The Most Attractive Chrysler Airflow?

Chrysler's mid-1930s Airflow line is generally regarded as being somewhat ugly-looking ... maybe even seriously ugly-looking.  I never thought they were attractive, but am starting to change my mind a little.

I'm convinced that perception of beauty is subjective.  And my mind seems to be wired such that I find it difficult to proclaim something as being best or worst.  ("What was the best thing you saw on your last European vacation" is a question I almost always can't answer.  I tend to think of gradations more than absolutes.  Maybe that's due to my super-fancy gold-plated Ivy League grad school training.  Or mental laziness.)

This leads to Chrysler Corporation automobile stylist and styling historian Jeff Godshall (who I wrote about here) and his assessment as to the most attractive Airflow.  It can be found in Volume 23, No. 4 (April 1994) of Automonbile Quarterly, an issue devoted to Chrysler Corporation.  In his article "Form, Function and Fantasy: Seventy Years of Chrysler Design" he stated:

"My own personal favorite was the [1934] Airflow Imperial Eight Series CV five-passenger coupe, whose radically sloped rear deck concealed the spare tire ...."

Let's consider that, along with one or maybe two other Airflows that I currently like a bit better than his choice.  Feel free to disagree with one or both of us.

Gallery

1934 Chrysler CV Imperial Airflow Coupe - Revs Institute photos
Here is Godshall's favorite.  Definitely nicer looking than the bulky Airflow sedans and any of the stubby '34 DeSoto Airflows built on the short 115.5 inch (2934 mm) wheelbase.  The CV's wheelbase was 128 inches (3251 mm).

1935 Chrysler C1 Airflow Coupe - Mecum Auctions photos
My current favorite is this 1935 model built on a 123 inch (3124 mm) wheelbase.  Although stylists and critics such as myself usually prefer the first, pre-facelift version of a new body design, I've recently begun to think that the 1935 Airflow facelifts were better looking than the original design.  Although the rounded-down noses of 1934 Airflows was probably more pure aerodynamically, the longer hoods and stronger grilles on the facelifted 1935 models made them aesthetically superior.

1934 Chrysler CV Imperial Airflow Coupe - RM Sotheby's Auctions photo
Rear quarter view of a CV coupe with that fastback feature that Godshall (and I) like.

As seen on the C1 coupe.

Now for the important side-view evaluation.  This '34 CV Imperial's wheelbase is five inches (127 mm) longer than the '35 C1's.  This greater length was manifested in the zone between the door's after cutline and the rear fender.  The result was a longer, larger passenger compartment.  And a comparatively stubbier hood and front end.

The 1935 C1's passenger compartment is visibly smaller (just compare the aft side window lengths and vent pane break lines).  I usually like long-looking hoods, and so this this C1 is better proportioned than the CV by that metric.  Though I wonder if the hood might be a trifle too long.

1934 Chrysler C1 Airflow Coupe - Worldwide Auctioneers photo
Here's the '34 version.  The hood seems a bit too short.  Should I call it a toss-up between the two versions?

1937 Chrysler C17 Airflow Coupe - car-for-sale photo
This final-year Airflow coupe is not an Imperial, but is built on the same 128 inch wheelbase body platform as the 1934 Imperial Coupe shown in the comparisons above.  I include this image because it shows that body with a longer hood and a fairly attractive, conventional (for the time) grille.  That longer hood better balances the longer passenger compartment mass than the '34 Imperial coupe's does.  And the more substantial body could be a little more attractive than that of the '35 C1 coupe.  So just maybe this was the best-looking Airflow of all (though I'm still inclined to favor the 1935 C1 coupe due to its grille's backwards slant).

What do you think?