Saucepan

Saucepan (pronounced saws-pan)

(1) A deep cooking vessel fashioned usually from metal, typically with a long protruding handle and often a lid; used for boiling, stewing etc with use not restricted to the preparation of sauces.

(2) In uranography (celestial cartography; the mapping of celestial bodies), a pot-shaped asterism in the constellation Orion, consisting of Orion's Belt, Orion's Sword, and the star Eta Orionis (proper noun, thus initial capital).

(3) As “saucepan fish”, a dated term for the king crab.

(4) In slang, to spread information (rumors or facts).

(5) In military slang, a “name” used as a substitute when the real name is deemed too long or hard to pronounce (“wheelbarrow” a historic alternative).

(6) In on-line gaming slang, to kill an opponent (or random other player) in a manner that reduces them to “a sauce”.

(7) In on-line gaming slang (as “saucepanned”), a player killed in a manner that reduces them to “a sauce”.

(8) To cook ingredients in a saucepan.

(9) To hit (someone) using a saucepan as a weapon.

1680–1690: The construct was sauce + pan.  Dating from 1300–1350, sauce was from the Middle English sauce, from the Middle French sauce, from the Old French sauce, sausse & sause, from the Vulgar Latin salsa (things salted, salt food), noun use (feminine) of the Latin salsus (salted), past participle of sallere (to sprinkle with salt), from sāl (genitive salis), from the primitive Indo-European root sal-(salt).  The spelling sawce is long obsolete.  Pan (in the context of the cooking utensil) was from the pre-900 Middle English pann & panne, from the Old English panne, from the Proto-West Germanic pannā, from the Proto-Germanic pannǭ.  It was cognate with the West Frisian panne, the German Low German Panne, the German Pfanne, the Dutch pan, the Saterland Frisian Ponne, the Danish pande, the Swedish panna, the Icelandic panna and the Old Norse panna but the ultimate origin remains murky.  Etymologists suspect variants such as patna & panna were in use in the Vulgar Latin (from the Late Latin panna) in the sense of “pan”; these from the Classical Latin patena & patina (shallow dish, shallow pan, stewpan), from the Ancient Greek πατάνη (patánē) (dish, flat dish), likely of pre-Greek origin.  Among the profession, the Late Latin panna seems generally accepted as the source but some do note the untypically rare attestation and the limited spread to other Romance languages, suggesting the matter should be thought unresolved.  However, alternative explanations (such as the Proto-Germanic pannǭ and Late Latin panna coming from a non-Indo-European Mediterranean substrate word remain speculative and even a link between the Greek patánē and the primitive Indo-European root pete (to spread) has limited support.  Saucepan is a noun & verb, saucepanful is a nouns, saucepanned & saucepanning are verbs and saucepanlike is an adjective; the noun plural is saucepans.  The adjectives saucepanish & saucepanesque are non-standard.

Cooks Standard Multi-Ply Clad 8-Inch (200 mm) Stainless Steel Frying Pan.

A pan is a broad, shallow container of metal, usually having sides flaring outward to the top; they’re used in various forms for frying, baking, mixing (this & that), gold prospecting, washing etc.  So often is the shape seen in many fields that the word has come to be used of any “hollowed-out” thing shaped (even vaguely) like a pan used in cooking.  In engineering, pan-shaped parts are common ranging from the heads of tiny screws to huge “dishes” used in cosmic observation and components in power-generation.  In idiomatic use there was the “flash in the pan” (a transient occurrence with no long-term impact; an early-career success not followed subsequent accomplishments), based on the flash that happened when a musket or flintlock pistol was fired (the gunpowder held in a “pan”).  To say “out of the frying pan and into the fire” suggests going from a bad situation to something worse).  In figurative use, to “pan out” means “to proceed according to plan; to result or end up with an acceptable outcome or in an acceptable form”; it evolved from the nineteenth century Californian gold rush where “pan out” described the process of separating and recovering the precious metal by swirling dirt or crushed rock in a pan of water.  “Pan handle” (literally “the handle of a pan”) is used in geography & cartography to describe a part of land surface that appears to “stick out or project” when viewed on a map (the US state of Florida a classic panhandle).  In military aviation, the lever used to activate an ejector seat was dubbed “pan handle”.  There are specialized variants including the “milk saucepan” (the internal surface now often coated with Teflon) that features a wide lip with a “built-in” indentation for pouring; as the name suggests, typically it’s used to heat milk for drinks.  The now rare sense of pan in the sense of “face” is an Americanism from the 1920s and the idea endures in the slang “pieface” (a “round-faced” person).

Lindsay Lohan cooking pasta with two saucepans (one for pasta; one for sauce), London. 2014.

Paradoxically, most saucepans doubtlessly are used for purposes other than preparing sauces so it should be little surprise there’s no standardization in the terminology and whether a “saucepan” is from time-to-time deemed a “pot”, “saucepan” or some flavour of “pan” is determined wholly by an individual’s culinary lexicon and even within regions that can vary; what’s one thing in one place might be something else in another.  So, there are conventions rather than rules but, as a general principle, pots and pans are distinguished by their depth and use, in which case (1) a saucepan (with its elongated sides) is pot despite its name, (2) pots and pans are distinguished by type and/or number of handles, in which case a saucepan can be a pan and (3) both vessel depth and handles are distinguishing features, in which case saucepans form a separate third class that is sibling to pots and pans.  All that is really not a great deal of help and the best guide is how a manufacturer or retailer describes the thing although a purchaser is free to call their utensil whatever they wish.  What the internet has done is make this use diffuse so whereas it was once possible to guess on which side of the Atlantic the terms were being used, this is no longer the case with the regionalisms now blurred.  Working chefs, better acquainted than most with cooking utensils, seem not too concerned, the language heard in production kitchens tending to be clipped to “pots” and “pans”, visual identification sufficient to determine choice.

