A recent post featured a Cohort photo of a 1958 Lincoln accompanied by some not-so-glowing commentary about the styling of the car, and this brief post resulted in an astounding 118 comments! With that in the back of my mind, I happened to come across eBay listings for a 1958 and a 1961 Lincoln with lots of close-up photos, and I thought: Let’s compare them side-by-side and see just how radical the change was from the 1958-60 generation of Lincolns to the iconic, ground-breaking 1961 design.
To quote Paul in his Lincoln post, “But this was such a mess, most of all the front end. It’s like every cliché was thrown in a blender . . .” Lincoln advertisements used somewhat different language: “Lincoln’s brilliant new beauty heralds its distinctive superiority. Its sweeping simplicity stamps it as a car of grace and dignity.”
Ah, but then came 1961, and “Now America has a new kind of fine car, one that combines even greater luxury with 14 inches less length.” Longer/lower/wider is OUT. So apparently are heavily sculpted sides, tailfins, wrap-around windshields, and lots of other things. If 1958 represented simplicity, what is this–austerity? No, you see–“Less is More”; “Pure Elegance”: now we have center-opening doors, a 4-door convertible, hydraulic windshield wipers, and a 2-year, 24,000 mile “pledge of excellence.”
To see how the styling of these cars came to be, we have to look at the experimental dream cars they were based on. We can see how the ’58 strongly resembles La Tosca, which is actually a small scale radio controlled car, built so designers can see how the car looks in motion, as well as standing still. This is a brilliant idea. One thing I’ve noticed–not only do late ’50s cars look like rockets when parked, but the effect is amplified as you watch one zoom past you! Alex Tremulis (of Tucker fame) had a hand in this, and if you want to see it tooling along, click here.
In this mock-up of a Continental Mark III that was never produced, we can see a morphing taking place from the sleek, extruded look of La Tosca to the more upright, squared-off look of the production ’61.
Here we see something close to 1961’s final form. But this is actually a Thunderbird prototype, before the decision was made to make this T-Bird the basis for the 1961 Lincoln.
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
So now, let’s look at a group of comparison shots showing the dramatic difference between what was offered as a Lincoln in 1958 & 1961. I like these close-up photos because they give you something more like the experience of seeing the cars in person, which is often very different from just looking at pictures.
We can really see the La Tosca resemblance here. And how the new quad headlamps had to be canted to fit into the front fender shape.
The rear view is the best feature of both of these cars (my opinion). However, not everyone was so impressed . . .
(From John Keats’ book, The Insolent Chariots.) It looks like a ’58 Continental rear stuck on the front. Artistic license–you get the idea!
The gentle flow of fine chrome moldings atop front fenders vs. a dramatic scooped-out front fender scallop, led by a fishtail front bumper.
I see a little bit of the ’64 Mustang here. Rounded corners versus . . .
. . . sharp points!
Both these front ends are designed to knock your eye out! I would say the ’62 grille/headlight arrangement was an improvement over the ’61–more in-tune with the overall lines of the car. Among 58-60s, the ’58 is the “purest” (if I may use that word) expression of the concept; the ’59 is OK–a little simpler (except for chrome winged pods for parking lights), with a toned-down scallop; the ’60–ehhhh, that’s really an acquired taste–bigger “fangs” and a re-work of the bumper and grille make it a real angry monster–ready to do battle with the ’59 Dodge!
’60 vs. ’62: Aggressive versus . . . submissive?
After 1960, the Lincoln star disappeared, and all Lincolns become Continentals, with their own distinctive emblem.
The shooting star, soon never to be seen again!
Profile views. The ’61 could be “coming or going”, but the ’58 definitely has a sense of “forward thrust”, combined with a look of formality.
The kickup in the beltline is retained, but that’s about all!
I don’t know if the wood is fake or real, but it’s about the nicest I’ve seen!
Starships don’t have wood!
A return to Art Deco?
A draftsman, looking for inspiration, had a protractor sitting on his drawing table. Hmmm . . . I’ll just trace around this! By the way, the crack down the middle–“They all do that!”
So which model year do you prefer? A little known statistic previously mentioned on Curbside is the fact that the ’58 actually outsold the ’61: 29,684 to 25,164. But the ’61 truly pointed the way forward–its boxy, unadorned look set the pattern for American car styling as the 1960s progressed. Lincoln sales increased with each new model year, with evolutionary rather than revolutionary updates. The 1958-60 generation quickly became passé, and, I’m sad to say, almost universally scorned for its alleged “garishness”.
Partly it’s a question of whether you prefer clean, unadorned, spare lines (which ironically is what the ’58 claimed to offer); or if you enjoy exuberance and richness of detail. The classicist versus the romanticist. While I can certainly appreciate the genius of the classic, minimalist approach of the ’61, I find the ’58 much more fascinating with its Rocket Age flair and tour de force mentality. And I appreciate the fact that Curbside, unlike previous automotive print literature, allows all individuals with divergent tastes and preferences to express their views, even if they depart from mainstream opinion.
Your architectural comparison at the end is something I’ve pondered about cars of the 1950s.
