impdb.org

IGCD

[ Login ]

1967 Jaguar 420 [XJ16]

1967 Jaguar 420 [XJ16] in Le maître-nageur, Movie, 1979

Class: Cars, Sedan — Model origin:

1967 Jaguar 420 [XJ16]

01:06:50 Minor action vehicle or used in only a short scene

Comments about this vehicle

Author	Message
sixcyl ◊ 2013-09-17 21:42	Mk.X or 420 G
dsl ◊ 2013-09-17 22:39	I slightly favour Mk.X over 420G, but not clear cut either way.
G-MANN ◊ 2013-09-17 22:40	If there's not enough of it visible to tell, list it as Mk. X by default. -- Last edit: 2013-09-17 23:08:38
DidierF ◊ 2013-09-17 23:00	Let's see…
G-MANN ◊ 2013-09-17 23:04	It's a 420 not a Mk.X or 420G. In fact you could tell this by the front, the inner headlights wouldn't be as close to the grille on a Mk.X/420G (didn't realise this at first though) -- Last edit: 2013-09-17 23:06:07
DidierF ◊ 2013-09-17 23:04	Or this?
DidierF ◊ 2013-09-17 23:06	And that is all I can do.
dsl ◊ 2013-09-17 23:08	DidierF wrote And that is all I can do. It's enough. Agree 420.
DidierF ◊ 2013-09-17 23:11	dsl wrote It's enough. Agree 420. Now,in retrospect, tell me how you reached to the certitude, if you please.
G-MANN ◊ 2013-09-17 23:15	Read the comments.
DidierF ◊ 2013-09-17 23:35	G-MANN wrote Read the comments. Toujours aussi agréable, toi.
dsl ◊ 2013-09-17 23:58	420 and Daimler Sovereign are narrow body - effectively they were the S-Type with a new front end; the S-type was really just the older Mk.II with a new boot. So all three families are similar size and have same cabin. Mk.X was bigger flabbier design - wider, smaller side windows, thicker rear pillars - and 420G same with side chrome and thick central bar in grille. Difficult to explain how to spot differences - for me it was the side windows, and GMANN is correct about width of lights from grille, but they are there if you know what to look for.
DidierF ◊ 2013-09-18 01:05	Merci. It happens that I wonder which view I had to choose, when somebody is about to find but still hesitate. Should I insist on the front, or the side, or try to find some precious detail in a very different sequence? My part of the job is funny too. Now I return to the bloody moped. It sure reminds me something of my youth, but what?
G-MANN ◊ 2013-09-18 01:10	What really made me realise it wasn't a Mk.X or 420G was that it doesn't have the groove running along the side, so the 1st thumbnail you added was quite helpful. A real Jag expert would probably know anyway because the Mk. X was much wider than this, but I failed to notice this at first. -- Last edit: 2013-09-18 01:17:23
G-MANN ◊ 2013-09-18 01:25	DidierF wrote Toujours aussi agréable, toi. Sorry, I really just meant read my earlier comment because I said how I identified it.
DidierF ◊ 2013-09-18 02:08	G-MANN wrote Sorry, I really just meant read my earlier comment because I said how I identified it. And this earlier comment would have been enough for me, except I hadn't read it since I was at that time extracting and posting the three last thumbnails. When I saw dsl saying 'OK, it's a 420', I asked him his way to gain certainty. Your way was of the same pattern… but I couldn't read it (see the time of our postings). All this to say that there is rarely harm in repeating explanations, on the contrary: the second time being usually more detailed. I like details. I like chatting. Without conversation and jokes, the place would be a bore, don't you think?

Add a comment

Advertising