Influencer site PureWow Picks noted one of the items Lindsay Lohan thought essential items in the inventory of the modern young woman was a “better non-stick pan”.  In what was described as an “exclusive interview”, Ms Lohan revealed a half-dozen items “she can’t live without” and although it was disclosed “PureWow may earn compensation through affiliate links within the story”, the list was nevertheless an insight into some of the more obscure things that matter to at least a subset of the population:

(1) Nanit Pro Camera & Flex Stand: A handy device with which a mother can monitor her child in another room with two-way audio communication also supported.

(2) Alaïa Criss Cross patent leather ballet flats: Men tend to prefer the female foot in a classic stiletto pump but women seem inclined to allow comfort to matter, ballet flats often the shoe of choice.

(3) Hexclad six-piece Hybrid Fry Pan Set with Lids:  Hexclad’s product is “Teflon free”, “hybrid” a reference to a patented system of “hexagonal steel peaks” (a laser-edged network of ridges said to “boost searing power”), the “non-stick” valleys coated with the company’s proprietary TerraBond™ ceramic non-stick (free from PTFE and forever chemicals).  Concerns about the shedding of PTFE microparticles into food were raised when Teflon was produced using PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid). The story Teflon (PTFE, polytetrafluoroethylene, a synthetic fluoropolymer composed of carbon and fluorine) was developed in the 1960s for the US space program is an urban myth; it actually emerged from DuPont's labs, its low friction properties making the stuff and an ideal coating to create “non-stick” cookware; in that application it’s been a minor but significant contribution to civilized life.

(4) Ōura Ring: Ōura say their ring captures the body's “signals”, converting 40 live activities into biometric data, displayed on a phone app as measures of stress, signs of strain, effective cardiovascular age and such.  Ms Lohan says she uses it daily, checking every morning to track her sleep patterns.

(5) Levi’s 90s Jeans and Frankie Scoop neck white cotton Tee-shirt: For decades, the most enduring “go to uniform” of the Western woman, blue denim jeans and a white cotton scoop-neck Tee-shirt can work as a stand-alone ensemble or a base to accessorize (boots, hats, scarves, blazers etc).  When in doubt, stick to the classics.

(6) Insight Timer App (Meditate, Sleep):  Claimed to be the world’s most popular “wellness app”, Ms Lohan says it and WhatsApp are the phone apps she uses most, the Insight Timer useful for “meditation” or “breath work”.

Before being saucepanned: Callum Forbes (left) and David Cao (right) enjoying an “Instagram sunset moment”, cruising on Sydney Harbour.

The verb “saucepanned” (to cook ingredients in a saucepan) is not recent but few outside of cooking schools will have heard it used and it doesn’t appear with any frequency in cookbooks.  There is however also the sense “to hit (someone) using a saucepan as a weapon” and while that does feed into the reality television stereotype of the “psychotic chef”, most probably assumed it was something seen perhaps in on-line gaming rather than IRL (in real life).  However, in August 2026 came news French police had arrested Australian David Cao (b 1989), then an employee of ING Bank alleging he had attacked his (now former) partner (Callum Forbes (b 1990)) using a saucepan.  At the time of “assault by saucepanning”, Mr Cao had been employed by ING Bank (Australia) (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dutch ING Group) as “head of retail value creation” (it’s not clear what that means), having previously worked at Westpac (a portmanteau word, the construct being West(ern) + pac(ific)); originally the Bank of New South Wales (1817), in 1982 it was re-branded as Westpac Banking Corporation, a year after acquiring the CBA (Commercial Bank of Australia)) as head of DEI (diversity, equity & inclusion (everyone knows what that means)).  An ING spokesperson was quoted as saying Mr Cao was no longer employed by the bank but the institution was “aware of allegations involving a former employee”.

Château de Perreux.

The attack allegedly transpired in the Château de Perreux (a “boutique” hotel, close to the historic town of Amboise in the Centre-Val de Loire region of France in the heart of the Loire Valley).  The couple had been spending a night at the hotel, en route to Amsterdam where they were to attend the WorldPride event; Mr Cao had since January 2026 been on the board of LGBTQ+ organisation Rainbow Giving Australia Foundation but, after details emerged of the “saucepan incident”, his profile was removed from the organisation’s website.  The details remain sketchy and it’s not clear whether the saucepan was a “weapon of choice” in a premeditated attack or just whatever fell conveniently to hand at the “spur of the moment” and could just as easily have been whatever else lay close (hair dryer, make-up case etc).  It certainly proved effective, wielded by Mr Cao with such force the handle snapped.  Mr Forbes afterwards locked himself in the bathroom, telling the online site Gay Sydney Daily: “I remember thinking very clearly that I might die there that night in the chateau.  I had been bleeding heavily and too terrified to open the door for what felt like 30-plus minutes waiting for hotel staff to come in.”  As well as the attack with the saucepan (depending on mode of use, effectively both “blunt instrument” and “edged weapon”), Mr Cao is alleged to have poured boiling water over his victim’s body; although the sequence of events wasn’t disclosed, presumably the water was boiled in saucepan and subsequently re-purposed.

After being saucepanned: Image distributed by Mr Forbes while undergoing treatment in hospital.

By the time staff arrived in the room, Mr Cao had fled in a rental car, detained by French police some 36 hours later, near the Belgian border, allegedly trying to board a train out of France.  According to a statement issued by French police: “One of the partners had just been struck several times on the head during a domestic dispute in which separation was being discussed.  The victim began shouting ‘help’ while a saucepan with a sharp edge was used as a weapon.   The brutality of the blows was such that the handle of the pan broke under the impact.”  Mr Cao was reported as having been charged with “attempted murder, acts of torture and barbarity, kidnapping, and theft” with a trial date not yet set.  The Australian DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade) confirmed it was providing consular assistance to the victim and was attempting to make contact with Mr Cao (by then in custody) but was unable to make further comment, citing privacy obligations.  Asked his view on Mr Cao, one ING staff member (who requested anonymity) said the former DEI operative had “…an inflated opinion of himself”.  Mr Forbes shared post-attack photographs; he suffered second degree burns to his face requiring stitches, along with burns to his torso and arms and a burst eardrum.  He told a Sydney newspaper the attack happened shortly after the pair had discussed separating and clearly it was unexpected, Mr Forbes asleep at the time after the couple “had enjoyed a pleasant dinner and spa”.  The newspaper La Nouvelle Republique, (citing a source “close to the investigation”), reported Mr Cao admitted to the attack but not to intending to kill his partner.

