User talk:Charles01/Archive 11

Happy days

Charles01, my best wishes to you for the new year. Maybe Brexit will prove a phantom after all. Keep up the good work. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you much. Good things. Charles01 (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You have been a inspiration to me.

Just came to say, you are one of the car photographers users that inspired me to start car spotting and uploading quality contributions on the Common. I made a list of my favourite car photographers on my profile page and details why and maybe you could see my contribution and tell me if I could improve!

Thank you!

--Makizox (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yikes I mean wow I mean thanks for taking time out to share your thoughts. Given that they are positive.

It's reassuring that I don't need to explain to you why I like to photograph cars.

I'm not going to get started on whether I think you're right about my pictures (except I just changed my mind about that - see next para), but two people you didn't mention who I think take excellent pictures of cars are Alfvanbeem (though this month he seems to be more interested in buildings...) and Lothar Spurzem. I agree with you about Rudolf Stricker, though sometimes I think he must - like me - live in a place where it hardly ever stops raining.

Incidentally you are kind enough to write on your user page that I take good pictures of cars. Well I hope so. But I also take terrible ones. The clever bit is that I have been doing it for long enough and acquired (only with difficulty) sufficient self-discipline to be able to avoid uploading the terrible ones. That is ... most of the time...

As for my taking pictures in several different corners of Europe ... yes, for much of my working life I was employed in the travel trade, and even when I wasn't I quite often managed to get jobs that included going places.

Thanks again. Success Charles01 (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Each of us will have different preferences when photographing cars. I never yet took the perfect picture and can cheerfully criticise every picture I every uploaded. Your pictures? I liked especially the one you did of a Renault Kangoo. Here's part of why:

* You held your camera at the level of your stomach (I speculate). If you photograph from the level of someone sitting in another car, I think the result is usually a less distorted image than if you look down on the car. Like all rules, I sometimes break this one and think I got away with it. That's what rules are for. But I hope not too much.

* You put the sun in the right place. So often I get home and find the front of the car looks too dark and the side not dark enough. Or vice versa. And often one doesn't get a vote about where the sun gets put. But ... given the choice ...

* You didn't max out your zoom. If you stand too close to a car or too far from it and compensate by twisting the zoom lens, you end up with a distorted image. Sometimes you need to do that because the alternative involves standing in the middle of the road and getting run over. But where you get a choice, I think - as here - you do well to avoid maxing out the zoom. Unless you're going for a consciously arty effect, of course. But - at least IMHO - that's not a desperately encyclopedic thing to want to to.

* Your Kangoo isn't black. With black cars you loose the panel gaps and a whole lot more detail. Instead - especially if someone went and polished the car to within an inch of its proverbial - you end up with lots of distracting reflections. There's a picture of a black Standard 9 that I uploaded a few years ago. When I got home I noticed it had been parked next to a very orange car. Aaaargh. A wonderful wiki-comrade with clever software and a serious talent for using it changed the reflection of an orange car into a reflection of a white car (though on the hub cap of the Standard you can still see a reflection of the orange version.) Anyhow, my point stands. Black cars are very very difficult to photograph well. (My son has pointed out to me that equivalent but different problems arise with black dogs.)

* Your Kangoo isn't very clean. Like I already said (ok ... wrote) one can always find something to criticise about ANY picture if you stare at it for long enough.

Please don't be annoyed that I took time out to critique one of your pix. I hadn't meant to, but sometimes the fingers take over. I am completely aware that cars hardly ever appear in the right place facing the right way in the right light etc etc etc. And please be assured, you are under absolutely no obligation to share my opinion on anything at all (except, possibly, on post-truth politics). And I reserve the right to be wrong about (almost) everything.

Success Charles01 (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

PS This - courtesy of the tax man - is a useful website if you photograph a car with a UK number plate and then want to know more about its engine (diesel:petrol), date of first registration in the UK or when it was reported to have been manufactured (eg if it was first registered in Aus and then imported to the UK 30 years later). But be aware that with older cars the tax man simply wrote down what the owner/importer told him.

