A BWF Hudson? Absolutely!! But, to me anyway, the Packard is a very classy car. This particular car should not be flamed. (I hope I don't get kicked out of the BWF Brotherhood
)
You have a good point concerning the Packard, Mark. My first thought was similar while thinking about some of the typical, or overly simplistic flames we've seen at times. My second thought, envisioning the potential of the car flamed with a bit of finese, sort of over rided my first impulse. On reading your words in print, however, I must agree with you--at least by way of about 98% On the other hand, we've seen fairly classy cars (or at least car i would've called difficult candidates) flamed in the past. I would've probably had reservations about flaming the '58 Belvedere. And the 62 Bel Air, and even the recent Malibu don't seem like typical candidates in my book. That Malibu still looks awkward to me, though I haven't seen it up close yet. So I suppose I'm going to sum up my own thoughts, however conflicted, by saying it greatly depends on what you do with any car. Respect it shape, it's lines, and make sure whatever you add to it, ADDS TO IT--gives it some pizzaz. Otherwise leave well enough alone. I love those BWFs, but we really don'y need another "Swamp Gas" (hats off to Swifty for coining that term) GTO, Ford vans with streamers mixed with flames, or God forbid...a packard that looks like a kid picked up a can of paint and dumped it over the hood, then doodled flame shapes with their fingers. That's no reflection on some of LCs recent flame designs, BTW