Counting Dead Women Australia.

Domestic violence is a scourge in Australia with working-class women disproportionately the victims.  Quite the extent of the problem isn’t known because published statistics reflect only reported incidents but what is known is, on average, the long-term trend is every 9 to 11 days, a woman is killed by her current or former partner.  So consistent and troubling were the numbers that a Facebook page was created: Counting-Dead-Women-Australia providing annual summaries of the grim toll (41 for calendar year 2026 by the end of October).  Despite the numbers, the fact that most of the victims are working-class women not organized into or represented by pressure groups able to pose a political threat may not be unrelated to politicians handling the matter as just another tiresome question to be fobbed off with sympathetic words and vague assurances.  That stands in stark contrast to the political class’s shocked reaction and practical response when, in October 2026, a female politician was the victim of an attack (rammed by a motor vehicle, the victim losing both legs).  Suddenly, violence became a first-order (ie “money no object”) issue and it was clear resources would be made available to ensure politicians were afforded even more protection; women generally would be left to arrange their own defences.

Women being murdered by men either their current or former partner represent overwhelmingly the bulk of those killed but, as the “saucepan incident” illustrated, the LGBTQQIAAOP community is not immune from domestic violence but the prevalence is uncertain and early in 2026, the LGBTQIA+ DVAF (Domestic Violence Awareness Foundation) highlighted concerns that campaigns addressing domestic and family violence often “overlook” LGBTQIA+ people. According to the Private Lives 3 Report (2020), more than 60% of LGBTQIA+ people reported experiencing domestic or family violence.  That does sound high but (1) the term “violence” is now wider and encompasses concepts such as “psychological violence” and (2) statistics will be slanted by those with an experience of “violence” being more inclined to report so the numbers must be read with caution.  Still, there’s little doubt the LGBTQQIAAOP community does have a problem with domestic violence and while the nature and extent (the “tops slapping their bottoms” trope a homophobic slur) may be different from that in “straight society”, clearly it’s not insignificant.  Since 2020, the foundation has raised awareness of the issue through an annual awareness day held each May, an approach prompted by the historic lack of research into domestic violence within same-sex relationships.  One report in the academic journal Trauma, Violence and Abuse reviewed 108 studies (published between 1990 and September 2021), finding LGBTQIA+ people were found to experience high rates of sexual violence, most commonly perpetrated (predictably) by men; the highest rates were reported among transgenders, the gender-diverse and bisexual women.  Again, the statistics cannot be relied on as indicative of the wider problem, the research conducted mostly among US university students (a cohort for a variety of reasons for decades over-represented in academic research) and the only valid conclusion must be the standard: “more research required”.

Although a simple coincidence, courtroom sketch artist Rocco Fazzari's (b 1959) drawing of Beau Lamarre-Condon (b 1996, left) looks damnably like Spanish Franciscan friar Francisco Garcés (1738–1781, right) who served as a missionary in the colonial Viceroyalty of New Spain (1521-1821, an often shifting claim of territories centred around Mexico and extending to southern & western North America, the Caribbean, northern parts of South America and a number of Pacific archipelagos (including briefly even the island of Formosa (now the renegade province of Taiwan))) before being “martyred” when killed in what is now Yuma, Arizona, by members of a indigenous nation displeased by the conduct of Spanish colonizers.

In Australia, a dramatic instance of domestic violence in the LGBTQQIAAOP community captured attention when, in February 2024, NSW Police Constable Beau Lamarre-Condon (b 1996) was accused of having murdered TV presenter Jesse Baird (1997–2024) and flight attendant Luke Davies, (1994-2024), shooting both with his police-issue Glock semi-automatic pistol in Mr Baird’s home in the inner-Sydney suburb of Paddington.  According to press reports, Mr Lamarre-Condon had become “obsessed” with Mr Baird which whom he'd previously ("off and on") enjoyed some sort of relationship and was not best pleased at him having “moved on” to another boyfriend (Mr Davies).  The allegation is Mr Lamarre-Condon donned the disguise of an Uber Eats delivery driver and went to Mr Baird’s house where he shot dead both victims, later disposing of their bodies in bushland; facing two charges of murder and one of aggravated break and enter, Mr Lamarre-Condon pleaded not guilty, citing self defence as a justification for his actions causing two deaths.  In such matters, a claim of "self defence" can wholly be exculpatory but success depends on the facts presented in court and, on the basis of what’s been published (suspect alleged while armed with handgun to have gone uninvited to the home of unarmed victims), the circumstances during the critical moments would have to be most untypical for the legal tactic to work.

Beau Lamarre-Condon with “default” influencer collateral (private jet (Hawker 1000), champagne flute and Hermès Birkin Bag in black leather with silver-tone Palladium hardware) prominently displayed.

An alternative defence of some flavor of insanity has apparently not been filed but when giving evidence, Mr Lamarre-Condon did discuss certain aspects of events he considered contributed to his mental state including (1) a former colleague who took his own life, (2) the “confronting” situations he faced during his service as a police officer (including “dealing with” multiple corpses) and (3) a complaint he’d made in 2018 about a fellow officer’s alleged homophobic remarks.  That was in accord with an earlier interview with detectives during which he'd mentioned certain work-related matters had “messed me up” and made repeated references to “not remembering” and having an “outer [sic] body experience” (the report of interview noted him stating: “I’m not that person”).  “I don’t want you judge me, I’m not a bad person”, he told one investigator, adding he’d been “upset” about NSW police being excluded from that year’s Sydney Mardi Gras gay-pride parade and hoped “one day be able to talk to Jesse and Luke’s families”.  The office conducting the interview acknowledged that while Mr Lamarre-Condon was at times “emotional”, he seemed cognisant of what was happening and did not display “any obvious signs of psychosis”.