License plates also generally stay with a car for life in the Netherlands, and there's also a Dutch site giving similar info, but you don;t appear to spend too much time in the Netherlands and I can't, off the top of my head, remember how to find then link

Thank you for the tip, and of course am not annoyed, I would be so interested to know more of how to take pictures of them while able to cover all the areas such as the front and rear quarter. I see people manage to do it on most of there photos where it perfectly focus on the areas and aren't too zoomed out.

Also I found out about the Fiat 600 (Seicento) by using this website: https://ovi.rdw.nl/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makizox (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

--Makizox (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Me too

This picture is just ideal for my purposes but it is very gloomy. Do you have a magic implement within Wikimedia that will improve it?

I keep practising on all sorts of things but sometimes the auto anti-jiggle machinery works and sometimes it doesn't and I can only keep at it. Sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You didn't write either why you like it, but I presumed to draw my own conclusions. One of which is that with so many pictures of such a beautiful photogenic car uploaded already, it's depressing how overwhelmingly mediocre they mostly are. But if course beauty is in the eye of the beholder and ... mustn't grump. To my eye there were three obvious issues, mostly based on the challenges of photographing cars in doors on a dull day.

• 1. It looked dark so I lightened it a bit. I don't like to lighten it too much because in the old days when I used to try lightening car colours a lot to compensate for rainy days it just ended up looking bordering on silly.
• 2. I took the liberty of rotating it a bit. To my eye it looks better like this. Feel free to disagree ...
• 3. To my eye the reflections of the quasi-fence on the side panels are distracting bordering on weird. I suppose one could solemnly try copyhing and pasting patches for other bits of panel, but it would be very time consuming, more difficult than you'd think and ... not really worth it.

Dear Eddaido, I do not know what you are planning to illustrate with this so I hesitate to broach the question ... but are you SURE this is the best on wiki-commons for your purposes?

Enjoy, regardless. Best Charles01 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. You've done everything right. That is so much better. I didn't notice the fence reflections and that's a big nuisance. If I took it home and fixed the side panels with photoshop - not, I think, difficult, would you regard it as OK? I want it for where its currently displayed on this page. I just want a good photo of the first DS. If you know of better please let me know. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmph. My photoshopping's result does not please me and I am sure it would attract some of your most withering scorn (should your mask slip for a moment). I have left your picture there in the meantime because aside from its umm photographic qualities it suits the purpose really well. What should I do, I really have had a hunt for another contender. Yr advice, please. Eddaido (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I sort of agree. As in I was unable to find an alternative without problems of its own. My own least bad uploaded goddess picture suffers because (1) I'm not sure if it's a goddess or an idea and (2) the roof merges disappointingly into the sky and (3) I have to be in a certain mood to see the point of the angle. So ... no, I don't really have a better idea for now. But maybe someone will take the perfect DS picture later this year.  ?. Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

When you edited the Goddess picture did you use software available in Commons? Went to a special event to take photos of old cars on Sunday but the marshals (not unreasonably) would not let me park where I could get useful shots and I can't get out into the field the way I'd like to so it was an early return home without pics. Curses, foiled etc. Best, Eddaido (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You have my sympathy over not being able to get to the right place to photograph a car. The perfect angle is a rare thing indeed, even for the young and fit which I'm not. Nor, it appears, you. I did get myself a shooting stick last year so that instead of standing for hours by the entrance to the old timer fest I could perch on my stick and photograph passing subjects of interest. Alas ... after several episodes which you might term "undignified collapse of stout party" I worked out that a shooting stick was not the answer. And these days it takes a certain amount of careful planning to stand up again afterwards.

To edit pix I simply download them and then upload the new version.

