Granting all of these changes of ownership and marketing relationships which
have occurred in the automotive industry over the past 100 plus years you
have to wonder why we obsess so much over the 'proper' relationship of the
Healey product to the Healey name.
What is the correct relationship?
How is it determined except by our own preferences and prejudices?
My theory is that the Healey marque is unique in that all of the cars they
produced were made under the direct influence of two men, Donald and
Geoffrey Healey. No other entity has ever owned the right to call their
product (automotive anyway) a Healey. Looking at all of the popular british
marques (except Morgan) will show they have been through many changes of
ownership, management, labor problems, economic straits and social changes.
The concepts and philosophies of their originators have long been forgotten
and have changed many times. Perceptions of their names have been muddied by
less than desirable products. The relatively short span of production of
automobiles named "Healey" meant that they original concept of a Healey car
was never forgotten or degraded by those forces.
When you mention the name Healey everyone who knows anything about cars
knows that you are talking about a fast, beautiful, desirable and relatively
rare automobile. There is no such thing as a boring Healey.
Sorry for rambling, I think I had a point when I started, but can't remember
what it was.
Bill Lawrence
>And is David Brown any relation to Aston or Martin? And where is W.O.
>Bentley's hand in the current line that bears his name?
>
>The British car industry's legacy is full of marques that went under only
>to
>reappear in another guise.
>
>Still, it is sad that there is no real connection to the Donald Healey
>Motor
>Company. Though as Greg Lemon suggested--if the drivetrain is current,
>cheap, and strong, and the body is stylish, then the spirit of the man
>lives.
>
>I think, though, I will stick with the '53 and '62.
>
>JR
|