What seperates "golden era" from "midcentury"?

[fashion frank]

Its kinda funny how all of the parts that I have been buying for my 31 Model A come from either Ford Motor CO. or a company called Vintique so I would classifiy my car as vintage .

All the Best ,Fashion Frank

 

[Matt Crunk]

My pet hate is the use of Classic when used to describe old cars. What makes a car 'Classic'? . . .
And Vintage cars are usually associated with vehicles from 1914- through to around 1930.
J

I don't mind the terms classic and vintage as long as they are used in proper context. Not all old cars are classics. Some of them are just old junk. But I'd venture to say every automobile up through the 1950s had more style than anything made within the past 40 years.

By the way, the standard definition of "vintage automobile" accepted by most vintage car clubs and car shows, is anything 40 years or older.

 

[2jakes]

I don't think of my car as "vintage" or "classic" or "antique" or "heritage" or any of the rest of that preening foolishness. It's a lumpy, slow, four-doored, fat-fendered, seventy-three-year-old used car. Seeing as I myself am lumpy, slow, four-doored, and fat-fendered, I have no problem with this at all.

Plus, you are my friend on this forum & I am the better for it !

Always look forward to your posts. Thanks

 

[tonyb]

I dare say "tacky" is a very subjective term, and rather a matter of opinion and taste. We have furnished our current home in mostly mid-century modern, and don't find it the least bit tacky.

Yup. As noted by myself and others many times before, good style is good style, and bad is bad, no matter its era.

In the case of home furniture, examples of both are easy to find.

 

[rocketeer]

I don't mind the terms classic and vintage as long as they are used in proper context. Not all old cars are classics. Some of them are just old junk. But I'd venture to say every automobile up through the 1950s had more style than anything made within the past 40 years.

By the way, the standard definition of "vintage automobile" accepted by most vintage car clubs and car shows, is anything 40 years or older.

At last someone with my way of thinking. But there is a BUT! Do we think todays cars are simply bland because we see them every day and the 1959 Chevrolet coupe we lust after is basically a 50 year old dream gone by? Back in fall of 1959 what were the consumers looking forward to and did they say it's not as nice as last years model or were they eagerly awaiting the new cars? Indeed was this not a failure year for Chevrolet?
I am only picking on this year and make as it is now a very desirable car.
I dont have it now but a 1956 or 57 copy of Motor Trend had an editorial that read "Why do all todays cars look the same?"
Kind of makes you think.
J

 

[vitanola]

I don't mind the terms classic and vintage as long as they are used in proper context. Not all old cars are classics. Some of them are just old junk. But I'd venture to say every automobile up through the 1950s had more style than anything made within the past 40 years.

By the way, the standard definition of "vintage automobile" accepted by most vintage car clubs and car shows, is anything 40 years or older.

Well, "Classic Car" is really a rather specific moniker, referring to those machines of special distinction made between (as I recall) 1924 and the start of the Second World War, to wit: http://www.classiccarclub.org/grand_classics/approved_classics.html

The Brits have a distinct term for "Vintage" automobiles, which are the successors to "Veteran" motorcars, but here in the 'States even our "Veteran Motor Car Club" has events for machines with chromium trim.:eeek:

Do we think todays cars are simply bland because we see them every day and the 1959 Chevrolet coupe we lust after is basically a 50 year old dream gone by? Back in fall of 1959 what were the consumers looking forward to and did they say it's not as nice as last years model or were they eagerly awaiting the new cars? Indeed was this not a failure year for Chevrolet? J

Well, of course it was a failure year. Have you seen a 1959 Chevrolet?eep:

I dont have it now but a 1956 or 57 copy of Motor Trend had an editorial that read "Why do all todays cars look the same?"
J

Compared to earlier cars there was a certain "sameness" to Detroit's offerings, rather akin to the "sameness" that prevailed around 1920, and was followed by the styling explosion of the latter part of the decade.

I dare say "tacky" is a very subjective term, and rather a matter of opinion and taste. We have furnished our current home in mostly mid-century modern, and don't find it the least bit tacky.

Well, there was an awful lot of cheap, tacky modern furniture produced in the post-war years, along with a lot of equally cheap and equally tacky "Duncan Phyfe", "Colonial" and "French Provincial". Then of course back in the 'thirties we had all of that cheap "Waterfall" furniture with it's elaborate Photofinishes, and in the 'Twenties the boxcars full of chintzy "Borax" furniture which was inflicted upon the public by the folks in Grand Rapids. Every period of furniture had its dross, which tends not to survive. Unfortunately a fair amount of the bad stuff from the post-war years yet survives to sully the image of that period's interior design. We all have to remember that where "Atomic Modern" is concerned there is a great difference between Korvettes and Heywood-Wakefield, just as there was between Bambergers and Ludwig Bauman in 1915

 

[LizzieMaine]

Compared to earlier cars there was a certain "sameness" to Detroit's offerings, rather akin to the "sameness" that prevailed around 1920, and was followed by the styling explosion of the latter part of the decade.