• For rotating and / or changing the lighting balance where it's obviously too dark I use Microsoft Office Picture Manager. Over the years they've improved it, so that the "autocorrect" often does the business more convincingly than ten minutes of careful non-auto twiddling. Autocorrect was not always so smart. However, Bill Gates seems to have lost his enthusiasm for Microsoft Office Picture Manager. There's a replacement programme that works with Windows 10, but having needed ten years to understand the language of the old programme I think it will be many years before the new programme works half as well ... at least for me. Another good reason to try and avoid Windows 10 as far as possible.

• For clever clever stuff I use GIMP which you simply find using a search engine and then download. It's like Firefox in that you don't have to pay for it, though no doubt it makes them happy if you send money. It's like Russian in that I only understand about 1% of the language in which the software purports to interface with the user. However, that 1% is enough for grassing over distracting shadows and changing license plates which is my principal use of the thing. Playing around with colour and other artistic stuff is far above my paygrade, and though I've been known to try some more the the clever stuff, it almost invariably ends up looking both less realistic and in other ways worse than the way it first emerged from the camera, so those ones I don't upload to commons.

No further thoughts. Good things Charles01 (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all this, specially the advice on the shooting stick. Why in the age of smartphones (and those strange scooters) can they not devise some sort of built-in gyroscope. A long time ago not far from you an old friend came to stay for Christmas and I had no gift. Someone rustled up an alloy and striped canvas arrangement, still shiny after some time in a cupboard, and Ian accepted it in the intended spirit and clearly looked after it well. More than ten years later he proudly told me it had just been his personal gift at Sam Neill's (first) wedding. You see while folded it was a shooting stick, when deployed it seems a luxurious and generous chair. I think Ian wanted to provide a comfortable seat between takes for either spouse or indeed for both. To tell you the truth I have been thinking of buying a conventional version for several years now for use instead of squatting on neighbour's letter boxes. Thank you for all your knowledge and advice. You regarded it as a failure but you did make a remarkable improvement to that photo of the DS. I really want a personal tutorial session but we'll have to skip that. Best wishes to you and yrs. Eddaido (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Jaguar Mark VII

I've just uploaded this and I've done it wrong. You suggested I upload it over the original and I have never worked out how to do that. Or, I think I did on one occasion but I couldn't work out how it happened. Anyway I tried but somehow I stuck in the well worn rut and we have both versions. Please would you adjust it to suit. Best, Eddaido (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

PS No personal damage, lots of trees bowled over including (a very large) one on a poor woman (70s) sitting in her car. She refused to panic and eventually exited by a back door. TV camera couldn't find much car under the tree. Telling her tale she seemed more angry than anything and kept fervently thanking God. Sensible woman. Eddaido (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Most impressive how you got rid of that Ford Prefect (I think it was).

I've overwritten someone else's image by mistake but it was a mistake and it was a long long time ago. I now occasionally overwrite "my own" images if improvements are minor, but I certainly don't regard it as an indispensable skill. In no hurry to adjust anything in this case, but maybe if I get very bored one day I'll give it thought!

Sorry about the lady under the tree. Anger does indeed seem the logical response. Happy to leave the God bit to the theologically more committed. Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Whats your earliest and latest photo you taken of a car from your scanned collection?

1971

1971

1991

1972

1972

1982

1973

1973

1977

1980

1980

1990

1990

I seen some you taken as early as 1971 and as late as 1991 but I was wondering what your earliest and latest picture you took of your scanned collection.

P.S: You should sort those images by year you taken them and manufacture, possibly model. Unless you already done that and I haven't found it yet. I always discover these fascinating images taken by you every time I look around the Commons.

--Makizox (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think 1971 sounds about right for he first usable ones. That was when my father gave me a 35mm camera. It had a fixed lens, but it still taught me about focusing and light meters and adjusting F stops. Before that I had an Ilford instamatic and then an Agfa Rapid which I loved, but looking back I don't think any of the results were worth uploading to wikipedia nor even, in most cases, keeping.

