Photo taken around 1902 in north central Pennsylvania. Can anyone identify the make of the automobile?
The Hannibal Twin 8?
I would start here and look around. How definite are you on the year?
Great site, thanks! Pretty solid on year photo was taken, no idea for car. The owners name was Bert Andress, the local telegraph operator.
With what seems like every blacksmith and bicycle mechanic making cars (or planes) in that era, I don’t expect this ID to come easily.
Not to mention that custom coach works were the norm for that era. Making identification by body style, seating, or silhouette very difficult. :eek:
The drive train might help identify it. It seems to have a single central drive chain. Quite a few designs from that era that I have seen have dual outboard drive chains.
The fore to aft tubular tie bars and central drive chain seems to be pretty consistent with early Stanley Steamers. Here is an image of a 1901 model. A slight bit of info on that model is here. Another Stanely of same erahere.
It looks a lot like the 1901 Century Tourist Steamer on the 1901 page of that site. It’s not identical (the OP’s pic has fenders, the Century Tourist Steamer on panamajack’s site doesn’t, for example), but then there was a lot of customization back then. The general body shape is the same and there are even lamps hung in the same place on each, through the lamps are also of different styles.
The suspension on the Century in my last post doesn’t match the OP’s pic. Looking at Stanley Steamers though I found the Model C Runabout, here:
http://kruseclassics.com/imgUL/carpics/RO122.JPG
The body isn’t quite the same, but at least it has the leaf springs on the front (which the Century doesn’t seem to have) and the lamp is not only in the same place, but it’s the same style of lamp as well.
I’m changing my answer to a Stanley Steamer. I don’t know if it’s a Model C with a slightly different body or if it’s a different model. I’ll keep poking around a bit.
I agree that an early Stanley Steamer is a strong possibility.
Couple things on the C that don’t match up:
- If the date of the photo is accurate I think it is probably too early for a Model C.
- I found another pic of a C Model C pic and it appears that the steam cylinder is below the body and directly coupled to the axle (no long drive chain).
The steam cylinder under the body seems common with later Stanely’s and lots of other designs. Early Stanely’s like the Model A and maybe the B appear to not have the steam cylinder below the body. However I notice the Model A I linked previously has a side mounted steering tiller. 
Looking more closely at panamajack’s link I notice several “brands” that have similar design elements to the pictured machine. But only one that really has all the key mechanical elements.
- chain drive
- Longitudinal leaf springs front and back
- Longitudinal tie bars connecting the axles
- No steam cylinder below body
- central steering tiller with a “leading” link
- Side mounted “parking brake” with a short lever
- Relative proximity to PA
The one that ticks all those boxes is the 1902 Mobile Steam Runabout pictured about 3/4 of the way down the page that panamajack linked. According to the page Mobile was in business from 1899-1903 so that works with the suspected picture date. The car in the OP’s pic might well be a “Touring Car” model from Mobile.
I like a good mystery and love mechanical things. It has been fun trying to find a good match.
engineer_comp_geek what do you think?
Look what I found on ebay Australia.
[Full size image](http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NjE2WDcyMA==/$(KGrHqF,!nUE63Tf4qzkBPC0()ozCg~~60_3.JPG)
Another image in case the ebay links go bad
Website with lots of old pictures and info on the Mobile Car Company (super slow loading for me).
Not an exact match (see notes below), but damn close. The body corners match, the mechanical layout (except steering linkage as noted) matches. Even the body trim around the rear seat opening and the “oval” side panel details match. Can’t tell if there are louvers in the ovals in the OP’s pic. Maybe just not enough contrast in that old pic?
If it isn’t a Mobile, I am thinking it must be a damn good knock off.
- Details that don’t match
- ebay pic vehicle has side mounted tiller
- ebay pic vehicle does not have contraption on the rear deck as shown in OP’s pic.
Some of you guys are keying on the wrong stuff. Most cars back then had very similar bodies, built by the same coachbuilders in some cases (1904 Ford and Cadillac, for instance). So it’s not appropriate to look at things like lamps and body trim.
What matters is the chassis, and its salient points: Central tiller, longitudinal tie bars between front and rear suspension, full elliptic front and rear springs, central drive chain.
That said, the Mobile looks like a good match to me.
Mobile is the best match so far, but I see similarities with Toledo vehicles as well. Same suspension and bell location, but has a curved dash/footboard. Here are 1901 and 1903 models. The Toledo cars also have the rear mounted condensor (?) flue (?). The perforated side panels shown on the Mobile were common, probably for combustion air.
From what I have read on the sites listed here, the body style would have been considered a ‘Surrey’, but the top is not present in my photo.
It appears that Stanley, Mobile and Locomobile were rather entangled companies, who knows what variants they might have produced.
Ok, I think I have found it in Google Books at the bottom of page 95 in this link. This is from a period trade journal, not from a restored vehicle as shown in the eBay photo.
I am ready to conclude that it is a Mobile Heavy Surrey without top. Probably a 1902/1903 model.
Matches right down to the tiller steering, condenser on the rear and the single valve below the rear seat. The lamps are even close.
I think you have it there. Looks like the mechanicals match, and even the coachwork details.
ozCg~~60_3.JPG){kind=link}
3rd set of 1902 ads from the top describes the “Heavy Surrey”. Image looks to be the same as the “Cosmopolitan” from the other ad. Guessing “Cosmopolitan” was a trim level or version of the Heavy Surrey?
Time to put my dunce cap on. “The Cosmopolitan” at the top of the page that I took for a model designation was simply the header with the magazine title in which the ad appeared. I’d never have guessed that Cosmo has been around that long. Ignorance fought. 
$1400 seems like quite an expenditure for a telegraph operator (occupation of owner in 1900 census).
Dang, now I want a 1900ish steam car. Think of the fun, in the summer, of taking your convertible out for a drive.
At the turn of the cenetury, the US automobile business seems to have been pretty dynamic - with many people hoping to make a killing in a new industry.
The owner of Cosmopolitan magazine in 1899, John Brisben Walker, was the founder of the Mobile Corporation of America - after he bought out the Stanley brothers patents. Weeks later he had a falling out with his partner, who left to found Locomobile. Walker built quite a factory, designed by Stanford White, in Tarrytown. In 1903, he sold it to Maxwell and exited the car business.
Around 1914, the plant ended up in Chevrolet, later GM’s hands and built Chevrolets until 1996. It is now a toxic waste cleanup site. Quite a legacy for a magazine guy who dabbled in automobiles.
You don’t see enough semicolons in advertising these days.