[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Chrome vs. Rubber

Subject: Re: Chrome vs. Rubber
From: "Scott Gardner" <>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 00:28:29 +0000
>  Hey Paul
>   The UK doesn't have a monopoly on stupid snobbery.  On this side of the
> Atlantic pond, we have a large infestation of it too.
>   Some so called enthusiats dont believe MG made any cars after _______
> (1939,1955,1961, 1974 - fill in the blank)
>    But if you get to talking to some of the MK snobs, you'll soon
> discover they are about as shallow as their pronouncements.  If the truth
> be known, in a lot of cases, they bought the C/B, recessed grill MGB
> because it was the one they could find at the time.  And over the years,
> they have convinced their own small minds of  the superiority of this
> particular itteration of the car.
>    Who needs  'em?
>  There's too many real MG nuts who care about MG's from Old No 1 to the
> MGF to worry about the others.  
> Rick Morrison
> 72 MGBGT
> 74 Midget
        Your post struck a chord with me.  When I bought my '72, I didn't 
know much about MGBs, other than there were hardtops and softtops, 
and that there were rubber and chrome bumpers.  At the time, I 
thought they were all pretty neat (and still do).  Since then, I've 
come to realize that I'm very happy with the '72.  It has the console 
and the glove box, and the chrome bumpers.  If I had bought a later 
model, I would have been happy because of the updated dash and the 
sturdier bumpers, as well as an overall newer car.  If I had bought 
an older car, I would have been happy to have had the neat 
wrinkle-finish dash, the nifty pull-out door handles, or the cleaner, 
less-cluttered engine compartment.
        I guess I can appreciate all of the years for one reason or another, 
and think it's silly to argue amongst ourselves when it's pretty much 
us againt the rest of the world when it comes to cute little 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>