the scrap
heap and replaced with 'old-fashioned" construction. Who wants wire
wheels, tubular-bed axles, loop-end springs, capecart top and rear
entrance
tonneau on a car to-day? What has taken their places? Wooden spoke
"Artillery" wheels, which the carriage builder used on commercial
trucks;
solid forged axle beds which he could never replace with tubular
construction;
plain half side springs used with identically the same connections on
caravans;
a folding extension top, practically as designed by some American
carriage
builder at least fifty years ago, and a side entrance body with a
common
sense arrangement of seats. Perhaps the most comical of all cute
contrivances of the cute automobile engineer was the rear entrance
tonneau
body. Awkward to enter, uncomfortable and dangerous when entered, the
only
possible excuse for it was as a makeshift on short geared cars, with
the
machinery under, or partly attached to the body; yet it became an
accepted
style of body as peculiarly appropriate for an automobile, and it even
influenced the designing of side entrance bodies in respect to rear
seat plan
and general appearance. It was only the art of the carriage builder and
carriage body designer that saved this monstrosity from becoming a
perpetual
earmark on the automobile.
“The carriage builder, or the carriage body
builder, has had
a hand in body designing now for several years. His influence is
apparent in
better seat planning, more comfort features, straighter lines and a
decided
tendency toward genuine style and good taste. The racy runabout looks
racy, the
dignified limousine begins to look dignified, and monstrosities are
growing
beautifully fewer. In fact, the carriage builder's art is doing for the
body
what his experience and mechanical knowledge have done for the other
details,
and right here is the whole point of this argument. The American
carriage
builder's art, experience and knowledge have done much good and undone
much bad
for the automobile, but not so much by his direct employment as should
have
been the case. The ignoring of his knowledge and skill has cost the
automobile
industry (or somebody else) in this country millions of dollars, yet
the
employment of this knowledge has been largely at second hand and mainly
to
rectify blunders. It is time this knowledge was
employed directly and
for development. The automobile owner needs it; the
automobile
industry needs it; in fact, the automobile needs the carriage builder
in this
country as much, or more than, in France, where he has been a part of
its
development from the beginning.”
Although William H. Emond’s star was rising,
his family’s
business was failing, with the July 1908 issue of Carriage Monthly
reporting on
their pending bankruptcy:
“J. P. & W. H. Emond in
Bankruptcy.
“Joseph P. Emond, Boston, and William
H. Emond, Newton, Mass., doing business as J. P. & W. H.
Emond,
carriage builders, Roxbury, Mass., have filed a voluntary petition in
bankruptcy. Each of the partners also filed individual schedules. The
total
liabilities are $10,252.50, all unsecured. It is said there are no
assets. A
note for $2,500, held by Edward H. Valentine, Chicago, appears as a
liability
of the firm's and in each of the individual's schedules. The debts of
the firm
amount to $3,600.80; Joseph P. Emond, $2,536, and William H.
Emond, $4,106.70. The firm are well known in the trade, but of
late years
have not turned a sufficient profit on the business they have been
doing.”
The bankruptcy proved to be a blessing for
all involved, Joseph
retired and William took a job as a body engineer and designer with the
H.H.
Franklin Mfg. Co. of Syracuse, New York.
Emond was among the better known body
designers of the day
and was occasionally asked to contribute to one of the automotive
trades. One
of his articles was published in the November, 1911 issue of the Hub:
“Just So.
“According to W. H. Emond, chief
designer for the H. H. Franklin Manufacturing Company,
American
manufacturers are beginning to realize the necessity of paying strict
attention
to the styles of design more than ever before.
“Just before leaving for an
extensive European
trip to study foreign designs in motor cars, Mr. Emond said: 'I expect
to
visit a great many factories and a great many designers while I am
away, but I
shall pay particular attention to the work of Louis duPont, of the
French
school of coach design. He is, I believe, the greatest
automobile
coach-work designer in the world to-day. France undoubtedly
leads in
automobile coach designing with Germany second and England third.
“The advent of the motor car has given the
automobile
coach designer a greater latitude than he ever possessed
during the
best days of the horse-drawn vehicle. In fact, the automobile coach
designer is just entering upon a new field of labor. So much
time has
been spent in perfecting the modern gasoline motor and applying it to
the
automobile that little attention has been paid to beauty of lines until
within
the past two years.
“Meanwhile, foreign makers have been
devoting almost as
much time to body designing as they have to motor perfecting. As a
result they
are far ahead of America in beauty design."
