Now you got me dander up!

[Eric Sands <esands@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In AD #72 John Hertzman wrote:
>From a purely formal standpoint I have never been comfortable with the 
stepnose.  There is nothing at all wrong with the front end, and nothing at 
all wrong with the rear end, but (as on the Renault Caravelle, which was 
angular at the front and rounded at the back) they contradict each other, 
whichever end is right the other is wrong.

Every one is entitled to his/her opinion (whenever a posting starts like 
this you *know* there is going to be trouble!), BUT... I most heartily 
disagree with Mr. Hertzman. The stepnose is the purest of the line (and the 
pre '67 with its smaller rear wheel openings is purer still). It conveys a 
sense of grace and power that is only diluted in later versions. Giorgetto 
Giugiaro was at his peak when he designed this car, and it is a 
masterpiece. And just as you would not condone the alteration of any other 
more traditional work of art neither would I call the attempts to "update" 
or "modernize" the maestro's finest an improvement. You can quibble about 
the pedals, the dash, the bumpers (well, maybe) or the seats, but not the 
lines of this car. And as for the reference to the Caravelle, with which it 
shares no line, curve or concept... please!

Honestly I am not so smitten that I don't understand how someone can prefer 
a later GTV to a Stepnose, if it works better for you great, but to say 
that the original design is wrong makes me wonder. The steped nose 
treatment is odd, it is beautiful and it is bold. Just the kind of thing 
you would hire a world class designer to come up with. And it complements 
the rear of the car in a natural and beautiful way. I hope I am not alone 
here, anybody else want to defend this car?

Eric Sands
'66 Giulia Sprint GT Veloce
et al

------------------------------