This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Coventry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CoventryWikipedia:WikiProject CoventryTemplate:WikiProject CoventryCoventry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
The car illustrated looks to me like a Humber sceptre Mk 2 from about 1965, despite the original title in the article "Super Snipe?" and the picture description "Humber Sceptre Mk 1". I did a search for images on Google, and came up with, for example:
9/20 3-d tourer, sloping screen was considered notable
I think this car which I photographed in Belgium this weekend (Aug 2012) may be a Humber 9, but then again I'm not entirely sure. Is anyone able to confirm or correct my suspicion, please? And thank you. 13:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, well maybe it is but this is what this person thought it might be, a chummy 8/18 of 1924. Your fresh new crop of photos is of such fine examples - how do you do it? They all look as if bound from the manufacturer to their first showroom display. Your Humber matches exactly the photo in The Times of Friday Nov 3, 1922 page 5 labelled『Humber 8—H.P. occasional four-seater. Cost £275.』though that example carries no petrol can or handy door mat. A fuller desc turns up in the Motor Show issue of the following year (page 18 Friday 2 Nov 1923) where the correspondent notes, among many details, that the carburettor is easily reached but no fan is supplied which might be counted a mistake in export markets. On Tues Sep 2 1924 a correspondent reported at length on the same car including "It is not over-light, but with two up the speedometer will show 40 miles an hour over rising ground and against a stiff breeze . . ." On Tues Jun 2 1925 there was a lengthy (test) report again though this time it is described as 8-18 H.P. Humber. The price is now £250 (2-str with dickey) and the tester indicated this may be slightly expensive for the product provided. To have had so much written about it over such a short period by The Times suggests the correspondent may have been subjected to the best efforts of super salesman Billy Rootes.
A 9-20 model was introduced in October 1925 and seems to have been the same car with a 2mm increase in cylinder bore providing a capacity of 1057 cc and carrying (3-door) saloon or touring bodies priced at £315 and £260. Might the car in your photo have had three doors? Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. The identification maybe needs further thought from me, but I think that takes us in a good direction. I've been a bit preoccupied with nin-wiki stuff lately, but I might try and contact the gentleman with the Flemish sounding name to ask how he knows what he knows.
Thanks for the kind comments on my latest pix, though of course you didn't see the ones that didn't look useful enough to risk uploading. But finally we did indeed get a sunny weekend coinciding with a good sized oldtimer show: it was an overdue break, I say. For the first half of summer 2012 several shows were simply cancelled as field owner agonised about cars getting stuck in the mud. And many old timer owners avoid going out where there's a risk of rain, which of course makes much sense if you want to win the battle with corrosion and other forms of degradation. Charles01 (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Cars section and the 3rd paragraph I commented out "See book Humber history to 1930]". Do you find any reference for Humber History to 1930, or is it intended to refer to Humber catalogue for 1930? --Omotecho (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologise. I have left a message on your own talk page and now I have found this. No I have no idea of how to find the book referenced. I put the phrase in Google just now and all it shows is the power of WP because it is clear all the references date back to this article! I can't turn up anything that looks useful in Google Books either. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Eddaido, thank for your note, and you pointed out that Google suggests back to this article (sigh). I would try a bit more, maybe in Japanese reference (for just in case anything pops up). I came to this article to learn a bit about a Humber my friend photographed in the UK, and quite happy that you replied to me. Kind regards, --Omotecho (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. "See book Humber history to 1930" is commented out. Could not find any reference or link to this sentence. --Omotecho (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My eye was caught by this line in the Humber entry:
"At Speke, Liverpool, another shadow factory opened in April 1939 assembled bombers."
The only car plant I know about in Speke was the Triumph plant where they made the Triumph TR7 and before that one or two other Triumphs, but (1) I don't think the Triumph Speke plant was set up till many years after the Second World War and (2) Triumph is nothing to do with Humber. Whoever entered that line may well know something I don't know - almost certainly does. Lots. And/or we may be dealing with a variation on the theme of Scouse humour.
