I just couldn’t pass this vintage split level house the other day, with this similar-vintage Studebaker sitting in the driveway, looking so very much at home. It’s even harder to pin down the exact year of this house than the Studebaker; but 1955 is probably a good guess, or a bit later. Anyway, the general vibe of that time with that Stude in the driveway is right, except for the replacement vinyl windows upstairs. I’m not exactly sure what year it’s from either, but by 1955 it would have been already a bit elderly, as in relegated to second line duty. The 1955 Ford Ranch wagon is out with Dad and the kids at the Little League game.
It’s a Champion (the shorter and cheaper six cylinder model), and from the first generation (1947-1949) I’m pretty sure. Does anyone know how to peg these for the exact year?
Nope. Pretty cool though. JPC should take note, as we are encouraging him to buy a 48 Stude. See, it’s outdoors!
Ah, so you are the one agitating! 🙂
There’s a neighborhood from that era across the main road from where I work. By far the most commonly seen car in the driveways is the gen2 Honda Fit (invariably with oval sticker proclaiming the elementary school that forms sort of the nucleus of it, but when it was new it must’ve been lousy with Ford Ranch Wagons.
I have the Standard Catalog of Independents, I’ll take a look after work and see if there is anything noteworthy.
I even owned a Studebaker of that vintage – a 1949 Champion 2-door sedan – for about a month, and I never learned if there was any difference among the 1947-1949 model years.
That is a nicely period-correct Champion 4-door, with its little blackwall tires and dog-dish hubcaps.
The tell is the bars on the side grilles. The 47s are all vertical. They added one horizontal bar on each side in 48 and a second in 49. I never saw the difference until recently.
I’d be tempted to peg the house closer to 1965. It’s big and the two car is definitely upscale. This would be ideal in front of a Levittown house…..
Split level homes took of during the early-mid fifties. Levittown was obviously more conservative and modest. Here just one that’s dated from 1956 (below). but there’s plenty of other examples of split levels from the mid fifties.
Split levels started to be seen first in the 1930s, like this one (of four) from the Sears home plans, the Homestead from 1935. 1950 is commonly given as the date of the start of the modern split level home boom.
I’m going to split the difference between you guys and call the house as a ’60 model. I live in a neighborhood of this vintage and it is visible how much larger homes in this demographic got between 1952-55 and 1958-60. A lot like the cars, in fact.
Where I live (DC suburbs), that house would likely be early to mid 1960s. I live in a 1951 development, and none of the modestly-sized houses have two-car garages and few even have a single garage. The split-level boom around here was just getting started around 1955 and peaked in ’60s. Starting around 1980, home builders here stopped building anything but colonial style or slight variations thereof, with almost no exceptions except custom-built houses. Certainly no more split-levels, split-foyers, or ramblers (the house, not the car) were built much after 1980.
’50s and ’60s have by far the best floorplans in my experience, with larger and more open kitchens than earlier houses, larger bathrooms, sensible closets, and proper hallways. After about 1985, trendiness and showoff-y features took over, culminating in ’00s McMansions. Inside are unnecessary 2-level foyers, wacky diagonal walls that create funkily-shaped rooms and wasted space, pointless features like fake quasi-Roman pillars dividing rooms, and other such nonsense.
I can tell some ’47-’52 Studes from the front – ’50=bulletnose, ’51=more subtle bulletnose with painted trim ring, ’52=new front end with ’53-preview grille and also one-year-only hardtop body style. I dont know how to tell the ’47 through ’49s apart, at least from the back or side. I’m much better with the ’53-’66 generation where every year has its own unique look (except 1965 with the hood closed).
The house next door to me is a split-level and it dates to ’57, so this one might not be too far off. The majority of my neighborhood is immediately postwar and is mostly capes (like my own 1946 house) and colonials, but some of the slightly later infill consists of ranches and splits. The replacement windows do make it hard to date this one, as well as not being able to see half of it.
As I recall, the 1950 Studebakers got the ‘bullet-nose’.