“What Mr. Emonds says is true. The
Hub has had
much to say on the same subject when it was a very lonely minority of
one. The
American journals interested were very optimistic about all matters
American,
but failed to be discerning beyond the tips of their noses. We expect
to hear
the news now in many keys since the trade tuning fork has sounded a
key-note.
“This is a pertinent place to call
attention to the
possibilities of our Technical School for Carriage Draftsmen,
and the
aid it can render to those groping for style and
individuality of
expression in wood and metal.
“A select few of New York's coachbuilders
have not been open
to criticism. An inspection of built-to-order automobile body work
shown in
their repositories has shown most charming examples of taste, elegance
and
originality, but the ordinary 'tin caps' as one observer put it, are
no credit to their creators. It will all
change for the
better some day.”
Emond
was a frequent constibutor to the coachbuilding and automobile trades.
After he returned home from an inspection of a number of European
coachbuilders, he pulbished the following two articles. The first
appeared in the April, 1914 issue of The Gas Engine:
AUTOMOBILE BODIES
“The descriptive phrase stream line as
applied to body
shapes is borrowed from England says W.H. Emond Franklin body designer.
‘The
Englishman is pretty clever in coining or applying characteristic
descriptives to
his productions. For example he does not call a single compartment
closed body
by the meaningless name Sedan, he calls it a Pullman, because to his
mind the
single compartment suggests an American one compartment Pullman railway
coach
as distinguished from the English coach made up of a series of
compartments.
“’The term ‘stream line’ was originally
applied to bodies
only but the American adapter employs it whenever he makes an attempt
to run
body and hood lines together. If he really did this and did it right,
he would
have a truly stream line effect but his efforts have been confined to
putting a
little slant and back flare in his engine hood and strenuously bumping
his cowl
so as to get a flush joint between hood and cowl. The rest is
advertising.
“’To produce a true stream-line from
radiator to tonneau,
the designing plan and section must be done at the radiator and at the
section
of greatest body width, corresponding to the midship section of a boat
hull.
The radiator section must be free from angles. Every section can then
be
proportionally developed from the minimum toward the maximum width.
Much of the
good effect is dependent upon the curves used in these two sections,
and it is
in this that most of the designer's skill is shown. The fact is a true
stream
effect cannot be worked out of any haphazard shape of hood or
radiator.’”
The seond in the May 1914 issue of Automobile Dealer and Repairer:
“CARS FOR COMFORT
“The Position of the Passengers and the
Question of Steering
“W.H. Emond in Gas Power. - The important
practical function
of an automobile body is to carry passengers comfortably. To obtain
passenger
comfort, dimensions must be right for normal human beings, cushion
springs
should be so constructed as to carry their load without bottoming on
rough roads,
and back upholstery must be so shaped as to conform to the human
figure,
relieve it from severe shock, and make it unnecessary for the passenger
to
repeatedly shift about on a long ride in an effort to obtain an easy
position.
This last is the real test of upholstery design.
“There is, however, besides the mere body
dimensions and
besides the relative merits of different spring suspensions, a still
more
important element for consideration in designing a car for riding
comfort, and
that is the general assembly taking into account the distribution of
the weight
above the springs and axles - to make it plain, the position of the
wheels with
reference to the load both of passengers and machinery.
“For the benefit of the engine and for ease
of steering assembly,
designers found years ago that it was essential to place the front
wheel well
forward; usually, in a water cooled car, on a line with the front of
the
radiator. For a similar consideration of passengers, European assembly
designers are today placing the rear wheel well back and the body
designer, who
in Europe is largely the assembly authority, also contributes further
to
comfort by keeping his passenger load well forward, allowing of course
generous
foot room but no more.
“The manufacturers of many American cars
seem not to have
considered this matter of general assembly design at all, so far as
passenger
comfort is concerned. The method seems to have been to place the front
wheel
according to accepted practice, then to make up their minds they will
produce
and advertise a certain number of inches wheel-base, and, on a chassis
so
designed, place a body with a long tonneau compartment which projects
the seat
load far back of the rear axle.
“It is no wonder that a car so designed will
completely use up
its passengers within two hundred miles on just good average roads,
even
without considering the spring suspension. Every rough spot will throw
the
passengers off the seat at a speed of twenty five miles, and yet this
long,
roomy tonneau is featured as of great benefit to the prospective buyer.