Is anyone able easily to access the source identified at the end of the para and check that line, please, to see if we really do have a source supporting that statement? And thank you much if you did.
ok, done that. We can quibble - I can quibble - that the wiki contributor has simply copied and pasted, but my present concern is whether or not the alleged shadow factory in Speke it has anything to do with Humber. The wording in the ODNB entry which got carried over is almost gratuitously mealy-mouthed about that, as though the writer was planning to come back and check if the Speke shadow factory was anything to do with Rootes or not. But never got round to doing it. So with (even without) your permission I'll leave my query on the Humber page just in case - remote possibility but possibility nonetheless - we get a reaction from someone who knows! BUT I agree that the appearance of the thing in the ODNB does give it a level of plausibility. Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some years ago now but if you search the online version you can see where I am given credit for sorting out the (previously wrong) ancestry of some minor 18th century figure. So write to them with your concern, you'll be given credit for finding the error. Regards Eddaido (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cut and Paste found instantly by Googling because it might help in your search: "Yes, the Rootes factory became the Dunlop tyre factory after WW2.
According to an old inspection logbook, I went around the factory on 31.1.80 to do an inspection for a business rates valuation. Tyre production had ceased & the 'Bagomatic' tyre moulding machines were being prepared for removal & export (no doubt they are still in use abroad & exporting tyres back here!)
We went to a viewing gallery which overlooked the factory floor & I noted how the roof got higher in stages, no doubt as aircraft assembly proceeded. It didn't take much imagination or my mind's eye to see rows of Hallibags etc. being put together.
I have seen photos of aircraft production, no doubt taken from the same viewpoint.
I think the factory was demolished about 1981 & the Spindus Road industrial estate/Enterprise Zone was set up.
As an aside, have a look at Multimap/Google & have a look at The Jetstream & B.Britannia on the old apron in front of the old airport building, now the Marriott Hotel (also the DH Dragon replica in front of it. Google the 'Jetstream Club' for more details.
Thanks. That does indeed deal with the "Is it true?" question, I think, though I'm not sure whether or not that nice forum passes muster as a wiki-source. Then again, you seem to have found a better source since I started typing this. Those accountancy qualifications take one to interesting places. For some reason selling tyres seems to be more profitable than selling many other different car parts. But the businesses that make the things still seem to suffer from the high capital cost of the machinery. Still you can at least still buy tyres aka tires with "Dunlop" written on them. Best Charles01 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Humber Limited. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Listed in FB Rootes a Group, looks like a Minx. There are six entries in wiki commons for Humber 80 all look like minx. Not the larger sceptre style. Dave Rave (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A rebadged Hillman Minx to give New Zealand Humber dealers something to sell when big Humbers were unsaleable / unavailable. Not sure they need to be included though. Eddaido (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ta, they're already on the Minx page, I hadn't searched deep enough. I got a response on FB. Another dealer was still doing the Gazelles so had to do a name change Dave Rave (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjenks: Hi Bjenks, the blog you have just linked seems to be a rehash of Wikipedia's text and images of the Humber business. Does it add anything? The other links are to fancier's clubs or at least where Humbers might be said to have come home to roost. I think it should be removed. Eddaido (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make a close comparison with the WP article before posting the link but was impressed by its big variety of pics I had not seen before. I've now made a side-by-side comparison and can't find any obviously copied text aside from maybe the rotary engine caption. That is only one of a few pics that also appear in WP. Remove the link if you want, but I stll believe it adds a lot of knowledge not present in our article. PS, I've just listed my hotted Humber on eBay! Regards, Bjenks (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it has to be removed, please read Wikipedia:NOTFANSITE. Please be aware of Wikipedia's store of Humber images at this address.
There's no problem about copyright. All Wikipedia text is available to others — see below: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." and the same with most images. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right. I've removed them all. However, there's an issue with the Commons category/Wikidata link which I can't understand or fix. Bjenks (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to the main Humber page (which this is attached to) there is a menu on the left hand side. Read down until you see underlined "In other projects" and click on the highlighted phrase beneath it "Wikimedia Commons". That will take you to the same page I was trying to send you to and you can navigate round there by clicking on the links to see nice photos of lots of Humbers. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I found is here in the edit screen: "Warning: Commons category does not match the Commons sitelink on Wikidata..." I tried to check it out but could not fix. Bjenks (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
