Not a T, but a very interesting photo. Notice the tire chains in the box, and how the spokes snapped. Open the link for a very high resolution photo.
vince
http://www.shorpy.com/node/5326?size=_original
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I'll bet someone on this Forum can ID the car!
Jeff
Wonder what the rope was for?
The comments on the web page says seat belt???? not sure i believe it though.
vince
From the picture it looks looks it was t boned and pushed sideways over the curb.
Jim
Also, the caption says it's license tag number is "26", but the lamp post is blocking most of the plate. I think if it were #26, it would be in the middle of the plate, not the far side of it. It looks like a 1910's--early teens car to me, with the flat fenders and body work that's sculpted. RH steering, also.
Here is a photo from a different angle. http://www.shorpy.com/node/5327?size=_original
Vince
That's probably a gas or kerosene lamp on the post.
Great photos. The other car in the second photo shows plate #24. Washington DC started issuing license plates in 1907, and used the same series (consecutive numbering) through 1917. The person who was issued #26 in 1907 would have used it on his car (even if he sold the one he owned in 1907) through 1917. I hope that makes sense.
This car is probably not 1907, but probably 1910 or 1911 from the cowl. Unfortunately I cannot identify the car, but I'll check a couple books.
Thanks for sharing,
Chris
Spot the man with two right arms in front of the T !
http://www.shorpy.com/node/5324?size=_original
Cheers
Adrian
Notice that the light pole is canted to one side, there are tire tracks on the pavement heading towards it. Appears to me he took the corner too fast and slid into the pole.
Gordon
Adrian,
I think that was a time exposure and the man moved his arm up while the shutter was open. He is blurred and the others are not.
Norm
Adrian, How many headless horses do you see still around? I suspect modern photography uses a bit shorter exposure times.
Noel
Some things I noted in the enlarged photo;
The rear tires do not match, the paint looks faded, the top even though it's been through a wreck shows lots of use and wear and is in need of a good top dressing. Looks to be made of heavy cotton duck.
That is the cool thing with old photographs. They get detail from the film grain, but which needed long exposures, hence the need not to move (just like the young man in the photo did).
Another fun thing is looking at the old "panorama" photos of groups - you often see the same people at each end. The method was to wait till the camera has rotated past, then run behind the camera to the other end of the line up before it got there.
National Geo had an article on old tin type photography being done today by photographers. Certainly has a patina modern digital doesn't (yet!)
Cheers
Adrian
The car definatly dates between 1908 and 1910. It is a large car (probably running on 34x4 or 36x4 wheels), probably a 4 cylinder juging by the legth of the hood. The floor boards appear to be made out cast aluminum(or some sort of metel) which means it is probably a more upscale car. Radiator, fender and headlight layout/design upfront looks a bit like an '08 Thomas, but it's not chain drive.
The car definatly dates between 1908 and 1910. It is a large car (probably running on 34x4 or 36x4 wheels), probably a 4 cylinder juging by the legth of the hood. The floor boards appear to be made out cast aluminum(or some sort of metel) which means it is probably a more upscale car. Radiator, fender and headlight layout/design upfront looks a bit like an '08 Thomas, but it's not chain drive and the body is not right.
The car definatly dates between 1908 and 1910. It is a large car (probably running on 34x4 or 36x4 wheels), probably a 4 cylinder juging by the legth of the hood. The floor boards appear to be made out cast aluminum(or some sort of metel) which means it is probably a more upscale car. Radiator, fender and headlight layout/design upfront looks a bit like an '08 Thomas, but it's not chain drive and the body is not right.
I'm wondering what the other car is. It has single chain drive, so the engine is probably under the seat, mounted transversely. It seems to have brake drums mounted part way out the rear axle. If that's what they are, how are they mounted and fastened? If not, what are they? That shiny rod sticking out from the front compartment looks like a tiller from a left-hand drive car, thrown over to the side to let the driver out. That would be highly unusual.
Gil Fitzhugh, Morristown, NJ
In this one with the '3 armed man and headless horse', what's that sticking out of the front of the T parade van?
http://www.shorpy.com/node/5324?size=_original
Going back to the original accident shot, this reminds me of an accident I had 25 yrs ago in a '27 Hispano - woman came out of Hyde Park(London), T-boned me and the car slammed sideways and bounced straight up the kerb, just the way this one has. Except I was unlucky enough to hit the lamppost as well :^)
I think the rope was for something that was on tow, or the car was regularly used for towing and they just threw the loose end into the back seat.
There is a sign on the store front that says "Paint with Lewis White Lead" ...sure has cost a heap to remove Lewis' paint over the years.
Bob
I would bet the car was crashed in the street and a rope was tied to the back and the car pulled up on the sidewalk to clear the street.
No doubt it or the other car hit the lamp pole.
It looks like the crash took place in the street, from the debris, and the car went over on its side, slamming into the lamp pole with its top, which broke it in half. Look at the top, how it's damaged, and how the car is broken. Very very interesting!!!
This is the closest I could find in the 1911 ALAM Handbook Of Gasoline Automobiles.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/5338?size=_original
this is another view of the car
vince
The rear fenders are wrong, but most everything else looks prety much dead on. A MERCER! What a shame. I like the handles behind the front seat for robes or hands, and I noticed it has two linkages running down the side: one for brakes, and one for the transaxle? Mercers did have a rear transaxle.....I'd love to blow up the picture and see if I could read the make on the hupcaps!!
Wonder what the little tank was for at the rear of the left front fender?
I don't know what the car is either, but a very good clue for someone is the either half-round or half-oval molding on the cowling that runs upward at about a 30 degree angle. I don't remember ever seeing a cowl molding like this on any cars I've seen on tours or at car shows. I think it is pretty unique to a specific make car.
The tank should be a "Prest-O-Lite" tank for the acetylene headlamps.
I'm not confident enough to bet heavily (I'm at work and don't have any research stuff), but I don't think it's a Mercer - I'm leaning toward the small model Locomobile, somewhere around a Model E. I think 1909 or before. Shaft drive (they were available with shaft or double chain drive).