• You'll understand, already, I think, that most pictures of cars I took weren't worth uploading anywhere. Still aren't. Some of the better ones during the early 1970s were taken on my father's Asahi Pentax, also a 35 mm camera, but one with a detachable and therefore changeable lens. It produced much sharper images. And in about 1982 I got my own SLR 35 mm camera, an Olympus OM2, which ... made a difference in a good way. 1985 I got what I thought of as a grown up job and after that there was less time for photographing cars or anything else. In retrospect that's in one sense a pity, but of course one's priorities change through life. The 1991 picture of a Vauxhall Cavalier cabriolet that you found may well have been one of the last of my "scanned collection" that got uploaded. Though looking back on where I was when, it might well have been taken in 1990 and not 1991 as indicated. (I lived in Cambridge in England, where I took that picture, till 1990. I don't think I spent so much time in England in 1991.)

• On your "PS" suggestion, I don't, in most cases, have any way to be sure precisely when a picture was taken. I used colour slides ("Dias") which were cheaper and more compact to store than prints (and you had to make people sit down and turn out all the lights in order to project the images onto a wall: once you got to that point people had little choice but to look at them!) Where I know when I took a picture it's generally because I remember or can find out easily when I was in the relevant "where". I know I was in Vienna in 1974. I know I was in South Australia in 1990. I know I was in Tenerife several times in the early 1980s when I worked in the travel trade, though I don't always know which year was which picture. Sometimes kind people point out that I must have got a year wrong because the car in question didn't exist in the year in which I claim to have photographed it. But generally when I think I know when a car was photographed I do include the year in the image description, and sometimes people do indeed create categories by year and put "my" car pictures into them.

• Thanks for inducing a little digression down memory lane. I enjoyed it in a guilty self-indulgent sort of way and you ... well, you didn't have to read it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No no, its fine I find all of it fascinating looking back in the past, could be a sound project I could do by gathering all of the scanned photos you taken and sort them into years and make if thats fine with you. Note: I just found ones that are later and earlier then the one I showed you

1968

1968 or 1969

1968

1993

1993 (Doesn't look like it from how the picture turned out)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Makizox (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

--Makizox (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• As far as the Seat 850 picture and Renault Clio picture you found are concerned, I've a bad feeling that I got the date wrong. The Seat 850 has a Seville/Sevilla license plate and the last time I was near Sevilla was 1985. I was in Spain around 1993, but far to the north. So I think I may simply have got that one wrong. But I want to think about it more before changing it in case I'm still/again wrong. The Clio picture ... not so easy to pin down where and when. It might have been 1993. Again, more thought needed. The two Volkswagens you uploaded were both my father's cars. For the VW 411 I might have borrowed his camera - or even, he might have taken the picture. I think I remember taking the VW 1600 Variant picture with my "Agfa Rapid" camera, in which case it would originally have been square, and I simply cropped the top and bottom before uploading. Whether by chance or by design, it's at quite a good angle. Kestrel might originally have been a square format Agfa Rapid picture too. Someone seems to have forgotten to switch on the sunshine in the right place. But I remember the car, and the lady who owned it, very well.

• As far as your gathering exercise is concerned, I have no reason to mind. Though you might find more where I got the date wrong when I uploaded them. And of course, everything you do on wikipedia risks being corrected, reversed or improved on by someone else. That's the joy - and just occasionally the frustration - of this project. So ... it sounds quite a time consuming exercise that you have in mind. But no, of course I don't mind. I'm flattered by your interest. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! I will probably ask more question in the distant future, hopefully you like the improvements I made with my recent photo contribution since our last Talk back in January. --Makizox (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Your pix

I've been excessively dependent on my laptop lately thanks to ... well, that probably counts as too much information. But a laptop screen isn't really a good place to look at pictures. But I enjoyed comparing these two. I know Porsche insist that everything has been redesigned sooo many times over the years, but there's still a bit of a sense of "why change a winning shape?"