There
is plenty of room for suit cases and other baggage in the tonneau,
forward of
the passenger's feet - in fact, the luggage has the most comfortable
spot in
the body while the passengers are tossed about in the overhang.
“Owing to the fact that European carrosserie
designers have
in the last two years turned out a variety of bodies having the shells
built to
enclose tires, wheels, folded tops and general luggage in rear of the
passenger
compartments, the automobilists eye has become accustomed to a
considerable
back overhang. In fact, when lines are well drawn, a considerable
overhang is
not objectionable in itself so far as appearance goes, but to place
human
beings out on the end of such a springboard and play snap the whip with
them is
nothing less than cruelty to the race.”
His novel Franklin Speed Sedan prototype was
pictured in the
February 18, 1917 Syracuse Herald, its caption follows:
“This Franklin Speed Sedan was designed by
W.H. Emond, chief
of the body designing department of the Franklin Automobile Company
with the
object of reducing ‘windage’ to a minimum continually in mind.
Practical
dimensions as well as appearance impose big limitations on the designer
making
it possible to secure minimum windage without markedly unusual
appearance. The
body is considered as nearly perfect in shape as any enclosed speed
body that
has been made. Mounted on a standard chassis, the whole car weighs only
about
2,700 pounds and is capable of high speed. The light weight for an
enclosed car
makes it quick on the get-away and especially easy to handle. Mr. Frank
H.
Sanders, the Franklin dealers in Chicago, is now driving the car.”
The 1920 US Census reveals some of the Emond
family details:
“William H. Emond b. 1863; Bessie W. Emond
b. 1877 in
California; Marylyn Emond aged b. 1901 in Massachusetts; Elizabeth
Emond b.
1904 in Massachusetts.”
According to the June 14, 1925 issue of the
Syracuse Herald
Emond made a presentation of his Emond Clear Vision system to the
Automobile
Builder’s Association:
“EMOND CENTER OF SAFETY DISCUSSION
“W.H. Emond, head body engineer of the
Franklin Company, returned
from Detroit this week where the Emond Clear Vision construction for
the new
Franklin coupe was made a feature for discussion at the Automobile
Builders
Association. Interest in clear vision development in closed cars has
apparently
reached the high point in 1925 as a result of the activity of safety
organizations throughout the country.”
Emond also penned short press releases
explaining details of
Franklin’s body construction which could be found in numerous papers
around the
country. The October 19, 1926 Lima (Ohio) News carried the following
article/advertisement that accompanied a picture of a new Franklin:
“Design Praised
“Workmanship of Franklin Is Highly Commended
By Body Builder
“In the old Guild days, master and
apprentice with router,
draw-knife and beading tool, created by patient handwork the forms and
decorative
detail that have come to be recognized as classic in the coachmaker’s
art. The
forms endure, but chiefly as artistic conceptions for their use has
been all
but abandoned in the monotonous level of a machine-made age, says W.H.
Emond,
chief body engineer of the Franklin Automobile Co., at Syracuse, N.Y.
“The reason is steel fabrication
and the unit efficiency of mass production,
asserts Emond.
Only the manufacturers of fine grade automobiles are clinging to the
ideals of
the Guild workers.
“One of the most attractive combinations of
the ancient
coachmakers," he says, "was the double reveal and the overlapping
quarter panel with narrow bead back from the edge.
“This combination was handed down from
generation, even
to modern times, but to reproduce it in metal-clad automobile bodies
has
generally been considered too expensive.
“The Franklin sedan," Emond points out,
"carries in the three types, this classic embellishment combined with
lines and proportions that sharply distinguish it from common
production. Drawn in perfect proportion on
an
exceptionally low basic floorline, the classic detail of exterior
embellishment, matches in perfect harmony the interior finish and
decoration.”
February 26, 1927 Syracuse Herald:
“Clear Vision on All Models.
“As in the remainder of the Franklin line
this year, the
clear-vision front principle is used, an idea that was first conceived
by W. H.
Emond of the Franklin body engineering department, later to be widely
adopted by Automobile
makers throughout the world.”
Although most of Franklin’s coachwork was
built by the Walker
Body Co., in Amesbury, Massachusetts, most of the engineering and
design was
completed back in Syracuse by Emond and his assistant Harry Strong. The
pair were responsible for Franklin’s
coachwork from 1910 through 1926 (Series 4-Series 10) when J. Frank
deCausse
was brought in as an independent styling consultant by Franklin’s
Custom Body
Dept. head, K.C. Haven, and its head of sales, M.K. Ledyard.