Jessie Baird (left) and Luke Davies (right).

In court, the prosecution introduced evidence suggesting some degree of premeditation, including the history on Mr Lamarre-Condon’s phone revealing searches for “a silencer” (a device attached to the muzzle of a firearm to muffle the sound of a shot) and a video tutorial titled “how to mix concrete”, the latter said to suggest the accused intended to dispose of the bodies by encasing them in “quick-set concrete” and “sinking them” (presumably at sea, according to urban legend the New York mafia’s term for the method was “cement overshoes”).  The essence of the Crown’s case is Mr Baird was shot twice while standing in the kitchen (the second shot described as “execution style”) and subsequently Mr Davies was shot through a bedroom door as he tried to call police for assistance.  Mr Lamarre-Condon claims his gun “went off” during two separate struggles, both victims fatally wounded.  His subsequent actions (“cleaning up” the scene and disposing of the bodies) were described by prosecutors as “calculated” to “cover up his involvement” in the double-murders, but counsel for Mr Lamarre-Condon’s told the jury they were the actions of a man who “panicked considerably”.

Unlike the “code states” (Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory) in which the criminal law is codified, NSW technically is a “common law state” although a large number of crimes and procedures have been collected into statutory acts (notably the Crimes Act (1900)) meaning the underlying system administering criminal law remains rooted in precedent (historical, judge-made decisions).  However, between the two approaches, the concept of “self defence” varies little and Mr Lamarre-Condon’s evidence was a case study in how an accused should structure their answers and assertions.  The single most vital aspect in mounting the defence in the case of murder is the defendant must genuinely and reasonably believe their own life was at immediate risk at the hands of the victim, the latter needing to display both an intent to kill and the means to achieve that.  Mr Lamarre-Condon claimed Mr Baird had a knife and he had aimed his shot “at the shoulder” in an attempt to effect a disarming, tell the jury he made the “right call” and had gone into “police mode”, explaining he had said: “Drop the knife or I’ll shoot you”, adding “I knew if I didn’t do that I was 110% going … to be dead … and Jesse Baird would be sitting in my position today.”  He further claimed that in the struggle that ensued after the first shot, he had “accidentally discharged” the firearm.  “I stand by the first shot. I've had lots and lots of time to think about this.  The first shot was intentional the second wasn't.”

Beau Lamarre-Condon in “police mode”.

If the jury accepts that explanation, Mr Lamarre-Condon was correct in saying “It was my fault … I’ve said from the start I am guilty of manslaughter and I am responsible for his death but it wasn’t intentional.”  All that is boilerplate stuff from legal practice textbooks but his explanation of why he was disguised as an Uber Eats delivery driver (with full-face helmet and hi-viz vest) was more imaginative.  He claims it was at a nearby café he “found a parked motorbike with an Uber Eats helmet and jacket” and it was these items he donned for the fateful visit, taking with him “an Uber Eats paper bag” further to enhance the apparent authenticity.  At that point, he became emotional and his voice faltered, saying it was “…this moment here that caused…”  He added: “I wish that I didn’t do this, but I had the thought process of I guess … I could knock on Jesse’s door and if he answered the door he wouldn’t be able to see my face.   I couldn’t be falsely accused of harassment.”  Now in its seventh week, the trial in the NSW Supreme Court before Justice Natalie Adams (b 1965) continues.

Director

Director (pronounced dih-rek-ter or dahy-rek-ter)

(1) A person or thing that directs others or other things (Director of Engineering, Director of Sales etc).

(2) In corporate law, one of a group of persons chosen to control or govern the affairs of a company or corporation, usually as a member of a board of directors and sometimes also including executive functions.

(3) The person responsible for the interpretive aspects of a stage, film, or television production; the person who supervises the integration of all the elements, as acting, staging, lighting etc.

(4) In musical or other artistic productions (stage, art galleries, opera etc) one in charge of all artistic (and sometimes administrative) matters (in larger operations the roles sometimes specialized: sound director, script director etc).

(5) The manager or chief executive of certain schools, institutes, government bureaux etc.

(6) In military use, a mechanical or electronic device that continuously calculates firing data for use against an airplane or other moving target, configured usually graphically to display (in real-time) the targets of a weapons system.

(7) In chemistry, the common axis of symmetry of the molecules of a liquid crystal.

(8) In music, a synonym for conductor (US use, now less common).

(9) A counsellor, confessor, or spiritual guide (now less common).

1470-1480: The construct was direct(us) + -or.  A borrowing in the sense of “a guide” from the Anglo French directour & the French directeur the agent noun from the Latin dirigere (set straight, arrange; give a particular direction to) and its source, the Late Latin directorem, from the Latin dīrectus, the perfect passive participle of dīrigō (straighten, direct), the construct being dis- (asunder, in pieces, apart, in two) + regō (to direct, to guide, keep straight; make straight; rule), from the primitive Indo-European root reg (move in a straight line).  The -or suffix was from the Middle English -our, from the Old French -eor, from the Latin -ātor and reinforced by the Old French -or and its source, the Latin -tor & -tōrem.  It was used to create an agent noun, often from a verb, indicating a person or object (often machines or parts of them) that do the verb or part of speech with which they are formed.  In electrical engineering it has the specific use of being appended to the names of members of classes of components, especially those that have an extensive property name of the same root suffixed with -ance (eg to convey the sense that resistors possess resistance and inductors possess inductance).  The alternative spelling directour became rare in the late eighteenth century and is long obsolete.  Director, directorate & directorship are nouns, directing is a verb, directed is a verb & adjective, directorial is an adjective and directorially is an adverb; the noun plural is directors.  The feminine forms of the noun (directress & directrix) were always rare and are now thought extinct (and by some probably proscribed).