And I'm impressed that you still found a Metrocab ... in Solihull. Looks good. Though actually they did go on making them till about ten years ago (it says in Wikipedia), and I think they were made in Tamworth which is not so far from Solihull. I guess it's just that since the basic look of the thing barely changed after 1970 (when Autocar published a picture of a "prototype" versions scooting round London) I think if it as a vehicle from my childhood rather than from yours. Ach well, hats off to longevity. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I heard of the prototype going around London but yeah I just saw parked in College. The Porsche picture I'm sorta proud of but it was one of my early pictures back in 2015 (which doesn't sound too long) but it before I focus on it as a documenting purpose. I kinda based the composition from photos by another Wikimedia user Rudolf Stricker and the way he took them both front and rear. I could do a rear picture of the Porsche Targa as it was parked next behind a wall.

it a bit zoomed out but the rear is a good shot

--Makizox (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

File:20130724212652!Isabelle Faust B 09-2012 More cropped.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 08:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Graham-Paige?

Somewhere in Oregon

Someone has decided this is a Graham-Paige (of about 1934). There are many similarities but it is not, to my mind, a proper fit. I think it is French or Italian or a Studebaker or something all of that same year or very close. Can you throw any light on its identity?
Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Various thoughts but no answers. The person who thought it might be a Graham-Paige didn't, from what s/he wrote, seem too sure and nor am I.

My first reaction was that it looked a bit like a Ford from around 1934. But those Fords, tend to have only one windscreen wiper. Their bumpers are less fancy and their grills slightly lower or wider. This car has quite a high "scuttle" (bottom of windscreen) in relation to its overall height.

The Studebakers I found on wikipedia all seem to have slightly more up market adornment too.

Since you mentioned Europe I looked at the Humbers from the slightly later 1930s. They were consciously inspired by US cars of the period. But they're not the same. I looked at the Adler Standard which again consciously emulates the US approach, but no. Germany - thanks largely to the AmbiBudd plant in Berlin - is the best country in Europe to look for US style mass-produced car bodies in the earlier-to-mid 1930s.

It doesn't look remotely French or Italian to my eye. If it was a Peugeot, Citroen, Renault or even a Panhard I think the front would be quite distinctive and there weren't too many others in France with the access to the technology to make cars using those steel body panels. Fiat ... I don't know enough to judge, but in my gut I doubt it.

The 1930s were a decade of growing protectionism as the world got ready for another nice war. Maybe you know more than I do, but why should anyone expose themselves to import tariffs to import something this size from Europe? Maybe yes if it was coach built exotica and they lived in Hollywood or New York. But this doesn't look like coach built exotica and would you take a rare European beast to a track in Oregon anyhow?

So ... one way and another I think it's a US car, possibly from a relatively small company that (even) you and I have never heard of. There's no strong reason to favour Graham-Paige, but I don't have the detailed knowledge to come to you with a better idea.. If, following further googling, I get inspired, I reserve the right to come back on this. But please - and not for the first time - don't hold your breath on my account.

Success Charles01 (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all that. I've been sorting out the Graham-Paiges and found 1935 missing went to Google just now and found this which I think (do you agree?) means the first person to name the file was right and I need not have bothered you but since I have and you've responded so fully too I thank you very much. Narrow grille, small headlights, all very unAmerican to me but it might have been someone like Gordon Buehrig mightn't it. Have a Very good day. Eddaido (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Once you click through to the picture from the front it is clearly the same car, and a much clearer picture than the one that made it to wikipedia. Congratulations. Charles01 (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Volkswagen Tiguan diesel registered July 2017 1968cc.jpg

Thank your for uploading this image, but I think you made a mistake there. This is definitely not a Tiguan SUV but a Touran. See also the VW car configurator. De728631 (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right. Thanks for noticing so quickly. Regards. Charles01 (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. With your permission I'm then going to move the file to a new name. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