Emond worked very closely with deCausse, who
remained in his Manhatttan studio while Emond and Strong finalized the
new Franklin's body engineering in Syracuse. Protoytpes were
constructed by Willoughby in nearby Utica for pending final approval,
after which series production commenced in Amesbury.
Through their tenure with Franklin, Emond and
Strong made periodic trips to
Amesbury to check on the progress of new body styles and to ensure that
Walker’s quality control was in keeping with H.H. Franklin’s stringent
standards.
Emond wrote an interesting article detailing
the connection
between art and the automobile that was published in the May 1929 issue
of Autobody:
“Modern Art and the Modern Motor Car
“By WILLIAM H. EMOND, Consulting body
engineer, Box 308,
Syracuse, N.Y.
“FREQUENTLY heard during National Show week
were such
remarks as: ‘They all look alike to me,’ or ‘After you have seen about
four
exhibits you have seen the whole show.’ These and similar comments
unquestionably reflected the reaction to the general appearance of the
cars.
The poor salesman at the show who could not point out a wide belt
molding, a
curved front face of the corner pillar and a spliced-out drip molding,
all in
combination, on at least one of his cars, felt as if he had no
automobile to
sell provided he believed, as many do, that constant repetition spells
fashion.
“Paul Thomas at the S. A. E. semi-annual
meeting, from the
outside looking in, complained of 'slavish copying' and a
'deadly similarity.' In an address before the Metropolitan Section,
Amos Northup, from within, while apparently agreeing with Mr. Thomas on
the
main issue, discreetly refrained from open criticism, but one could
hardly
follow his suggestions and be accused of copying anything now
discernible. Mr.
Thomas was openly critical while Mr. Northup merely suggested. In an
article on
Detroit appearing in 'Outlook' and 'Independent,' of Feb.
13, Matthew Josephson writes: 'The figure of the new motor car was a
great
improvement over that of recent years but all of the major companies
had adopted
the same style and given their cars similar eyes, hips and square
foreheads.' He then goes on to explain how this came about, but is
slightly off as to facts.
“THREE MAIN BODY TYPES
“The so-named sedan is the typical American
family
automobile. When the word automobile was mentioned fifteen or more
years ago,
the picture in mind was an extension-top phaeton, usually called a
touring car;
today that picture is the sedan. The passenger car is a roadster or a
coupe.
Nobody ever calls them automobiles. These three types, with some
variations as
to the number of doors, comprise the great bulk of American automobile
production and it is these three types, with special emphasis on the
sedan,
that reveal the 'deadly similarity' in body design.
“Mr. Thomas in his address mentioned 'Modern
Art' as
applicable to exterior as well as interior, design. Mr. Northup lightly
touched
upon its use in connection with interiors only. Mr. Thomas's criticism
of
passenger accommodations were hardly applicable to present-day well
designed
bodies and his suggestion of rearward- f acing intermediate seats is
not an
arrangement that a prospective purchaser would tolerate. Nevertheless,
Mr.
Thomas if taken seriously (and this is decidedly worthwhile) has given
us much
to think about: Fashion; Modern Art.
“A PROPER FIELD FOR MODERN ART
“Mr. Thomas observed that many people think
fashions are set
by the manufacturer and thrust upon a sheep-like public. In prosperous
years
like 1928, so far as the automobile industry is concerned, this is
largely the
fact. It takes a little jolt of adversity, or prospective adversity to
awaken
the industry from the serene complacency for which the past boom year
is
responsible. The study of public taste and preference is a difficult
matter
when attempted in advance of exhibition. What the public will accept is
a
hazardous guess in any. line. However, certain trends in present taste
are
quite apparent and should be of assistance. Modern Art in its true
artistic
sense exhibits certain distinct characteristics. Its proper influence
on
interior design is acknowledged. Why not, as applied to closed cars on
exterior
design as well?
“APPLICATION TO EXTERIORS
“One of the characteristics of modern
decorative design is
simplicity and a preferential use of straight lines and angles. Mr.
Thomas said
that large, square windows make an ordinary sedan look static and
lumbering.
This is true if the emphasized rectangles approximate the square, but
not where
the length is much greater than the height. Moreover, all angles need
not
necessarily be right angles. Even in a flat front design a slanting
shield, and
quarter in harmony therewith, would dispose of the static effect.
