Trunk & Trunk Racks

Here is the trunk rack.  Reo specfic?

A.J.:

I would say it is REO without a doubt. I will send you pics to your email of John's cars trunk racks, since he confesses he is not good and taking and sending pics (hope you don't mind John). Perhaps you can ask him for measurements if you want to be 100% sure, but by the looks of it, I could swear that it is the real thing.

I will give you my un-asked for opinion: A Trunk rack adds a lot of charachter to the rear end of a car. Of course, with lines such gorgeous as in your car, it is not needed, but anyhow, they do look great in my opinion. If it were my car, I would certainly keep it.

I don't necesarilly like trunk racks when in use... the added external bulk does not help designs much, but folded without trunks they look great.

I guess it is a matter of tastes. I have seen many 'important' cars that don't have them (perhaps, if you were real wealthy and wanted the car for specific purposes you wouldn't ask for one, particularly in a car such as yours with an integral trunk) but many do also. 

My Victoria will not have the optional integral trunk or buffeted trunk, as John calls it,but the regular rounded trunk lid, sort of what your car has. So, I will deffinately want to add a trunk rack to it, as I believe it will complement the lines of the car greatly.

My two cents.
Victor

I actually don't mind the racks as long as there is no trunk on it. The square trunks detract from the lines of the car. In this case, the picture from 1931 does not show a rack so I'll leave it off. Victor, thank you for the identification. I think it would probably not be right to put an original Reo trunk rack on a Ford T speedster. I'll talk to my friend as I'm sure he would understand. I'll post some pictures of the trunk also and hopefully it won't be REO so I can give him that.

Here is the trunk. This does not look like the one on John's Blue sedan so I'm going to guess maybe it is a generic?

A.J.:

Though the Price list offers a 'Regular trunk' and two options of suitcases for it (two suitcases and the same plus hat box), I have no idea of what you have is correct or not.

I am sending to your direct email (too dumb to post them here) the pics I have of Royales with trunks... all different!

victor

Hi Victor,

Thanks for the pictures. I'm going to split this trunk discussion out into another thread and I'll post your pictures. I talked to my friend and he didn't want the trunk rack anyways so all good there. I'll let him have the trunk if he wants it.

A.J.

John, always be honest with your opinions and I can guarantee you will never offend me! I'll hold on to the rack for now but will let my buddy have the trunk if he wants it. There is no way I will ever use it and they take up a lot of space!

Here are the trunk pictures that Victor sent me.  Victor,  it is easy to post them here.  Just use the "Add Attachment" button in the upper left corner after you push "Create Post".

Now that A.J. has explained to me how to attach pics, no excuses on my part... and here are a few more trunks.

Hi

As a matter of aesthetics and practicality, racks and trunks look fine on the regular production sedans. They were necessary for those traveling since the body has no luggage capacity designed in.

But, as a matter of aesthetics, they look terrible on convertible and Victoria coupes as well as the Dietrich Sport Sedan. These body styles have trunk capacity designed and integrated into the body configuration. As styles taking greater aesthetic appeal into account, they should never have their elegant proportions compromised by practical considerations. A rack folded neatly against the rear is allowable.

Do as they did in back in the day: transport the luggage ahead with the hired help in another car, or ship the travel trunks to the destination by rail!

Steve

P.S. As a matter of pure aesthetic appeal, a rear-mounted spare or spares to leave the clean swept of the front fenders and to emphasize the hood length is the ultimate ideal!

Hi John

Simply one man's opinions, for what they're worth. Everyone's perceptions of aesthetic beauty differ, as the aphorism goes "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or beer-holder!)" Trunk racks themselves look fine as long as it's folded neatly against the back. It's those big boxes hanging on the back that spoil the proportions.

My taste also runs to Classics with rear-mounted spare or spares; side-mounts not so much a favorite as they detract from the visual sweep of the hood and front fenders. But most think a Classic isn't one without side-mounts. I also like the chromed disk or the smooth Ace wheel-covers whereas most prefer wire wheels. Artillery wheels, whether wood or steel, just look archaic by the early 1930's

Steve

In the Mercedes world a factory rear spare car (which was almost always double spare) will bring much more money than the side mount cars. Usually the rear mount cars had set back radiators which of course added to the lengthened appearance.

Don Olsen's 1931 Victoria 8 -31 has the spares mounted on the back . His car does show very well like Steve explained with the sweeping lines .

Just as Steve says, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", though I personally favor the trunk racks in place, folded without trunks. To add a bit more controversy, and only this beholder's opinion, on long fender cars, I like the sidemounts, but not on shorter ones.
victor

According to Joe Asuchak on his 1931 Reo Royale Victoria 8 - 35 He has an original trunk from the factory made by Beals & Selkirk . From reading the article it describes the construction of a variety of trunk manufacturers . It seems Beals & Selkirk where a high end manufacturer of car trunks .There is a good picture of the trunk and Joe's Royale on page 3 .

http://www.secondchancegarage.com/how-to/trunk-pt-1-1.cfm

Here is the emblem.

We have a source that will reproduce these emblem at $18 per emblem plus shipping .
http://forums.aaca.org/topic/317578-beals-and-selkirk-trunk-tag/