Jump to content

Talk:Concord coach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Concord Coach)

Weight etc

[edit]

@Qwirkle: Please see this page that is cited in the article Melody Groves. I think the apparent conversion is my note to myself to get the right thing by putting in something absurd (which you have found) and then I forgot all about it! Note that it refers to a 6-seater and the sizes went up to 12 passengers. Your Arcadia reference means?

I have found a number of other "sources" quoting a weight on the web, the only one I would give any credit to it this one Concord Historical Society which says the same as the others (but not WP) and also provides a link to this very Wikipedia article. The author of the note in the historical society publication is, I am almost certain, the same person as helped me with this article and the article about the manufacturer. No comment about my WP weight though it might have been added after he lost interest. I suggest correcting the cited weight to 2.25 US tons and inserting the correct conversion template. US weights and measures are not native to my world and I do not properly understand them. Please put in your interpretation and matching template and if I disagree I'll let you know. Here. Eddaido (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have most confidence in this magazine because it I believe it is subject to peer review or at least corrections from knowledgeable persons. Here on pages 181 to 182 it describes a particular Concord which may or may not have been more lightly constructed than usual but it weighed 2468 pounds. (note: "built as light as will answer") I also find that that is near to 1.25 tons in US money. Right? Was Melody Groves looking at a heavyweight model for the Wild West and for ultra-heavy usage. Can we find a Wells Fargo man prepared to pass over a weighbridge next time he is out displaying his equipment? Eddaido (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More from The Carriage Journal. "(The Wells Fargo Concord) . . . is over twelve feet long and eight feet high. Constructed of American linden, elm, white oak and white ash, at a cost of $1250, the old coach weighs 2050 pounds". Eddaido (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Elusive Concord Coach No. 602 2525 pounds. Eddaido (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Barre Coach #472 built 1859 Twelve passengers, fifteen feet long, nine feet high, six feet wide and it weighs 2450 pounds — carries another twelve passengers on the roof seats. Eddaido (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few points. First off, every reference given above supports an unladen weight of about one and a quarter US short tons, roughly 1.1 long ton or metric tonne. One, not two. So why did you restore an inaccurate number?
I explain above that I am guilty of putting in nonsense numbers intending to come back — and forgot it. I have left you the honour of making your desired correction when you have established the correct answer. If you choose to accept the results of my research which I have given you above that is fine but you had better decide which one - more than one? you wish to use as a citation.
I haven't restored anything, I did remove a thoughtless delete. I did think that having noticed something wrong a rational editor would have fixed it A relatively uninvolved editor makes drive-by comments.
”Removing a delete”, thoughtful or not, is the very essence of restoring something. So, when someone removed information which you knew to be false, you restored it. That is the very essence of certain types of vandalism. Qwirkle (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Arcadia is not a peer reviewed scholarly publisher. It isn’t even widely systematically reviewed at all. Some books it puts out are excellent scholarship, some are unmitigated junk...it’s actually a lot like Wiki itself, which should not be surprising, since many Arcadia books are sourced to Wiki. The publisher should be making very loud alarm bells go off in your head. Qwirkle (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of "Arcadia", is it part of Canada? but you mean a publisher don't you. Do you believe there is a mention of it in the article? Not by me. Eddaido (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...but you should have, if you are going to weigh the relative authority of sources. And you should also realize that the US arm of The History Press was taken over by by Arcadia Publishing. You should further realize that neither has a strong reputation for editorial oversight. Qwirkle (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I should have heard of it. I'd never heard of you either. Should I have? Eddaido (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you were citing me as a source? Damned straight you should. Qwirkle (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has been my somewhat bitter experience that if you ask a person who speaks American English what a coach is they will come up with many answer but not the one you seem to think they will. I believe in 99.5% of cases when you identify to them what you speak of they will respond with "Ah, You mean a Stagecoach". They will then be quite prepared to go into fierce battle over the noun they are accustomed to use and the way they prefer to use it, no matter that a short distance away it is used in a time honoured fashion to mean something different. You should have consulted before changing the name of the article but hunters for stagecoaches will still get here.
...but if you say “Concord Coach”, you will see a very different response. Qwirkle (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not among WP editors you won't. Eddaido (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are the other uses a great lumbering Concord might be put to other than bulk passenger transport? Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a coach, but not operated in stages. Just as an example, resort hotels often used these to meet trains. Qwirkle (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if the railway station (or whatever you call it) were close enough for a round trip without a change of horses they would use lighter vehicles but I was not alive then, myself. Eddaido (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you were alive to read the references you cited, and they give a prominent example of that. Qwirkle (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which reference is that? Eddaido (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Farragut. Qwirkle (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea why Eddaido is having this conversation essentially with himself, but the idea that a Concord Coach weighed 2.25 metric tons = 5000 lbs is insane; if any source says that the conclusion is that that source has poor fact-checking. I note that Melody Groves is a novelist, not a scholar. [1] says 2525 pounds, which is reasonable. Either fix the statement or remove it. EEng 20:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because someone using the name Quirkle came along and marked the sentence for discussion. Quirkle does not wish to discuss it? Quirkle prefers not to read this party's contribution to the discussion? Quirkle prefers to talk to its friends?