“The above observations apply for the most
part to that
portion of the elevation design above the belt, usually referred to as
the
superstructure. Thank goodness, we are still streamlining the main body
and
blending it more or less successfully with the hood surfaces, except in
a few
instances where the designer thought he had to do something to earn his
pay and
could think of nothing but queerly disposed fancy moldings and broken
panels.
“SUPERSTRUCTURE WORTHY OF DESIGN
“The superstructure is, after all, an
important element in a
pleasing design. Thus far it has mostly been treated only as an
extension of the
lower or main body surface with some holes punched in it for doors and
windows.
Why not treat it as 'a superstructure, keeping it light in weight and
giving'
the car a smart and speedy appearance, by rolling in the main body at
the belt
on a development from the cowl and hood, thus 'preserving the
streamlining up
to the superstructure? To be sure something in this line has been
attempted on
one or two production cars in this country; although a vast improvement
over
conventional closed-body design and meeting with popular favor, the
results
still preserve much of the old clumsiness and top-heaviness. In Europe
they are
doing it much better and have been for some time.
“Mr. Thomas suggested a further development
of the
streamline principle to express more adequately in design the element
of speed.
Mr. Northup in his remarks concerning the treatment of the front end
apparently
has a similar thought.
“So far as closed bodies are concerned it is
difficult to
design a superstructure to comport with this idea. A slanting V-front
and the
use of a sine-curve for developing surfaces back of the master cross
section
are about all that can be done and this type of car would only be
suitable for
road use. The sine-curve not only suggests speed to the eye and mind
but actually
accomplishes something in reducing skin friction and eddies.
“SKETCH UTILIZING THE SINE-CURVE
Without attempting to design a wholly
practical body but to
show the theoretical application of sine-curve development to a closed
speed
car, still employing fenders for protection against splashing but
shaping and
disposing them in such a way as to offer the least possible resistance
to wind
pressure, a study sketch is offered. The sine-curve in this study, Fig.
3, ends
at point X on the elevation and the several horizontal sections, and
the master
line A is rounded in from X to the center line as a concession to
expediency.
If the sine-curve development, allowing room for two passengers on a
rear seat,
were continued to the center line, the surface would develop a keel as
it
approached the center and the overall length would be totally
impractical for
anything but a racing model.
“It is interesting to note that the
proportional development
of the various sections by triangulation produces a sine-curve as far
as X on
every section, precisely as would happen if each section had been
developed
from the circle. This means that whatever virtue the sine- curve
possesses in
eliminating eddy drag is distributed over the whole surface.
“ROADSTERS NEARLY ALL LOOK ALIKE
“Open-car models offer many better
opportunities for variety
and distinction in design than the closed models; and yet it is in this
field
that Mr. Thomas's complaint of deadly similarity is most emphatically
applicable. American roadsters all look alike except for a few fancy
moldings
and applied gadgets. To be sure, the standard American roadster is a
good-looking car, but they do not all need to look alike to be
attractive; and
while the present style. is admittedly smart and suggestive of 'speed,
much more
speedy designing is possible with a rational use of the sine-curve both
in plan
and elevation. From the master section forward the ideal shape would,
of
course, be parabolic, but so long as fenders have to be treated as
gadgets in
the assembly line, not much more can be done with front-end development
than is
suggested by Mr. Northup.
“PHAETONS MIGHT ALSO BE IMPROVED
“Phaeton models as now offered in sales
rooms present a
greater variety in design than roadsters, yet here again the
differences
consist mostly of the cutting-up of side surfaces into variously shaped
panels
by the use of moldings. It apparently has never occurred to American
designers
to speed up the lines of the main body by leaving a long straightaway
distinctly outlined, treating the seat rails as parts of a
superstructure with
an incidental splashboard effect that allows a clean-cut main body
development
to carry the picture. This style of body is attractive and perfectly
practical,
yet nothing of this character is being offered to the American buyer
today.
“It is by no means a certainty that a series
of cars,
practical, comfortable and comporting with the Modern Art movement
would make
an instantaneous hit with the public. Mr. Thomas is more optimistic in
this
respect than most of us feel. As an example, one member in the
discussion
following Mr. Thomas's address, cited the case of a certain car not
needing a
radiator cap that felt obliged to put on an imitation cap. This was
done, not
to add an artistic touch but because the public thought the car did not
look
like an automobile without an imitation radiator with a cap on it.