Happy Motoring, Mark
The ’47-49 grilles are slightly different, but I don’t think there’s any visible diff from the rear. The ’47 is easiest, because it has a big crown-like logo above the grille.
I’d tag the house at ’61.
Agreed, I have only recently been checked out to ID the fronts of the 47-49 Studes. If there is a difference in the rears, it’s beyond my ability to tell. Definitely a pre-50 though, as they went to vertical taillights.
“Hey, Grandpa’s here!”. At least that’s what an old car out front of a “modern” house always meant when I was growing up in a neighborhood like this.
I remember split-levels becoming a thing in Tucson in the early 1960s. If we had any before then, they probably were in some of the upscale, custom-house neighborhoods I never got into. I do remember seeing ads for newly-built subdivisions featuring split-level homes in the early 60s, probably an example of Tucson following trends that were established elsewhere.
David: there are a number on Kenyon at Sarnoff. They look identical to the split level neighborhood in Tooele UT where my parents bought their first brand new house.
They are literally the same designs architecturally.
It had a 53 Ford Custom and then a 63 Dart 270 wagon out front when we lived there. And I was originally brought home in a six year old 50 bullet nose Studebaker Starlight.
The houses on Kenyon and Sarnoff look so much like the ones in that old neighborhood, they make me smile whenever I see them. Like being 7 years old again !
Like this, but the driveway was reversed. This one was built in 1960. Tooele UT listing.
This:
Based on Google, I’d say the Stude is a ’48, or maybe ’49. The ‘smooth profile’ bumper overriders seemed to appear in 1948, replacing the slightly more Dagmar-ish ones of 1947. And the taillights changed to vertical in 1950.
There’s another more chromed variant of the horizontal taillight, which could be the 49, but they’re not labelled consistently.
On the house though, I’d go closer to 1980. It’s hard to tell from just a partial pic, but the way the size of the garage overrules the design of the house, the ‘tacked on’ look to the roof over the garage doors, the lack of relationship between garage door and second floor window placements, plus those ‘cute’ cut corners on the garage doors themselves and the applied faux brick at the lower level suggest the 1980’s to me (I see a brougham in the driveway when this puppy was built).
But then I’m in British Columbia, and maybe we’re a decade or two behind :-).
On the house though, I’d go closer to 1980. It’s hard to tell from just a partial pic, but the way the size of the garage overrules the design of the house, the ‘tacked on’ look to the roof over the garage doors, the lack of relationship between garage door and second floor window placements, plus those ‘cute’ cut corners on the garage doors themselves and the applied faux brick at the lower level suggest the 1980’s to me
I think I’ll agree on the 80s, but go you one farther: this was built as a ranch and the living space above the garage is a poorly done addition. The wall of the upper floor on the right does not line up with the right wall of the garage. It might by the camera angle, if the front wall of the upper floor is set back from the front of the garage, implying the garage was lengthened on the front. Architecturally, this house is a mess.
Those are the best options: a 60s split level with a very tacky 80s front extension on the garage, or an 80s ranch with a very tacky upper floor expansion over the garage. What would tie it down would be whether the first floor living area had siding like the upper floor, or brick like the garage.
Without knowing the first floor siding, I would go with the ranch with added second floor due to:
1: the roof of the first floor looks like it is only a foot or so above the eaves on the garage, which would be a typical step up from a garage floor to the floor of a house with a basement. On a real split level, the first floor roof is closer to equidistant between the garage roof and second floor roof.
2: the second floor walls being offset from the garage walls means extra columns inside the garage to support it. No self respecting architect would design a house with an obstructed garage space if starting with a clean sheet.
You’re right; I’m abit embarrased to say that I didn’t really look at the house closely, just the Stude and how it kind of fit into the scene. It isn’t a split-level at all, just a ranch with an addition. Thanks for pointing that out. Or no. 🙂
seems like this website has become more of an offshoot of Architectural Digest anyways. see ya
didn’t really look at the house closely, just the Stude
It’s a nice Stude, very like the red one my dad had, before I showed up. But my eye drifted up to the house, and something didn’t look right, so figuring out what was wrong with the house became the challenge.