      Just read what I have written and you would not make such inane remarks. I see that Arcadia is some kind of Quirkley code. Understood by?

    • My only objection to your (thank heavens — at last) amendment(s) is that it does not cover the information provided above on the large version. I am beginning to realise you don't know the subject —you were just attracted to the absurdity of the conversion to a metric measurement. Right? Eddaido (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I propose retaining the sentence and using 1.25 short tons (i.e. US unit). I would do the conversion myself (e.g. "1.25 short tons (1.13 t)"), but as a typical American the units that the rest of the world uses for weight are a mystery to me, so I would prefer some guidance from another editor. Also, Eddaido, the reference to "Arcadia" has to do with the current parent company of The History Press. --Ken Gallager (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pounds and kg are more accessible to most readers. Just say "weighed some 2500 pounds (1100 kg)". Arcadia publishes works of highly uneven quality and cannot, in general, be relied upon, though they can be useful starting points if they give their sources. EEng 21:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, “weighed about bleah (rounded) pounds, bleah (rounded) kilograms”. Qwirkle (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, about the use of the word stagecoach

[edit]

If you check the source of the picture with the orange top the description provided is "Good bye to Lake George." Glen's Falls Stage. You will please notice that the vehicle being used as a kind of stage (ha) prop in front of the hotel is described by the photographer as a STAGE and not a coach. Please discuss. Eddaido (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. What does it have to do with the article? WP:NOTFORUM and all that. Qwirkle (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No? No discuss? You have changed the name of the article to Concord coach when the common name in the United States of America, the preferred style of WP, is stagecoach.
An ngram strongly suggest otherwise. Qwirkle (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You also refer to hotels using these vehicles for short runs ("resort hotels often used these to meet trains") - is this particular image the reason you did that? Did it give you the idea? I quote: "But you were alive to read the references you cited, and they give a prominent example of that. Qwirkle" and I responded with "which ref" (You haven't responded, yet)
No. No. No. No.

Since for the penultimate “No” you will obviously need a little hint, why don’t you correct you alleged quote up there, placing the attribution outside where it belongs.