Another
instance is to be seen in some recent broadcast advertising where a
certain
make of car, calling attention to its marvelous accomplishments in
inspired designing,
mentions not less than four periods of ancient decorative art and
incidentally
drags in an extremely modern interpretation of an antique vase. All
this in one
series of cars. The question might be put as to whether the ad writer
is right
in his estimate of public intelligence.
“Again, Walter Mitchell in his article in
the February issue
of AUTOBODY, gives us a glimmer of an idea as to what the wind would
do, but he
evidently favors the use of gadgets and fancy moldings. He likes the
spliced
drip molding, presumably because of what the wind would do; but in this
case it
isn't what the wind would do but what the water could do that should
stimulate
the mind of the designer. We might add more gadgets by placing a
gargoyle at
each end of the drip. The advertising expert could then make reference
to
another period of architectural design—the Medieval Renaissance. Mr.
Mitchell
may be a good example of average public taste.
“COMPLETELY STREAMLINED CARS
“Every good designer knows that the ideal
motor-car design
would eliminate fenders and streamline the whole car surface over and
between
the wheels, extending the overhang, front and rear, sufficiently for a
contour
that would reduce wind resistance to a minimum. Everyone knows that
this type
of car would not fit in with present parking problems, therefore would
be
totally unsuitable for city use. What might approximate the ideal and
still be
practical for all purposes under present conditions has been previously
mentioned. More straight-lining and streamlining, less old-style
coachwork
detail, lightening of superstructure both as to appearance and actual
weight,
better outlook from closed bodies as part of the
superstructure-lightening
process. All these features would be strictly in line with Modern Art
development
and notwithstanding doubts heretofore expressed, one might venture the
prediction that such designing would easily hit a note of fashion.
“A CAR FOR EACH USE
“Mr. Thomas touched upon designing that
would be distinctly
appropriate to the particular use to which a car is to be put. Here is
a field
where the possibilities have hardly been scratched. The 2-car family is
with us
in the hundred thousands. We are hearing much about the 3- and 4-car
family.
Why not exploit the 5- and 6- and more-car family? In the days of
horse- drawn
vehicles every well-furnished private carriage house had an appropriate
style
of vehicle for every distinct use: At the shore or country place, a
victoria
for afternoon driving and general use; a family station wagon, a
station omnibus
or wagonette for meeting a party of week-end guests; large and small
body
breaks and a tandem cart for steeplechase, hunt or polo match, and so
on; for
city use, a brougham for shopping, the theatre and getting about; a
cabriolet
for driving in the park; a runabout for son; a gadabout for daughter
and so on.
It was as important to have the right vehicle for the particular
purpose as to
wear the fitting costume for the social function.
“What do we see now, within and without the
in- closure at a
steeplechase, a polo match, a golf club or anywhere else for that
matter? A lot
of so-called sedans and limousines, fewer but quite numerous phaetons,
and
roadsters, all in their respective categories looking alike except for
size and
a few splashes of color. How can a sporting event look like anything
but a city
traffic jam under such conditions? Where is the snap and go to this
sort of
exhibition?
“REAL FIELD FOR CUSTOM BUILDER
“It would seem to be within the custom-body
designer's
province to start a change in this condition and yet he is only
struggling
along in a sharp competition with the same old types, only recently
adding to
his lines two or three kinds of convertible bodies (popular in Europe
only
because the purchaser deludes himself into thinking he gets two cars
for one
tax) which do not work and never will work satisfactorily.
Herein lies the particular opportunity for
the application
of Modern Art interpretation to the uses and significance surrounding
the
problem in hand—the smart vehicle on smart lines—the staid and steady,
more
static—the outing and sporting types to look sporty and fast instead of
merely
tacking the word 'Sport' to the catalog name of a hackneyed
design—the attaching of names that are descriptive either of the
character or
purpose of the car instead of using traditional coach- builders' names
for
vehicles not even remotely resembling their predecessors. The use, in a
word,
of simplicity and expression in design and the attainment thereby of
attractive
novelty."
Emond followed up the previous article with
a rather complex
article detailing the principles and applications of dynamic symmetry
in the June,
1930 issue of Autobody:
“Further Notes on the Application of Dynamic
Symmetry
“By WILLIAM H. EMOND, Consulting body
engineer, Box 308,
Syracuse, N. Y.