Unfortunately, I don’t have a pic of dad’s 51 Champ in front of the house, a brick bungalow built in Dearborn around 1950, but I do have a couple pix of the Champ.
As for those taillights, there could have been a different variant on the larger Commander models – Commanders had different grilles and front fenders, different dashboards, and some other trim differences, so it is not inconceivable that taillights could have been different as well.
The car: I don’t know a thing about them beyond their vintage, but have always been charmed by them, and would happily give one a home, I suppose.
The house: I’m late to the discussion, and can benefit by all posts above, but will admit that the house struck me as mid-1960s at the *earliest.* The detail that catches my eyes is the upper corners of the garage door openings “filled in,” and not simply at the plain-vanilla 90-degree angle. It’s been commonplace now for decades, but–though I’m a flyover guy, and don’t really know West-coast housing trends–I don’t recall that on the 1950s houses at all, even the more “custom” ones.
Paul, can you remember the street address?–maybe the construction-date info is online somewhere.
Many property tax records are on-line now days. They will indicate when the property first hit the tax rolls.
Yeah, the info is on Zillow for example. Just need the address. Do it!
Meanwhile, I also think the cut corners of the garage door openings say maybe 70’s rather than 50’s. The outside wall of the floor above the garage not lining up is really weird, but the house makes no sense with just the garage lower than the rest either.
My Cheapskate 50’s Dad had a 1950 Champion (of course) through most of the 50’s but for some reason it had the deluxe steering wheel like in this photo instead of the really ugly plain one many had. But of course it had a metal bullet shape where the clock is. And on the outside the black rubber fender guard thing instead of chrome.
Looking at a bunch of photos of this era of Studebakers one thing I noticed is that the turn signal lever appears to have the clicker part right on it as if it was an aftermarket unit. One of the many ways that Studebaker, while being one of the first actual postwar bodied cars, was actually behind the times. Also added on back fenders with the welting, an extra separation between the front edge of the front door and the front fender, and (like Chrysler postwar bodies) an extra bit between the doors from top to bottom on four door models.
The property tax records for my house are wrong. They indicate it was built in 1949; however, I have the original architect’s blueprints which are dated mostly 1951 with some revisions in 1952 (that’s a crucial distinction in this jurisdiction because houses built before 1950 are required to have lead abatement performed). It also had what appears to be the original refrigerator in the kitchen (since moved to the basement) which has a placard on it also showing it’s a 1952 model. It’s a Hotpoint, which means it was built just around the time CEO James Nance left the appliance world to try and save Packard. (Incidentally, Nance earlier in his career worked for Frigidaire, which means he did time at General Motors as well!)
Wow – a “Nance” fridge!
Nance’s marketing instinct, honed in the appliance business where different brands often look similar, had him always having “a difference to sell” so customers would choose your company’s washing machine instead of a competitor’s. When he moved to Packard that “difference” became the torsion-ride suspension on the ’55=’56 models that prepared the rear wheels for the same bump the front wheels had just rolled over. It worked great even if it was designed by marketing department decree.
Another cool (pun unintended) old appliance I have is this GM/Frigidaire air conditioner made sometime from the mid ’50s to early ’60s based on the logo in use at the time. Those four square vents inside the grille aim the air in one direction – to decide which of four directions that is, you pull it out, rotate it 90 or 180 degrees in either direction, and let the spring pull in back into place in a new position.
Another Studebaker connection: Raymond Loewy styled the 1955 Frigidaire appliance line. Loewy used at least one chrome trim piece from this refrigerator:
http://thisatomiclife.blogspot.com/2012/04/raymond-loewy-designed-frigidaire.html
….on this car:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/loewys-lincoln-the-fanciest-thing-on-wheels
…the torsion-ride suspension on the ’55=’56 models…worked great even if it was designed by marketing department decree.
Torsion Level was invented by Bill Allison, an engineer at Hudson. Hudson didn’t have the money to develop it, so Allison was lent to Packard to bring his suspension to reality.
