Thread: Photo Shop help for the 37 Dodge

Tweet

I'm sure someone who's studied art could give you the justification, but I anin't that guy. All I know is that when it comes to proportion there must be some sort of mathematical balance thing. Though I can't put it in those terms, I like to think I know good proportion when I see it.

It sounds like you've narrowed your vision to the orientation of the fender to the box. Part of encouraging folks to roll a project out of the shop from time to time and look at it from 20 or so feet back is to broaden the field of vision. I know you've seen those cars that some have fashioned that just don't look "right". Often it's because they did what they thought looked good in the garage, but out in the "field" they don't come out as well as the "vision". All of that commentary is to say that the folks who originally designed that truck got it right (not always Chrysler's strong suit admittedly). I'd bet lowering that rear end just an inch or two would change the entire perspective. One of my favorite trucks of all time is a local '37 plymouth (virtual twin to yours) that was lowered nicely, all black, and looked killer. It's my opinion, though your vehicle, that if you shorten the wheelbase/bed/rear fender orientation, you risk making it look like a clown car. Take in the whole of the package, note the sweep of the fenders, how they compliment one another, draw the eye length wise, and that the orientation of the bed spacing is merely to compliment or accomodate that fender placement and shape.

To the original comment about the "math", the height has to work relative to the length. Too short height wise and it looks squatty, too short length wise and it looks truncated. There may be some circumstances where those attributes are appropriate, but not often.