“In a previous article on the application of
dynamic
symmetry to automobile design, reference was made to the system of
proportioning design by the use of area units—instead of line ratios—as
having
been used by the ancient Greeks. This was Hambidge's theory. Ernest
Flagg in a
recently published work on the Parthenon Naos laboriously proves that
simple
proportions were used in at least some Greek designing; and he goes out
of his
way to slap the Hambidge theory. A commentator has drawn attention to
the fact
that the proportions Flagg has so painfully demonstrated in connection
with the
Parthenon were used in planning the Great Pyramid. As a matter of fact
all this
was discovered years ago. There is no doubt as to the familiarity of
ancient Greek
designers with the properties of the root rectangles, and it would
appear from
some of Hambidge's analyses that the ancient Egyptians, from whom the
Greeks
got their start in geometry, had used area proportions in planning many
architectural decorative details.
“Individual artists, architects and
mathematicians,
acknowledging the perfection of Greek geometrical designing, propounded
theories at various intervals in the past. Each labeled his alleged
discovery
of a system and usually claimed that it was universally used by the
classic
artists. For most of us this last is difficult to believe. In fact it
takes a
deal of faith, in view of some of the more complicated of Hambidge's
analyses,
to believe in the universal employment by Greek artists of the system
he has
named 'dynamic symmetry.'
“It seems easier to conclude that some of
the Greek artists
used area-unit proportions and others direct line ratios, and it is
quite
possible that each system had it advocates. Artists and human nature
were
likely much the same in 700 B.C. as today. Then it may have been the
Statics
vs. the Dynamics, as it seems to be now—with barbarians on the side
lines
sneering at both. If this were the year 700 B.C. and I were living in
Athens,
especially if automobiles were then being designed, I should certainly
join the
Dynamics.
“To illustrate the difference between
compositions developed
from ordinary and from root rectangles, let us examine Figs. 1 and 2.
Fig. 1
represents an ordinary line-ratio rectangle with the long-to-short-side
ratio
of 11:7. This is the base-to-height ratio of the Great Pyramid,
yielding in its
turn the "golden mean" ratio between slope line and half the base.
For comparison let us take Fig. 2, a root rectangle with a
height-to-length
ratio of 1: √2, drawn to the same scale. This √2 rectangle has been
found
peculiarly adapted to automobile designing.
“In Fig. 1 an infinite number of rectangles
similar to the
master figure may be developed on the diagonals, but if perpendiculars
are
erected on the diagonals it is found that the master figure is cut into
two
equal rectangles at each end but there is left in the center another
which is
not similar and hence cannot be used for the generation of rectangles
similar
to the master figure. If the master figure were a root rectangle, the
perpendicular on the diagonals would divide it into two, three, four or
five
similar figures, according to the root number. It is evident therefore
that the
11:7 figure has its limitations as compared to a root rectangle.
“In Fig. 2 it will be noted that the
perpendicular to the
diagonal of the √2 rectangle cuts the long side of the master figure
exactly
into halves, thus allowing its division into two equal complementaries
which of
course have the same properties as the master figure. This is where it
differs
from the 11:7 rectangle. If, as in the side elevation of an automobile,
the
design composition has such functional proportions of length to height
as to
make it possible to cover the area by adjacent master rectangles and
their equivalents,
each equivalent or reciprocal and the whole area will be proportional
to the
master figure.
“Let us now examine briefly the functions of
the √2
rectangle. After dividing Fig. 2 into two complementaries, then
quartering by a
horizontal through the center, we have four reciprocals of the master
figure.
In the upper left quarter are shown, generated on perpendiculars, a
series of
rectangles which are in random arrangement and reciprocal with the
master
figure, but diminishing in area ratios. In the upper right quarter of
Fig. 2, a
series of exactly similar rectangles have been generated, coiled around
an
'eye,' the point of intersection of the diagonal and perpendicular.
The possibility of this arrangement of a series of rectangles thus
generated around
the eye is the excuse for referring to this system as 'dynamic.'
Using the eye for a pole, one may describe about this coil a
logarithmic
spiral, the plan of shell growth. In the lower right quarter of Fig. 2
are a
series of rectangles developed after the manner of Fig. 1; if an
attempt be
made to coil these around an eye it will be found that it cannot be
done; this
series then, and the proportions thus obtained, are described as
"static."