That's what happens when the Boys From Marketing design cars instead of proper engineers. "Our car is NEW NEW NEW -- just look at this strip of chrome here, and these Dagmar-like bumper things."

John Keats (the journalist, not the poet) wrote an absolutely lacerating study of the Tailfin Era and the marketing gimcrackery which drove it in his book "The Insolent Chariots." It's both hilarious and illuminating.

 

[rocketeer]

Well, "Classic Car" is really a rather specific moniker, referring to those machines of special distinction made between (as I recall) 1924 and the start of the Second World War, to wit: http://www.classiccarclub.org/grand_classics/approved_classics.html



Well, of course it was a failure year. Have you seen a 1959 Chevrolet?eep:

A Classic car can be anything from the fastest most glamourous model such as a Bugatti tourer to something small and almost insignificant such as the orignal Morris/Austin Mini's and the Volkswagen beetle. They sold millions of Mini's and beetles so there must be something of the enduring style and appeal for the models to have stayed in production for so long. The original Mini shape lasted much longer than the Riley and Woolsley versions so which one is the classic and which one is just an old car. As to the Bugatti, they were made in so few numbers there were not really enough to go round and even the price of these cars made the millionaires of the time think twice before buying. Yes the odd one turns up in a scrap yard but even in the 40 and 50s most were heading to the rich collectors.

Ah the 1959 Chevrolet, yes I have seen lots of them. I first saw one of these at the age of around 4. I probably had every version made of the Corgi Toys Impala model, a four door flat top, or 4 window sedan as it is probably better known. And I loved it. The first real one I saw came roaring around my street around 1970 with a bunch of long haired bikers hanging out of the windows(I knew they were bikers as they had a 'Patch' of a popular local bike gang imitating the look of the Hells Angels.
Funny though, the episode of Happy Days, featuring the Demolition Derby also had a few featured getting pretty beat up by Fonzie and his girl. Thinking, this series was set in the 1960s to mid 1960s, the cars would only have been a few years old(Richie still looked young ) the cars should really have been old 40s crocks surely.

I love old cars by the way, and old bikes as I have a BSA. But really I would claim my Suzuki Hayabusa is more of a classic than my ploddy old BSA 650 any day.

 

[Edward]

Usually, rose-colored glasses.

AF

Absolutely. "mid-century" is an adjective; "Golden Era" is a value judgement.

Woody Allen made some nice comments on "Golden Age" thinking in Midnight in Paris. Lovely film.

 

[scotrace]

Usually, rose-colored glasses.

AF

Brilliant.

 

[vitanola]

A Classic car can be anything from the fastest most glamourous model such as a Bugatti tourer to something small and almost insignificant such as the orignal Morris/Austin MinPi's and the Volkswagen beetle. They sold millions of Mini's and beetles so there must be something of the enduring style and appeal for the models to have stayed in production for so long. The original Mini shape lasted much longer than the Riley and Woolsley versions so which one is the classic and which one is just an old car. As to the Bugatti, they were made in so few numbers there were not really enough to go round and even the price of these cars made the millionaires of the time think twice before buying. Yes the odd one turns up in a scrap yard but even in the 40 and 50s most were heading to the rich collectors.


Ah the 1959 Chevrolet, yes I have seen lots of them. I first saw one of these at the age of around 4. I probably had every version made of the Corgi Toys Impala model, a four door flat top, or 4 window sedan as it is probably better known. And I loved it. The first real one I saw came roaring around my street around 1970 with a bunch of long haired bikers hanging out of the windows(I knew they were bikers as they had a 'Patch' of a popular local bike gang imitating the look of the Hells Angels.
Funny though, the episode of Happy Days, featuring the Demolition Derby also had a few featured getting pretty beat up by Fonzie and his girl. Thinking, this series was set in the 1960s to mid 1960s, the cars would only have been a few years old(Richie still looked young ) the cars should really have been old 40s crocks surely.


I love old cars by the way, and old bikes as I have a BSA. But really I would claim my Suzuki Hayabusa is more of a classic than my ploddy old BSA 650 any day.

Well, the term "Classic Car" was coined in 1952. It referred to "A Classic is a "fine" or "distinctive" automobile, either American or foreign built, produced between 1925 and 1948. Other factors, including engine displacement, custom coachwork and luxury accessories, such as power brakes, power clutch, and "one-shot" or automatic lubrication systems, help determine whether a car is considered a Classic.". The definition still holds, I think. Of course, there are always those hangers-on who attempt to bask in the reflected glory of the greats by calling their 1977 Gremlins "Classics", but - really?.


Unfortunately, the terms have been hopelessly muddled by those trying to ride the coat-tails of the grand old machines.