Lindsay Lohan with Spanish fashion designer Estrella Arch (b 1974), on the catwalk, Emanuel Ungaro's Spring-Summer show, Paris, October 2009.  Ms Lohan was employed as a creative director at the House, founded in 1965 by French fashion designer Emanuel Ungaro (1933–2019).

The noun director (corporate sense of “one of a number of persons having authority to manage the affairs of a company” was known as early as the 1630s; the theatrical sense of “the leader of a company of performers” dates from 1911 and it was from here the use was picked up by those in charge of the artistic or technical aspects of movie-making.  The noun directorship (condition or office of a director) has been in use since the 1720s, the adjective directorial known since 1770.  The noun directorate was used first in 1834 of “a body of directors” and may immediately have be used individually of the “office of a director” but this was certainly first documented in 1837.  Director is a word defined both by its history of use (film director, director of football etc) and law (company director) so although titles like supervisor, head, manager, leader, administrator, chief, boss etc certainly implies “one who directs”, they’re traditionally not used as direct synonyms because “director” is a “loaded word”.  It’s also modified as needed (art director, managing director, sub-director etc).

1967 Imperial Crown Coupe with "Mobile Director Package"; note the rearward facing front passenger seat.  

Although the brand had since the 1920s been used for some of Chrysler's more expensive lines, between 1955-1975, the corporation re-created Imperial as a separate, stand-alone division (albeit with some intra-corporate sharing of engines, transmissions and certain other components), the way Ford positioned Lincoln (GM's (General Motors) Cadillac then still with unique engines although much else was shared).  In the early years, the approach yielded some success (most notably with the dramatic 1957 models) but the separation didn’t survive the troubled decade of the 1970s (by which time the platform and body-shells were shared with the other divisions and much of the earlier distinctiveness had been surrendered); a couple of subsequent, half-heated, revivals proved abortive.

Bowing to economic reality, the Imperial in 1967-1968 had switched from the separate frame used since 1955 to the unitary construction of the full-sized ranges offered by other divisions but maintained a certain degree of difference by virtue of a unique body, albeit one with dimensions slightly reduced (not seen by all as a virtue at a time when things were again trending larger).  While styled with an elegance derived from its simplicity of line, the Imperial continued to not quite match the timeless modernity of the Lincoln or the indefinable but incomparable allure of the Cadillac and although sales did improve in 1967, volumes were only ever a fraction of its two competitors.  The basic engineering though was sound, the TorqueFlite 727 transmission as responsive and robust as any (although it didn’t quite slur as effortlessly between ratios as the Cadillac’s TH400 Turbo-Hydramatic 400) while the 440 cubic inch (7.2 litre) V8 was a notch better, something the others wouldn’t match until 1968.  Significantly, reviewers at the time often were prepared to acknowledge the Imperial was the more capable road car although, given it operated in a market where quietness and isolation from the environment were afforded more of a premium than handling prowess, among potential buyers, any perception of real-world advantage probably was marginal.

The more stylish if less roadable opposition: 1967 Cadillac Coupe DeVille (left) & 1967 Lincoln Continental Coupe (right).

In those years however, the Imperial did offer something truly unique.  The “Mobile Director Package” was available exclusively on the Imperial Crown Coupe and reflected (within the limits of what the available technology would then permit) what Chrysler thought a company director would most value in an automobile being used as a kind of “office on the move”, including (1) an extendable walnut-topped table (secured to the floor by a stainless-steel stanchion) able to be unfolded over the rear seats, (2) a Tensor high-intensity lamp with a gooseneck mount enabling the light to be directed anywhere in the cabin and, most intriguingly (3) a front passenger seat mounted on swivelling base enabling it to rotate 180°, the apparatus permitting someone comfortably to use the table and interact with those in the rear.  Conveniently, in a sign of the times, the car was supplied with four cigarette lighters and the lamp could be plugged into whichever was closest to need.  The package was available only for those two seasons and in its first years cost US$597.40 (some US$6,000 adjusted for 2026 values) but only 81 buyers ticked the option box and even reducing the price the next season to US$317.60 did little to stimulate demand; only 70 ordered as a dismal swansong.  Even if the threat of new safety regulations hadn’t been looming, it’s doubtful the Mobile Director Package would have appeared on the option list for 1969 when the new “fuselage” Imperials debuted.

Imperial's advertising always emphasised the "business" aspect of the package but the corporation also circulated a photograph of the table supporting a (presumably magnetic) chessboard and another with silver compote holding a shiny red apple and a bunch of grapes, dangling seductively.  The latter may have been to suggest the utility of the package when stopping for a picnic with one's secretary; at an advertising agency, once someone suggested using the motif of "forbidden fruit", nobody would have been able to resist.

The advertising copy at the time claimed the package was “designed for the busy executive who must continue his work while he travels”, serving also as “an informal conference lounge”.  The Imperial was a big car (previous generations had been larger still) though “lounge” was a bit of a stretch but “truth in advertising” laws were then not quite as onerous as they would become.  More accurate were the engineering details, the table able to “pivot to any of four different positions, supported by a sturdy chrome-plated pillar and in the forward position, it can convert into a padded armrest between the two front seats while extended, it opens out to twice its original size with a lever on the table swivel support to permit adjustments to the height”.  It was noted “a special tool is used for removing the table and storing it in the trunk” the unstated implication presumably that in deference to the secretary’s finger-nails, that would be a task for one’s chauffeur.  The US$597.40 the option listed at in 1967 needs to be compared with the others available and only the most elaborate of the two AC (air conditioning) systems was more expensive.

Imperial option list, 1967.

1967 Imperial Crown Coupe with Mobile Director Package.  Note seatbelt mounting point.

The publicity material associated with the Mobile Director Package did suggest the rearward-facing seat would likely be occupied by a director’s secretary and, as one might imagine, the configuration did preclude her (in 1967, secretaries almost always were women) using a seatbelt but she would always have been in arm’s reach of at least one cigarette lighter so there was that.  The (male) end of the front seatbelts sat on the sill panel, adjacent to the seat’s squab (back), a placement dictated by the need not to restrict access to the rear-compartment and that worked well for the standard coupe but, obviously, rendered the belt useless when the seat was rotated.  While Chrysler can be criticized for not providing rearward-facing secretaries with what’s now regarded as an essential safety feature, the rest of the US industry and legislatures (federal & state) were in 1967 little less cavalier.  While some state registration authorities had during the decade mandated the provision of seatbelts for front-seat passengers, no US jurisdiction then compelled their use.

