The Stanley model 85 wasn't ready soon enough to make it into the 1911 Stanley season catalog. The Stanley model 85 came out later with features found only in the 1912 Stanleys, like the aluminum skinned body panels instead of wood panels.
Ok, so the 1912 model year had the all nickel plated items with no brass showing. Well how about the model 85? Did it follow the 1911 cars lead with brass headlights and windshield frame or did they go the 1912 style with all nickel bright work? Since our 1911 model 85 has the stretched model 70 type of all wood body, maybe brass would be more correct. What do you think??? (I dislike polishing brass)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2006 04:11PM by SSsssteamer.

Hi Pat,

Our 85 is the same as yours. When it was restored, the then owner took a lot of time and trouble researching what was correct for this year of car, I'm afraid he decided that brass was correct, on our car most of it is teated, so not to much polishing, Happy new year, Jeff.

(I dislike polishing brass)
Pat go with nickel, you will be happy, I am finding it very hard to know what was real or not on these old cars. All the restored EX cars have brass on there hoods.
I have not found a barn fresh car from 1905 to 1909 that had brass on the hood and I have photos of four cars. I also have some rusted original mountin wagon hoods with no brass. I think someone started the trend and it stuck. Every time I photograph a restored car and get under neath to take photos I see all kinds of changers. I’m finding that know one realy knows.

Rolly

Hi Pat,,yes the laquer will burn when you fire up the lamps,,,However there are other yellow color metals that will plate that match brass ,and tho expensive [? ],,relitave to the overall cost AND pleasure given,the cost will be insugnficant,I think,, Nickel is tough to pollish and chrome looks simply awful,, Just my view,,,Cheers Ben

Dear Ben, Rolly and Jeff, I have given this a lot of thought and I did a little research. The Stanley brothers, rather than leaving the gauges and other trimmings brass, they had always plated all of their necessary parts because to leave them in raw brass was likeleaving them unfinished, like not painting your wooden home. The luxury model 85 at $2,500, was released to the public in February of 1911 with all of the latest refinements according to the February, 1911 issue of Motor. The model 85 was also the first Stanley touring that had a windshield that came as standard equipment. All 1912 Stanleys after the release of the model 85 had nickel plated windshield frames as standard equipment. Expensive cars of that era had the extra things done, like a lot of plating. Therefore I am going to nickel plate the windshield frame. The lamps will stay brass unless I find out differently. They could go nickel too. Thank you for the help and opinions. I agree, chrome plating does not belong on Stanleys and when used, it cheapens the car.

Dear Pat et al:

I agree with the nickel plating. My 1925 Model SV 252 (The BettyAnne) is nearing the point where things will go out for plating and I've decided on nickel because it was original.

I've spent most of my career in the museum field (I started at the Smithsonian and my wife says it has been downhill ever since) and museum curators have huge arguments about "restoration" vs "conservation." It is always a trade off. The best work on artifacts is done after careful research.

My solution is to document fully what I am doing to my car (just as good museums will do) and that documentation will stay with the car. Some time in the future, someone else will owm The BettyAnne and that person will get 600+ pictures of the car being disassembled, all the written documentation I could find, and notes on what we did and who did it, as well as the history of the car as far back as we can go. This is particularly important for The BettyAnne, as I am told she is the most original Model SV 252 to survive.

Happy new year!

Don Hoke
www.stanleysteameronline.com