As for me, although I greatly appreciate the Classics, I prefer plain old working automobiles; Flivvers, Four-cylinder Dodges, Whippets etc. Good thing, too, for that's all I'll ever be able to afford!

As for the 1959 Chevrolet, I find it to be just a little bit silly. Never mind me, though, for I don't much care for any car that lacks running boards. What would I know?

 

[LizzieMaine]

As for the 1959 Chevrolet, I find it to be just a little bit silly. Never mind me, though, for I don't much care for any car that lacks running boards. What would I know?

When I was little, I was scared of 1959-60 Chevrolets. I was scared of all the GM line from those years, but the Chevies terrified me. Something about the shape of the windshield, those weird vent windows, and that gull-wing rear end looked monstrous to me.

 

[Benny Holiday]

The term "Heritage" makes me cringe. This term used with photos of too skinny guys wearing 2 day beards and overpriced head-to-to denim "workwear" inspired outfit gives me the runs. If any of the poster boys do work that required anything more than a laptop and a latte I'll gladly eat my hat.
Too many companies are trying to sell some vague idea of past without the quality of it.

:eusa_clap:eusa_clap

 

[Benny Holiday]

When I was little, I was scared of 1959-60 Chevrolets. I was scared of all the GM line from those years, but the Chevies terrified me. Something about the shape of the windshield, those weird vent windows, and that gull-wing rear end looked monstrous to me.

Especially the ones nicknamed Christine!

 

[vitanola]

Especially the ones nicknamed Christine!

Funny. Wasn't Christine a Plymouth? How could anyone be afraid of a Plymouth? Rather like being afraid of a happy little Golden Lab pup, don't you think?

 

[tonyb]

When I was little, I was scared of 1959-60 Chevrolets. I was scared of all the GM line from those years, but the Chevies terrified me. Something about the shape of the windshield, those weird vent windows, and that gull-wing rear end looked monstrous to me.

Among the more memorable of our family cars during my growing-up years was a '59 two-door no-post Impala, two-tone white over blue. Took a vacation in it, from Wisconsin to Southern California via the Rockies and the Desert Southwest, and then up the coast to Seattle. That was in 1965. Can't say that it was ever on my list of best-looking cars, but it surely did make a statement. GM hired the Jam Handy company to produce a promotional film that came to be titled "The American Look," which was ostensibly an homage to the industrial designers of the era, but which concluded as an advertisement for the new and different 1959 full-size Chevrolet models. The film itself is now considered among the definitive examples of "populuxe" style.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khNS3TVljms

 

[Horace Debussy Jones]

I dunno. My dad had a 1958 Dodge that was very similar. I think it was those razor sharp tail fins that scared me. Not to mention the ominous, gaping - maw grill work, which looked poised to devour unsuspecting kids.

Funny. Wasn't Christine a Plymouth? How could anyone be afraid of a Plymouth? Rather like being afraid of a happy little Golden Lab pup, don't you think?

 

[Horace Debussy Jones]

Wow. Some really bizarre combinations of colors, textures and shapes came out in the fifties. Probably inspired in part by the then popular modern "art" craze. I'm glad i don't remember it. :lol:

GM hired the Jam Handy company to produce a promotional film that came to be titled "The American Look," which was ostensibly an homage to the industrial designers of the era, but which concluded as an advertisement for the new and different 1959 full-size Chevrolet models. The film itself is now considered among the definitive examples of "populuxe" style.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khNS3TVljms

 

[Matt Crunk]

To me Golden Age defines the styles and culture of the first part of the 20th Century, up to and including a few years past WWII when the boys can home to a prosperous post-war economy and saw a chance to live The American Dream. I believe the Mid-Century school was largely born out of that. As the Nuclear Family began to thrive and look toward the future and the coming Space Race, they began to surround themselves with the trappings of sleek "futuristic" modern styles to reflect that look forward. Out with the old, in with the new, so to speak.

 

[LizzieMaine]

A major hallmark of the transition was the rise of Planned Obsolesence in the mid-fifties -- while economic theorists had proposed this idea in the past, it wasn't until the postwar era that the Boys gained sufficient influence to promote it as a full-blown agenda. All this spiky, futuristic "modern" stuff was specifically intended to be so extreme that it made anything pre-war "look" obsolete even though it likely still had a great deal of functional life left. The Boys pounded the "modern, modern, modern" drum so hard and so relentlessly that a substantial chunk of the people fell right into line -- without understanding that the "modern" stuff they were buying was far less substantial than the pre-war things they were abandoning. And the very extremeness of its design ensured that consumers would tire of it that much sooner -- likely before it wore out -- ensuring that the cycle would continue.

The notorious flimsiness of many tailfin-era cars was only the tip of this particular iceberg -- Vance Packard and John Keats both wrote about this before the decade was over, accurately predicting that the shoddy quality and extreme design of Detroit's Modern Modern Modern product would eventually push consumers to embrace new, honestly-built foreign cars like the Volkswagen.