For the final “No”, we can expand it into, “No, the other participants here do not actually live in your computer, and no, they are not at your beck and call.” Hell, you got a two-fer there. Qwirkle (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you do not like something in an article or its name be bold by all means. Also think before you act. Eddaido (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 March 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Concord coach. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 05:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Concord Coach → ? – Queried move request to "Concord stagecoach". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
"It has been my somewhat bitter experience that if you ask a person who speaks American English what a coach is they will come up with many answer(s) but not the one you seem to think they will. I believe in 99.5% of cases when you identify to them what you speak of they will respond with "Ah, You mean a Stagecoach". They will then be quite prepared to go into fierce battle over the noun they are accustomed to use and the way they prefer to use it, no matter that a short distance away it is used in a time honoured fashion to mean something different. You should have consulted before changing the name of the article but hunters for stagecoaches will still get here.
...but if you say “Concord Coach”, you will see a very different response. Qwirkle (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2019
Well, the votes are in, a steady readership of 24 hits a day has fallen right away on the redirect as well as under the new name,
and I was wrong about the readers still getting there. Eddaido (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the pageview stats. Note that it shows a jagged downward downward trend starting about the 20th of February, well before the move, and note that it, like the pageviews of many articles, has shown such patterns before. Note that the total number of pageviews per day since, excepting the upward blip on the page move, is actually fairly stable on average, unlike the rather obvious downward trend. Note also that the total numbers are tiny..and always were. Here’s a comparison with Stagecoach, in contrast. Qwirkle (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • To me here brought up in Britain this image is a picture of a coach. Some years ago there was a similar dispute over what the word "blowtorch" means. How does word usage vary in USA / Australia / etc? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A stagecoach is a more general term. The "Concord coach" is distinct from others due to the leather strap suspension system and manufacturing that began in Concord. This article could do a better job making this distinction. -- Netoholic @ 03:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That’s true in one sense, but not another. The object is a coach, and this is a particular sort of coach. A stagecoach is a coach used in a particular way, with teams of horses or mules traded off at frequent intervals so the coach can keep moving at speed. Not every coach was a stagecoach, and not every stagecoach remained in that job for its whole working life. A Crown Vic isn’t always a taxi or a cop car, for an analogy.

        This is further complicated by loose usage of all the terms involved. Qwirkle (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You will find the standard American image of a (stage)coach is in fact a Concord - chased by er local residents. Please consider the following:

  • A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:
  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Conciseness, below)
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above."