The small manufacturers always had to do something different to be noticed. whether it was Studebaker’s radical styling in 47 and 53, Hudson’s “step down” platform or AMC’s swing to an all small car fleet in 58. AMC was the first manufacturer to make air conditioning standard on their top line models. (My Aunt’s first car to have A/C was a 70 AMC Ambassador)
I got a Studebaker board on FB buzzing a couple weeks ago when I mentioned a Hemmings reprint of an SIA article that talked about a flat 4 the company was working on in 61 for a 100″ wheelbase Lark followon, and that, since 59, Studebaker had been distributing DKWs as well as Mercedes. The speculation was what if Studebaker had put that flat 4 in the DKW F102, instead of the DKW 2 stroke and offered that, instead of butting heads with Ford and Chevy with the existing Lark platform.
Packard apparently figured out how to get the Torsion-Level system into the planned new platform for 57, but it’s days were numbered as falling rooflines and step-down floorpans took away the room the torsion bars needed.
In 58, Allison offered this illustration of how T-L could be worked into a perimeter frame, and still allow room for footwells. I shudder to think what this Rube Goldberg system of cranks and levers would cost to produce, not to mention all the moving parts that need lubrication.
That’s a cool looking suspension; wonder how well it would work and how durable it would be in real life use.
Has there been anything like Torsion-Level used in any car or truck since the ’56 Packards? The closest I’m aware of (conceptually) are electronic sonar-based systems that “read” the road ahead to prepare and adjust the suspension for upcoming bumps, but I’m unaware of any suspension that mechanically prepares any of the wheels for an upcoming bump or pothole.
Yup Zillow is pretty reliable in the date built, since they pull that info directly from the tax records.
County assessor pictures are often available online and in some cases they go back to when they were built. Many times they have period vehicles in them too.
The cut corners on the garage door opening is something that started in the late 70’s or early 80’s in our area.
More Studebakers on the table, a screenshot from “Death of a Salesman” (the 1966 tv movie) where Willy Loman climb in a 1949 Studebaker. http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_736302-Studebaker-Champion-1949.html Dustin Hoffman driven a 1940 model in the 1985 tv movie version. http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_33311-Studebaker-Champion-1940.html
Since I worked for the local utility, I was able to trace back to the original meter install of August 1968 on my house via microfiche. Nixon had just won the Republican nomination.
I’m sure many COAL’s have passed on my busy street since then.
Based on all the comments on the house, maybe we should open an “Curbside Appeal” blog:-}
Need to see a picture of the Nose to determine the year, or better yet open the hood and look for the body tag. That would be an ovalish metal tag attached to the passenger side of the firewall with raised letters and numbers in two rows on it. 1947 would start with 6G, 48 with 7G, & 49 with 8G. 1950 [9G] & 51 [10G] would be the legendary Bullet Nose, and the last year of that body style 1952 has the shovel nose grill.
The body really lived thru the end of production in ’67, though the fenders became integrated into the design. The cowl never changed.
I’m not sure I agree with this statement. I know for a fact that there are multiple versions of replacement firewall panels offered for reproduction, so even the 1953 cowl and firewall were not interchangeable all the way through the 64-66 cars. Just the fact that the 47-52 cars had a flat windshield with a slight V vs. the 53+ cars with curved glass makes the cowl different, not to mention the way the newer cowl is lowered to fender height. I have seen a lot of people swap front end sheetmetal between years on Studes, but have never seen anyone try to mate a 53+ front to a 47-52 body. Likewise, I have never seen a dash swap between the two generations. Doesn’t mean it hasn’t been done, but I suspect that there would be a lot of custom fabrication to make it work.
What I do not doubt is that the general dimensions are quite similar, as is the way that part of the body is designed.
I always forget that these had suicide doors in the back. While there are certainly valid safety concerns, it looks very finished and put-together to have the door handles centered like that. And it can’t be completely impossible to do in modern times, as the current Rolls Phantom and Ghost sport the same setup, and the Phantom coupe/drophead has rear-hinged doors as well.