The familiar modern three-point (lap & sash) seatbelt evolved in the late 1950s with much input from US designers but it was Swedish manufacturers that first made them universal (Scandinavia being often dark and icy, drivers sharing the roads with large elk).  The modern seatbelt design (conceptually unchanged to this day) is credited to Swedish mechanical engineer Nils Bohlin (1920–2002) who was employed by Volvo, the company making them a standard fitting in 1959, following the example of Saab that had added them the previous year.  During the 1960s, US states gradually imposed a requirement they be fitted until federal law mandated they be installed in all passenger vehicles produced after 1 January, 1968.  The laws requiring people actually to use the things proved more difficult to implement but other countries quickly made both fitment and use compulsory, initially only for those seated in the front but eventually this extended to all passengers.  Although examples existed early in the twentieth century (fitted often by those with experience in aviation) rudimentary seatbelts first appeared in US production cars during the 1950s but the manufacturers must have thought the public indifferent because their few gestures were tentative such as in 1956 when Ford had offered (as an extra-cost option) a bundle of safety features called the “Lifeguard Design” package that included:

(1) Padded dashboards (to reduce head injuries).

(2) Recessed steering wheel hub (to minimize chest injuries).

(3) Seat belts (front lap belts only)

(4) Stronger door latches (preventing doors flying open in a crash)

(5) Shatter-resistant rear-view mirror (reducing injuries caused by from broken glass).

In Western popular culture and advertising, there have been many friendly bears, including this one happily buckled-up with a “Ford seat belt. One third stronger than required for airliners.”

The standard features included (1) the Safety-Swivel Rear View Mirror, (2) the Deep-Center Steering Wheel with recessed post and bend-away spokes and (3) Double-Grip Door Latches with interlocking striker plate overlaps.  Optional at additional cost were (4) Seat Belts (single kit, front or rear, color-keyed, nylon-rayon with quick one-handed adjust/release aluminium buckle) (US$5).  There were also "bundles" (always popular in Detroit), “Safety Package A” consisting of a Padded Instrument Panel & Padded Sun Visors (US$18) while “Safety Package B” added to that Front-Seat Lap Seat Belts (US$27).  On the 1956 Thunderbird (with a significantly different interior design) the options were (1) the Lifeguard Padded Instrument Panel (US$22.65), (2) Lifeguard Padded Sun Visors (US$9) and (3) Lifeguard Seat Belts (US$14).

Years later, internal documents would be discovered revealing conflicts within the corporation, the marketing department opposed to any mention of "safety features" because that reminded potential customers of car crashes; they would prefer they focus on new colors, higher power outputs, sleek new lines and such.  So, with not much done to promote the “Lifeguard Design”, public demand was subdued and soon the option quietly was deleted.  At the time, apart from improving the quality of roads (resulting in higher average speeds with obvious implications) the government had done little about either safety or vehicle emissions but both the rising highway death toll and the worsening air quality in cities was attracting attention, meaning things would change, decades of legislation soon to unfold.  The first decisive step came as a provision in FMVSS 208 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208) requiring all passenger cars manufactured from 1 January, 1968 onward be equipped with seatbelts at the designated seating positions though this was a federal manufacturing requirement, not a law requiring motorists to buckle up, something not imposed until 1984 when New York made their use mandatory, other states following the lead.

FMVSS emerged from the US NHSB (National Highway Safety Bureau (that in 1970 became the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) under the newly created DOT (Department of Transportation), established by an act of Congress on 15 October, 1966 and beginning operation on 1 April, 1967).  That alphabet soup of activity in a field previously little explored by government came in the wake of the publication of Ralph Nader’s (b 1934) book Unsafe at any Speed (1965) documenting the flaws in the design and construction of US automobiles and industry’s indifference to the consequences.  Regulation ever since has been a growing industry, something emblematic of a theme in Western political culture since the end of World War II (1939-1945): The erosion of personal freedom in exchange for perceived (or dictated) benefits (in the case of the FMVSS, safer cars; other agencies gave us cleaner air).  All of this is fought out in various fora (legislatures, the streets, social media, Fox News etc); sometimes the state giveth, sometimes the state taketh away.

The profound recent shift in this mechanism is not the process but the participants: As “big tech” became dominant, that collective gave much to consumers who benefited from what appeared substantially to be “free” while surrendering much that was once by philosophers and political scientists thought precious but which clearly is regarded by many as an abstraction, the loss of which is a price worth paying for TikTok, Instagram, generative AI (artificial intelligence) and such.  In that, big tech’s model is essentially the same as that of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and that seems to have worked well so we should imagine, as the twenty-first century unfolds, we’ll get “more of the same”.  In political theory, what the social contract theorists at big tech are doing is right because we all have clicked on the boxes agreeing to their 30-plus pages of terms and conditions and have certified we have read and understood every clause.  The political process handling this societal overlay is neither static nor lineal; structurally it follows much the same pattern as earlier contests between power and individuals: As governments react to pressure groups by seeking to curb the worst of the consequences, fixes, work-arounds and obfuscations will interact with a flow of money into the coffers of governments, parties (and, now and again, pockets) in a way that will permit most of what big tech plans to do while giving the appearance things are being done to stop them doing at least some of what many people think they should stop doing.  To anyone who remembers the maneuvers and compromises that for more than a decade would flow around the best-laid plans of the NHTSA, it will all be familiar.