Concord stagecoach is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals much more than satisfactorily, it is the straightforward choice. Eddaido (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case my previous statement wasn't clear enough, I believe that "Concord stagecoach" is the clearest, while still specific, title for this article. --Ken Gallager (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t doubt its clarity, but it is obviously ahistorical and often inaccurate. Qwirkle (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concord coach is the correct and historically correct name [2][3]. The modern bus line calls itself Concord Coach exactly because that's the famous name of the 19th-century workhorse. EEng 14:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Concord coach fails on these criteria:
  • Recognizability — Concord coach is not a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – Concord coach is not a name that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English, Concord stagecoach.
  • Precision – Concord coach ambiguously identifies the article's subject and does not distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Conciseness – Concord coach fails to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Consistency — in general readers see all horse-drawn coaches to be stagecoaches and find coaches alone a very confusing identification.
Eddaido (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just assertions on your part. Against all that impressively empty argumentation, we have the fact that the actual name of the thing is Concord coach. EEng 10:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not just assertions. Have you, by chance, noticed that we are discussing the name of a Wikipedia article? You do seem to have forgotten that. Eddaido (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, you think a Youtube clip of a Hollywood musical is just such fantastic evidence that nothing could gainsay it? Qwirkle (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the lesson we're supposed to draw from that clip (lyrics at https://www DOT azlyrics.com/lyrics/dorisday/thedeadwoodstage.html) is that the article's title should be changed to Deadwood stagecoach. EEng 23:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all of this aside, Wiki’s [redacted] Manual of [Redacting] Style suggests that this should be renamed, so “coach” is lowercase. Qwirkle (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that goes without saying. This situation is about a 7 our of 10 on the scale of messed-up article moves. EEng 19:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are naming an article about a particular brand of stagecoach which was unique in certain respects and so copied by other manufacturers. The film clip is about the Dedwood stage and to illustrate it they chose the standard US concept of a stage — a poor quality but reasonably accurate copy of a Concord. So, to 1950s Hollywood stage = a Concord. Concord stagecoach, the name that fits with all those precepts listed above, naturalness, precision, conciseness, consistency etc.
  • It is a stage(coach). They do not even use the word coach.
Eddaido (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, this edit summary-Please Note how I ignore the deliberately offensive remarks of the instigator(s))- seems a bit less than true. Praeterition is an interesting figure of speech, when done well -Cicero comes to mind, but he had a far lighter touch than seen here- but it is never entirely honest.
Returning to the subject at hand, this single usage doesn't show anything, especially when it is of a coach which is being used as a stagecoach. Of course it would be called such then. Qwirkle (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eddaido, Qwirkle, and EEng: It seems that:
    • A stagecoach, correctly, was a horsedrawn coach for public fare-payer riding, that travelled in stages, and changed its horses at intervals in a long journey.
    • Some people nowadays use "stagecoach" loosely to mean any horsedrawn coach.
    • Formerly "coach" meant a particular style of large horsedrawn vehicle, but nowadays it also means a type of motor-powered passenger vehicle.
    • There is at least one motor-coach-or-bus-using company called "Stagecoach", and its vehicles are marked "Stagecoach", although its vehicles are clearly diesel-powered, as confirmed out of its exhaust pipe by my sense of smell.
    • I see hereinabove that in the USA there is a re-use of the name "Concord" to mean a type or ownership of motor-coach. (I am in Britain.)
    • For new article name, try "Concord coach (horsedrawn)", or "Concord Coach (horsedrawn)", according to how much that tradename has become genericized?
    • Please comment, but please keep discussion wikt:concise and not repetitive.
Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary is 100% correct. My only quibble is that I'd call this article simply Concord coach and the other Concord Coach (company). EEng 12:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your "only quibble" . . . that is the entire subject of this "discussion"! Eddaido (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the sense that the discussion has moved on from your idea of titling this page Concord stagecoach and we're only trying to decide which of Concord coach and Concord Coach should carry a parenthetical disambiguator. EEng 11:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of minor points. “Concord coach” is a toponym, not a trademark, just like “berlin” and “landau” and quite likely “coach” itself. So, partly, is the name of the bus line. “Concord Coach Lines is headquartered in, and grew out of, Concord New Hampshire. It’s a small, local operation, of interest to those No’th a’ Boston, very different from the Stagecoach Group. Its name is a reference to the carriage, though; the dominant word in New England for large passenger vehicles is “bus”. Qwirkle (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Given that wiki’s term for this sort of thing is Carriage, perhaps the best name for it would be Concord coach (carriage). Qwirkle (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not just in old England. That shows up in older New England and Maritimes speakers as well. These technologies all grew out of each other; Abbot or Downing or both were involved in building some of the earliest passenger railcars in the US, for instance. Whatever term chosen will have some ambiguity, all the way down to “horsedrawn” operations where mules were used. Qwirkle (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about Concord coach (conveyance) and Concord Coach (company)? I really don't care as long as we get away from this stupid idea of Concord stagecoach. EEng 00:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: - There is no need for a disambiguator as Concord coach is open for use, and we have a hatnote already to point to the modern company. Only one voter is insisting on using "Concord stagecoach" and he is provably incorrect (see #Meaning of terms). You should add your vote above so hopefully we can move on soon. -- Netoholic @ 11:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. I suggested (conveyance) only in desperation once the specter of mule-drawn coaches was invoked in response to (horsedrawn); I figured (conveyance) could not possibly be wrong even if elves, or teams of doves in tiny harnesses, provided the motive power. EEng 18:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwirkle: If you've decided, could you add a vote in the main RM section, for clarity and hopefully we can get this closed soon. -- Netoholic @ 21:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of terms

[edit]
This is a motor vehicle designed to transport a gun over rough country

Nevertheless, once she completed the right kind of military service, the average housewife could use it to take home her groceries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddaido (talk • contribs)

There has been a heck of a lot of misinformation in this discussion, and confusion with regards to the meaning of various words. To clarify:

  • coach refers to a type of physical vehicle. (This meaning carries on into the present where "coach" is an alternate term for a bus.)
  • stage refers to specific stop along a long route, or the section of road between two stops.
  • stagecoach is a vehicle designated to run between stops or cities along a long route.

