A Rolls-Royce Book
• I have read with considerable interest your review of my book “The Rolls-Royce Phantom!! Continental” in the September issuc of MOTOR SPORT and I thank you for your comments. There are, however, a few points which I should like to make with regard to your comments, the first having to do with your position that: “The title of this book is misleading, because the author covers all the Phantom II Rolls-Royce cars, etc…. In this context, you must consider that the Continental is not a type apart but is strictly a derivative of the standard version. Therefore, in order to intelligently discuss the Continental version, it is incumbent upon the writer to apprise his reader of just what constitutes a Phantom 11 and this I attempted to do.
Further, as I brought out in the text, all changes and mtxiifications to the chassis type during its production run were made without exception to both versions. standard and Continental.
Ms. original title to the book was “The Rolls-Royce Phantom II and Continentals” however, after discussion of said title with Mr. Dalton, it was his feeling that the title should be as it is.
The second point I would like to clarity refers to your passage, “While this is really a picture book, etc.” You will note that the book cotnprises a total of 272 pages of which pictures are contained on only 82 pages, give or take a few depending on how you classify pages with only a partial page devoted to a picture. This then leaves a total of approximately 190 pages devoted to text, schematic drawings, catalogues, and appendix, etc. This relationship, I would suggest, hardly qualifies the work as a picture book. In this context. I feel you have done the publisher and myself somewhat of an injustice. Kansas, USA RAYMOND V. GENTILE