1968 Imperial Crown Coupe with Mobile Director Package.  The seatbelt (lap only) was now attached directly to the frame.

Imperial’s designers were compelled by the law to be more imaginative than most.  For the swivelling front seat in the 1968 cars, the seatbelt mounting points were integrated directly into the steel frame of the seat base itself, rather than the vehicle's floor pan.  To achieve the necessary strength, (using techniques borrowed from the seats in airliners), the engineers had both inboard and outboard lap-belt ends bolt directly to reinforced anchor points on the lower structural framing of the seat.  This made seat, mechanism and belts wholly self-contained (a la a military aircraft’s ejector-seat!) and permitted the 180^o swivel effect, belts rotating seamlessly with passenger.  Chrysler did however obtain from the authorities a partial-exemption.  While FMVSS 208 required front-seat shoulder belts, that would have been difficult to implement for the swivelling seat (not impossible because ejector-seats have frame-mounted shoulder-belts) so the restraint system was limited to the two-point lap-belt (admittedly an improvement over what she'd been provided in 1967: nothing).  Secretaries on the move presumably were grateful but the safety feature didn’t see sales improve, despite the slashing of the price.

1966 Chrysler 300X show car.

In 1966, the “swivelling seat thing” must have been exerting a powerful influence in Chrysler’s design offices because also shown that year was the 300X, based on a 300 Convertible (and despite the appended letter, a vehicle not in the tradition of the just-retired “letter series” 300s (1955-1965), the “X” believed a reference to eXperimental) and although mechanically unchanged, the cockpit was packed with “futuristic” ideas, some of which did eventually enter mainstream use (although the swivelling front seat remained one of history’s unwanted orphans).  Rather than a conventional steering wheel, the driver used handgrips and the “steering unit” included button controls for lights, wipers, turn signals, and door locks, enabling use of all functions with a finger or thumb, all the while keeping a both hands on the mechanism.  Door handles were replaced by a keypunch card used also for the ignition while a truck-lid mounted TV camera and monitor on the dashboard replaced the rear-view mirrors.  Rear-seat passengers (and the front-occupant when “swivelled”) were able to enjoy watching a small television, mounted on a bracket allowing it to be stowed away when not in use. Construction of the 300X was out-sourced to the prolific customizer and fabricator Roger Winfield (1927–2025) whose creations became well-known from their appearances in film and television including Blade Runner (1982) and Get Smart (1965-1970).  The 1965 Sunbeam “Tiger” be built for Get Smart was actually a visually almost identical Sunbeam Alpine, chosen because its compactfour-cylinder engine left sufficient under-hood space for the “special accessories” (including a retractable machine-gun) whereas the Tiger’s Ford V8 filled the space to the brim.  To solve the “aural deficit”, the distinctive burble of a Tiger’s V8 was added during the editing process.

1969 Ford Aurora II Concept Car.

The most obvious thing that might puzzle those first seeing the Mobile Director Package is why it was available only in a two-door model when four-door coachwork would seem to make the configuration more obviously functional.  Had Imperial in 1967 sold several thousand of the things it’s at least possible Chrysler would for 1968 (or even mid-way through 1967) had extended availability but that would have been a more demanding process than it may appear, the existing swivelling mechanism unable to be used.  The difficulty was the four-door models (both sedan and hardtop) had respectively a full or partial B-pillar, the latter ending at the belt-line where the greenhouse begins, the structure required to provide a secure anchor point for the rear door's hinges.  The coupes used doors longer than front units on the four-door models, meaning the B-pillar sat further forward than the trailing-edge of the coupe’s door; there was thus a sufficient aperture for the seat to rotate when the coupe’s door was open but the gap would have been too narrow on the four-door cars.  So to offer the package in the four-door body it would have been a matter either of re-designing the doors or the swivelling seat and while the former would have been an expensive exercise (prohibitively so if the only justification was to accommodate a low-volume option), the seat and its base could have been re-engineered but after finding only 81 buyers in 1967 and 70 the next season, investment would have been hard to justify.

1960 Facel Vega Excellence EX1 (left) and 1959 Lancia Appia Series III (right).  Facel Vega produced France's finest cars of the post-war era but while undeniably glamourous, the flaws in the design of the Excellence's door-latches were never resolved and by the time the factory was shuttered in 1964, total Excellence production stood at 148 EX1s (Series One; 1958-1961) & 8 EX2s (Series Two; 1961-1964).  Lancia perfected pillar-free body engineering, using doors with sturdy window frames, permitting latch points at both sill and roof, the configuration offered on a number of sedans including the Ardea (1939-1953), Aurelia (1950-1958) & Appia (1953-1963).  The locking mechanism was intricate but the engineering was simple and proved reliable.  It's sad the company's later attachment to FWD (front wheel drive) ultimately doomed Lancia because in every other aspect of engineering, few others were as adept at producing such fine small-displacement vehicles.

1969 Ford Aurora II Concept Car.

Ford's 1969 Aurora II Concept Car gave an indication of quite what what would have been required to make the Mobile Director Package conveniently functional on the platform of what was then the standard "full-size" four-door US automobile.  The "wrap-around" rear seat was an idea borrowed from the Ford Thunderbird, contemporary reviewers praising the visual impact but noting that as something for humans to sit on it was less comfortable than a conventional design; in the Aurora it probably worked better and certainly lent the cabin the desired "lounge-room" vibe.  The problem of providing (1) space for the seat to swivel and (2) allowing elegant ingress & egress was of course afforded by the the four doors (in "suicide" configuration) and elimination of the B-pillar.  That combination provided unprecedented ease of accessibility but its doubtful it could successfully have been implemented in series-production.  The French concern had earlier tried the approach with their Excellence model but, despite retaining a vestigial hump where a B-pillar would have attached to the sill, the company never solved the problem of the door-locking apparatus "springing open" while the car was in motion, usually when the mechanism was subject to lateral forces such as when cornering.  Because these forces could be exerted at high-speed, having doors suddenly "flying open" was an obvious safety concern.  Lancia in the 1950s solved the problem of doing without a fixed central pillar buy using doors with conventional, full-height frames, thereby enabling locking mechanisms to be fitted top & bottom.  Curiously, the Aurora was based on the LTD Country Squire that came only with fully-framed doors so Lancia's approach could have been adopted but there's no indication Ford ever contemplated series-production, the "concept car" created just to generate interest on the show circuit.