This article is about a type of vehicle, so the proper term in most instances of usage is simply "coach". It is a specify brand/style of coach known as a "Concord coach". These "coaches" were often employed as "stagecoaches", but not necessarily so. A private person might own such a "coach" to travel from their home around the town they live - in that case it would never be known as a "stagecoach". -- Netoholic @ 09:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry about this Netoholic and close friends but this vehicle was designed and sold for use as a stagecoach, a specialised form of coach. So while it is true to say it is a coach it is more precise to describe it as a stagecoach. Eddaido (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explain then why zero pictures from museum displays of Concords have a plaque calling it a "Concord stagecoach" (zoom in) - 1, 2, 3, 4a/4b, 5, 6 . Are you putting your novice view ahead of experts? Stop perpetuating the misuse of terms. A "stagecoach" is better thought of as a "charter bus" - that phrase only has meaning for a designated vehicle following a designated route. It is NOT the term for the general type of vehicle. -- Netoholic @ 10:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Concord coach edits by Qwirkle

[edit]

I'm interested to learn why these last two edits were made. Eddaido (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy.

The article was falsely implying that the Concord ”design replaced European designs which had short useful lives under punishing North American conditions.”. In fact, there were several native designs which preceded it, which also used thoroughbrace suspension. These, like the Concord, were generally named for the area they were made in. The two major design families centered on the Philadelphia area, both sides of the river, and Upstate New York, and can be called “Philadelphia coaches,” “Jersey coaches”, “Albany Coaches” “Troy coaches” and so forth. the reader might find this source a useful start.

May have preceded it by a few months. Nevertheless they are English designs until the thoroughbrace innovation. Eddaido (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. The thoroughbrace was not an innovation, and was used in the Philadelphia/Jersey coaches from well before the Concord. Jemima Wilkinson’s coachee, from the previous century used thoroughbraces. Qwirkle (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Next, the article was falsely claiming that the Concords were “designed and intended for use as stagecoaches”, when a survey of actual use shows that they were designed and used for all of the purposes a coach might be put. There were station hacks, hotel coaches, mail coaches on local routes, private coaches for practical transportation, recreational coaches used as park drags, tour coaches, and so forth. There was even at least one proto-RV set up as a sleeper. The coaches used for other purposes did not differ in any appreciable degree from those used for staged runs. Qwirkle (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps from the 1870s on when they were otherwise derelict behemoths. Any run more than 16 miles on the flat would be "staged". They were big heavy beasts. Eddaido (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, nonsense. Concords were used for vacation touring in the White Mountains well into the twentieth century. “Stage-coach and Tavern Days” by Alice Morse Earle, makes the point that the oldest Concords differed little from the modern variety. Her book was published in 1900. Qwirkle (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This might be a useful reference for readers because it was written in 1890 when, it appears, they had only been seen by the present generation in Wild West Shows. I quote "Concord coaches once had a reputation as wide as Baldwin locomotives". "The Concord coach was the result of 175 years of American study and ingenuity"
"Concord coaches or 'stages' as they were often called in New England"[1]
Eddaido (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...and yet they were still in production at that time, still in wide use. That may say something about the particular source. More to the point, how does that address the issues raised above? “Not at all,” I’d say. Qwirkle (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Concord Coach. The Mechanical News, Volume 20 page 292, Dec 15 1890
This is very strange indeed, can you provide a citation please Eddaido (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here we see an article on a Concord from 1899. (Oddly enough, its one of the two “sleeper” models built.) Note that it was a private coach, not a stage. Note that it was ordered nine years after what you consider a “useful reference” above. Qwirkle (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those wishing this article to be accurate may want to glance here, or here, which correctly note that the thoroughbrace was not original to the Concord, but went back to the earliest Berlines. Qwirkle (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change of name of article

[edit]

New name - a ragbag of one editor's personal concepts of a coach. Eddaido (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • My intention is to bring to general attention that since being in receipt of edits by your friend the matter and subject of this article is no longer Concord stagecoaches (which it was)

    but now just one editor's rough general concepts of a horse or mule-drawn coach. Eddaido (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concord_coach&oldid=1206769152"