Maybe ‘fake trim’ isn’t the right term. Just starting my first cuppa joe. What I’m talking about is non-functional trim that gives the impression that it’s functional. For example, the MGB has a single chrome line at the waistline, and an old Hudson has a jet airplane ‘hood ornament’, neither of which serve any purpose other than decoration.
Then there’s trim that looks like it’s doing something. That is, it’s only there for decoration but it gives the appearance of a functional piece.
I’m reading a May 1964 Road & Track magazine that features a pair of the new Ford Mustang on its cover. The article, speaking of the available options, says, ‘… and – to replace a phony scoop on the side sculpturing – a thin pin-strip to accent they styling.’ The Mustang had these chromed ‘air scoops’ on their sides. They didn’t do anything – they were just for decoration – but they appeared to be real air scoops.
Now, some people think that there should be nothing on a car that isn’t functional. I lean that way myself. On the other hand, some decoration-for-decoration’s-sake (such as the waistline chrome on the MGB) does enhance the looks of a car. But I don’t much care for ‘fake trim’. Sure, the Mustang’s phony scoops look neat; but there’s just something ‘wrong’ (to me) with trim that is meant to be deceptive. Really, what’s the difference between a fake air scoop or non-functional louvers, or whatever, and those phony car-phone antennas people used to buy in the '80s?
What do you think?