1967 Imperial Crown Convertible (with subsequently added Mobile Director package).

Imperial over two seasons might have managed to sell only 151 of the Mobile Director packages but one owner of a 1967 Crown Convertible was so smitten they cannibalized a coupe to create a unique (if wholly fake) "convertible Mobile Director".  Exactly emulating what the factory did would not have been as simple as it may appear because the floor under the passengers swivelling seat needed to be strengthened with additional bracing and a "baffle" was welded to the transmission tunnel where the table's stainless-steel stanchion was attached (off-set to the driver's side to avoid the drive-shaft).  Although apparently as significantly pointless as the original, it's a novelty that would attract interest at events like "cars & coffee" and may even be more functional in that it would seem an ideal place comfortably to sit and enjoy one's picnic while watching something like polo (on the model of the way the Country Life set re-purpose the tailgates on their Range Rovers).  That said, had the factory in 1967-1968 made the package available on the convertible, almost certainly it would have been just as unsuccessful as the coupe. 

Stewart-Warner's desk-based DataFax (circa 1958).  The process of miniaturization in electronics was by 1966 still embryonic but enough shrinkage had been attained to make a fax fit in Imperial's show car.  Unlike fax machines, the pencil skirt never goes out of style.

The specification of Chrysler's package as it appeared in showrooms for the 1967 season was actually modest compared with the “Mobile Executive” car the corporation sent around the show circuit a year earlier; that Imperial had been fitted with a telephone, Dictaphone, writing table, fax machine, reading lamp and stereophonic sound system; a typewriter and portable television also used in many displays although neither were "fitted".  Also a Crown Coupe, the 1966 show car was much more ambitious, anticipating advances in mobile communications that would emerge over the next quarter-century.  At the time, car phones were available (the first service in the US offered in certain cities in 1946) but they were expensive and the nature of the bandwidth, combined with a lack of data compression, meant the range was limited as was capacity, only several dozen calls able simultaneously to be sustained.  In the 1966 car, there had even been the novelty of a Stewart-Warner Datafax, able to send or receive a US Letter-sized (slightly smaller than A4) page of text in six minutes.  That sounds unimpressive in the 2020s (or compared even with the 14.4 kbit/s for Group 3 FaxStream services of the 1990s) but the appropriate comparison is with the contemporary alternatives (driving, walking, a courier, or using the US Mail) and six minutes would have been a considerable advance.  While more expensive than a stamp and envelope, for the target market the costs would anyway have been a legitimate business expense and thus "a deductible".  As it was, the tempting equipment awaited improvements in infrastructure such as the analogue networks of the 1980s and later cellular roll-outs, these technologies contributing to an extent of use delivering economies of scale that eventually would make possible the smartphone.

The 1966 car that toured the show circuit demonstrated the concept which, in simplified form, would the next year appear on the option list but things like telephones and fax machines anticipated the future by many years (although fax machines in cars (Audi and Toyota among the handful to offer them) never became a thing).  The Dictaphone did however make the list as one of Chrysler's RPOs (regular production options) in the early 1970s and the take-up rate was surprisingly high although the fad quickly passed, dealers reporting the customers saying the hardware worked well but they "never used them".  In the collector community, a surviving Dictaphone in something like a Plymouth 'Cuda is a minor attraction; while not increasing value as would something like and original Hemi V8, it is a legitimate "period piece".

Glovebox-mounted fax machine in 1995 Toyota Celsior (the JDM (Japanese Domestic Market) Lexus LS).

The problem with the scaled-down Datafax was even had it been possible to produce the things at a manageable cost, in 1966 the solid-state electronics that would have made the thing reliable when subject to constant vibration and jolts were still years away (Chrysler’s Bendix “Electrojector” fuel injection in 1958 had fewer moving parts and that didn’t end well).  However, even if reliability could have been "engineered in", there is no guarantee demand would have existed whatever the price-point.  In the 1990s, despite it being installed with Toyota’s typical neatness and attention to detail, there were few buyers for the "fax machine in the glovebox" and if the notion was going to catch on anywhere, it would have been in that nation of early adopters.  While there were many features in the 1966 300X truly that were "ahead of their time", the Mobile Direct Package was a genuine cul-de-sac, at least as implemented in a conventionally sized car (and certainly a two-door coupe).  In 1966, rearward-facing seats had for some years been seen in the "vis-à-vis" arrangement used in some LWB (long wheelbase) limousines and as child-seats in the rear-most compartments of station wagons but those seats had been either fixed or folding and although the Ford Aurora II presumably dazzled a few impressionable souls, the industry showed little inclination to follow Chrysler's swivelling lead.

2021 "Maybach-Look" Mercedes-Benz Metris.  The passenger compartment is a similar configuration as the 1966-1967 Imperials (two forward facing seats, two rearward ("fold-away" rather than swivelling)) and there were folding tables as well as features unimaginable in the 1960s (seat massage, starlight-pattern headliner, flatscreen TV, internet connectivity, touchscreen infotainment system and a Burmester sound system with subwoofers).  Unfortunately, a fax machine wasn't part of the build but by 2021, they were close to extinct even in bricks & mortar offices.   

Flawed though Chrysler's implementation in 1966-1967 may have been, in the twenty-first century, production-line economics made it possible to realise the concept's implications, "big-box" vans able to be outfitted as genuinely functional mobile offices from which communication can be maintained with just about any part of the planet.  Of course, based on the same body used by plumbers, Amazon delivery drivers and such, the Metris doesn't have quite the gravitas of the Mercedes-Benz 600 Grossers of old (it's debatable whether the faux "Maybach-Look" stuff makes things better or worse) but there's more interior space and room for a big-screen TV so it's all a matter of what one wants from life.  Noting that, some operations have fitted-out interiors as offices or luxury transports which eschewing the exterior bling, some (often wisely) preferring to travel as inconspicuously as possible.