International trucks

There is a discussion on this page whether images should be categorised as International trucks or International Harvester trucks. Not many wikipedia contributors have contributed to the discussion or voted with their preference, but you have contributed to material on International Harvester. I would be grateful, if you have the time, if you would share your own opinion on the page name. And thank you. Eddaido (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I have always thought of the things as "International Harvester" products, but I am too far away from the scene of the action to venture a vote. I don't think they ever sold them here in Europe, though maybe a few tractors turned up in the context / aftermath of Marshall Aid. And there's always the odd "grey import". Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

We can always call them Ford Motor trucks instead of plain Ford trucks. Shall I put in a proposal to change the Category:Ford trucks category name to Ford Motor trucks? Eddaido (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Charles, I would like to ask for your help specifically because you are "too far away from the scene of the action". I am looking for objective people to glance at WikiProject Trucks[1] sections "Are International Harvester trucks branded "International"? and "Requested move 25 September 2017". There is a survey in the Requested move section.

This is the same name that Eddiado asked you about, but it is about the articles, not the categories. The two clearly affect each other. I would love it if you would glance at the WikiProject Trucks and think about giving an honest opinion, either way. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Still not taken time to get my head round it all. Quite a lot going on it what some folks fancifully term "real life" just now, and right now hoping to sleep for a few days (though I don't think it's about to happen)! I still suspect my answer would be (1) there is no right or wrong answer. It depends on the circumstances and time under which each reader in his/her different location first came across the company. (2) My own usage is excessively dependent on a period in the 1990s when, for work reasons, I was associated indirectly with Case who took over the tractor bits. To us, in that context, International Harvester was International Harvester. But there's no automatic read-across from my personal experience there to other dates and other branches of the company that I would wish to impose on wikipedia as a potentially "superior standard" automatically applicable to other times, places and contexts. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, good luck in your "real life". Sammy D III (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Le Mail Français

This phrase begins the description for this picture. What does it mean in this context? Best regards from International(!) monoglot Eddaido (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's "The French mail coach" dating from the time - I think it still happens in rural Switzerland - when the "post bus" delivered both the letters and the parcels and the visitors, typically from the railway station at the foot of the valley, to the villages along the valley that's too small to have a railway line of its own (but still welcomes wealthy holiday makers or folks in search of a recovery from TB - per MMagic Mountain / Zauberberg if you've a couple of months to spare). Sorry to digress. I need a bit longer for the reast of the text, byt I'll park it here and come back to it later ...

Le Mail Français On verra dans l'intérieur du numéro la tenue des mails américains pris à la dernière « parade ». Cette photographie prise à la réunion de la Société des Guides montre le mail français, garni d'élégantes Parisiennes et attelé et conduit avec une impeccable correction

The French Mail coach. You can see (literally one can see) inside the number (possibly the inside of a magazine with this picture in the front cover) the carrying of the American mail, taken on the last or final "parade". This photo taken at the meeting of the guides' association (mountains guides? tourist guides?) shows the French mail coach elegantly adorned/dressed/decorated with Parisian women, harnessed up and driven with irreproachable perfection. (probably if one thought for longer one would substitute some less direct but more comfortably anglophone adjectives.)

Thanks, Charles. It is most regrettable that your reading of the magazine does not accord with the opinions of myself or User:DarwIn. The dictionary describes a drag: "A kind of vehicle; the application has varied, and it is often not distinguished from a brake or break n.1; but in strict English use, applied to a private vehicle of the type of a stage coach, usually drawn by four horses, with seats inside and on the top." Do you think this or these park drags might be recycled former mail coaches? Might en:Guides de France fit in here? — early fundraising activities even perhaps while harnessed up. Please would you find a way to harmonise the thoughts of the three of us. Best. off to bed now Eddaido (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, you pays your money (or not) and takes your chance! I might come back and take another look. Context is, of course, relevant. Are you able to direct me to your discussion with Mr Darwin in order to encourage me? Best regards Charles01 (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, your persisting generosity is noted. First please see the the back of the picture concerned (DarwIn was once Darwinius) here and then read the current discussion on his (the other significant Charles's) talk page [2]. Have a nice (rest of the) evening, Eddaido (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)