“In a simple analysis of Fig. 1, after
constructing the two
end complementaries, if a series of rectangles on perpendiculars were
coiled
about the eye these rectangles would not be reciprocal to the center
portion of
Fig. 1; hence the only available method of proportioning is by line
ratios as
shown. On the other hand, in Fig. 2, all of the rectangles developed on
perpendiculars with the diagonals are reciprocals; the larger
rectangular areas
may be subdivided easily and quickly, with the certainty that a line
drawn
either through the eye or the center will be coincident with the side
of a
rectangle in true proportion. Progress in the development of a design
by this
diagramatic method is fast and sure. In my opinion this is as good a
reason as
any for the adjective 'dynamic.'
“In automobile designing, distinctly
indicated area units
are essential features of the composition. There is the main body and
bonnet
area, more or less interrupted by functional details, but distinct in
spite of
all the interruptions; then the area of the whole superstructure,
subdivided by
uprights into separate areas of glass and opaque panels; later, the
disposition
of mudguards, moldings and accessories may be determined geometrically
in
accordance with the master plan. It is the nice proportioning of these
areas
and details that make the satisfying picture. It would seem from the
general
character of the problem that a method of obtaining good proportions
should be
based upon areas, rather than line ratios, for the best effect.
“In the accompanying study of a streamlined
'cabin' sedan, the whole height of body, from base line to top of
roof, is the length of the shorter side of the basic rectangle, leaving
the
drop of the radiator shell below the base line of the body to be
determined
within a reciprocal proportion, treated as in excess. This is more in
line with
common practice.
“The √2 rectangle with a long side of 70 in.
has an
indeterminate short-side dimension of approximately 49 1/2 in. The
square root
of 2 being 1.414 the ratio of the short side to the long is as 1:
1.414. The
long side being 70 in., the short would thus be 49.498 in. The square
root of 2
being indeterminate it will be better for the designer to construct the
rectangle graphically rather than by scale. The dimension thus obtained
is a
perfectly practical dimension for the overall height of the main body,
and for
the proportioning of closed-car designs this √2 development is simple
and
satisfactory.
“This body design has no static appearance
whatever. It
looks speedy, is speedy, and at the same time is built within a
practical
overall length for city parking. The superstructure is treated as a
streamlined
cabin. The V-front and V-back reduce wind pressure and eddy drag
materially.
The passenger compartments may be ample for five people and leave
exceptional
luggage space under the V-back structure. This part of the design is
susceptible to a variety of treatments. In this case it is an imitation
trunk.
“Fig. 2 showing development of rectangles by
area-ratio
units. All rectangles in the upper left quarter have a definite area
ratio. In
the upper right quarter are shown a similar series- of area-unit
rectangles
plotted in a logarithmic spiral; this growth by "dynamic symmetry"
coincides with the plan of shell growth, such as exhibited by the
chambered
-nautilus. In the lower right quarter are a series of rectangles
developed by
the line-ratio method, after the manner of Fig. 1; these cannot be
coiled
around an 'eye' as in the 'dynamic' series directly above,
and hence the system typified by Fig. 1 is described as 'static'.
“Fig. 3 An interesting streamlined ‘cabin
sedan’ developed
by the root-rectangle or area-unit method, sometimes referred to as
dynamic
symmetry. All of the rectangles shown in light broken lines are
proportionately
related. Note the unusual V-shaped rear of the superstructure and the
built-in
trunk at the rear.”
The March 1931 issue of Automobile Topics
announced that
Emond was:
“To Study Design in Europe –
“William H. Emond,
of Syracuse, NY,
automobile designer and consultant on special problems in
coachwork, is
leaving this week for France, where he will persue his studies
and
specially observe streamline developments among the French
coachbuilders, a
field in which he has specialized for a number of years.
“Emond was formerly chief body designer
for
the Franklin Automobile Co. He expects to be out of the
Country about
six months.”
For a brief time Emond established his own
studio in Paris,
the ‘What They Are Doing’ column in an April 1931 issue of the
Automobile
announcing:
“Emond Locates in Paris
“William H. Emond, automobile body-
designer, is now located
in Paris at 76, Avenue des Champs Elysees.”
It’s unknown if Franklin was involved in the
Paris
operations, but Emond was back in the Syracuse within the year, the
June 16,
1932 Syracuse Herald reporting:
“An adjustable seat designed by William H.
Emond has been
assigned to the H. H. Franklin Manufacturing company, Syracuse.”
Emond
remained a consulting engineer until Franklin's withdrawal from the
automobile business after which I could not locate any information
about his whereabouts.
© 2012 Mark Theobald - Coachbuilt.com
|
