@jack-dodds, I agree about the 65-67. I thought the '65 was elegantly understated. The design has, IMO, worn well with long flowing lines and
a well defined front end with those stacked headlight leaning forward, pulling the rest of the car up to speed. The flanks are simple with a faint accent line ephasizing the length. There's just enough of a shrug to the shoulders to connote power and set of a simple but widely spaced tail lights, somewhat canted in to bring balance to the front. The carry-over roofline from the '63 keeps the look sleek and lean and adds to the sensation of movement. I love it!
It's very rare when I can't decide. After the ho-hum 1961 Ford, the '62, '63, and '64 Fords were extremely nice looking. And then just like that, Ford botched it for '65! For me it's a TIE. I like all three the same!!!
This is why I love opinions. My favorite Fords of the 1960s are 1965 followed by 1961. These three leave me cold.
It's very rare when I can't decide. After the ho-hum 1961 Ford, the '62, '63, and '64 Fords were extremely nice looking. And then just like that, Ford botched it for '65! For me it's a TIE. I like all three the same!!!
This is why I love opinions. My favorite Fords of the 1960s are 1965 followed by 1961. These three leave me cold.
Thank heavens for subjectivity!
Ed...I agree with you totally about opinions and subjectivity. If only everyone could discuss and respect others opinions in a polite way, what a nicer, calmer, and decent world we'd all be enjoying.
@georgeschire To me, the top of the rear fender on the '63 looks more rounded than on the '64 (conforming to the superior surface of the rear tail lights), however, I pulled up some images of non-convertibles and, to me, the rear of the roofline of the '64 appears more convex or curved than that of the '63 and I find that more appealing than the rear roofline on the '63 - so in that aspect I favor a '64 over a '63. Certainly interesting changes in style from year to year and, for rounded or straightened, it may depend on which part of the design one chooses to focus on and I appreciate your reply.
I'm quietly hoping that a 1965 Galaxie 2drht and convertible are in Sergio Goldvarg's plans. It would look great on display beside his beautiful '65 Mercury HT.
@jack-dodds, I agree about the 65-67. I thought the '65 was elegantly understated. The design has, IMO, worn well with long flowing lines and
a well defined front end with those stacked headlight leaning forward, pulling the rest of the car up to speed. The flanks are simple with a faint accent line ephasizing the length. There's just enough of a shrug to the shoulders to connote power and set of a simple but widely spaced tail lights, somewhat canted in to bring balance to the front. The carry-over roofline from the '63 keeps the look sleek and lean and adds to the sensation of movement. I love it!
Very nicely said and shared John. Interestingly, I'm still not a fan of they style. Two "square" looking for my taste. Of the sixties decade, I'll stick with '62, '63, and '64 as being the best styled.