For all of the clean lines and sparse, uncluttered spaces that were in vogue for luxury homes at that time, luxury cars (at least in the US) were the polar opposite: Too much sculpting, too much chrome, too much useless ornamentation, too much wasted space. It’s almost as though the architects and car designers were following completely different scripts, and seeing a car of that era parked in front of a house like the one in the next-to-last photo creates a marked contrast. The ads proclaimed that it was in the image of the “jet age” or “space age,” but the reality is that flying machines were – and still are – sleek and unadorned, with minimal wasted space.
With a few exceptions, the styling of the cars didn’t match the other styles of the era until the Elwood Engel’s Continental and Bill Mitchell’s Riviera came along.
That’s an interesting point about comparing architecture and car design of specific decades, and certainly true that in the 1950s the two deviated substantially. Even the ’58 Lincoln ad at the beginning of this post has a modern, uncluttered building behind it.
But thinking about it very quickly, it seems that aside from the 1950s, architecture and car design have tended to exhibit similar characteristics… art deco in the late 1930s, simplicity in the ’60s, colonial revival in the ’70s, boxiness in the ’80s and so on.
The architectural reference I would have used here for the ’58 Lincoln is more the mid-century “googie” look. Think of restaurants and gas stations with soaring roofs and spires adorned with metal balls, big windows and garish signs. Lots of dazzle and sparkle. Like googie architecture, the late ’50s cars came on strong, but flamed out in a hurry. Just too much, perhaps?
Maybe something like this?
Yes, great point on Googie. That’s the pic I was expecting.
That said, that Victorian mansion is something. I wonder where it is?
Flavel House. 441 8th St., Astoria, Oregon.
Absolutely inspired comparison, BuzzDog! It’s amazing how often the two are way out of step, when you think about it.
I prefer the simplicity of the ’61 Lincoln over the visual gingerbread slathered all over the ’58. But when it comes to houses I much prefer the one on Paul’s second picture over the plain box in the first – hey, I don’t claim to be consistent!
I think it all comes down to firstly the basic shape and proportions, and secondly how ornamentation is applied to that shape. If the shape isn’t right, no amount of ornamentation will fix it. And if the shape is right, it doesn’t need a lot of chromium augmentation. Here is where I am awe of the ’61 Lincoln design; The shape is simple, but somehow – I think through the subtle curvature of the sides – it avoids looking cheap and austere. If it didn’t win any design awards at the time, it certainly should’ve.
I’m trying to imagine what modern buildings would look like if they followed the same trends as today’s car designs – and I have to say I’m glad Toyota doesn’t design houses. Imagine trying to live in something detailed like this!
My two favorite cars in the same post! If forced to choose, I would probably go for the timelessness of the 1961, but I’ve always had a soft spot for the 1958-60 models (especially the 1958, which is the most Googie of them all).
I’m pretty sure the walnut veneer in the 1961 Continental was real wood.
Real walnut wood veneer on door panels and instrument panel
(steering wheel/instrument panel control knobs wood tone plastic)
on the 1961 through 1963 – an option.
Standard included: Aluminum trim on doors
(with glove box door, steering wheel/instrument panel control knobs the color of the interior)
on the 1961 through 1963 – standard.
The wood options was much more popular than the standard aluminum.
My grandparents’ 1962 became mine while I was in college. Real wood veneer, as mentioned above. It was black cherry metallic with pearl beige leather and empire cloth uphostery.
My grandfather was old school enough that he didn’t believe in radios cars and tried to get the dealer to do a delete.
At the time they came out, which was the bigger styling sensation–Corvair or Continental? The Corvair mechanicals made big news, but the Conti was a 180 deg style change that lasted decades, so the impact wore off.
It’s surprising that Lincoln sacrificed rear seat room for a few years, which may account for some of the sales drop, that and the visual shock. I think from ’68 on, they had slightly more legroom than Deville, despite a shorter wheelbase, but sold only a fraction of Cadillac.
The biggest reason for the sales drop was that up through 1960 they were trying to compete with Cadillac model-for-model; the ’61 Lincoln lineup, and for many years thereafter, had the sedan priced above a Sedan de Ville and below a Fleetwood 60 Special, and the convertible priced at about what a Fleetwood convertible ran at.
There were no 2-doors at a time when the Coupe de Ville was the biggest-selling single Caddy, and nothing at all to compete with Cadillac’s entry-level Series 62 at a time when that series still did considerable volume.
Ford was likely very pleased the sales drop was as low as it was, and the profits the Conti brought in. If that meant they weren’t seen everywhere right away, that spelled exclusivity not unpopularity.
Globally, the Corvair was far more influential than the Continental. That may have been different in the US, but the number of European cars that have Corvair DNA is astounding.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-how-the-1960-corvair-started-a-global-design-revolution/
That’s not to take anything away from the Continental, though. It’s a timeless and very classy design for a full-size American car. But you just couldn’t downsize it to fit an NSU.
I would opine that Ford did not intend for the 1961 Continental styling be something downsizable to fit an NSU. They were aiming higher even than the most popular Cadillacs and hit where they aimed.
More specifically, the Corvair’s design was hugely influential in Europe, but not hardly at all in the US. And the inverse is true with the Continental, which had an immediate and enormous influence in the US.
The Corvair’s influence also made it to Japan, mostly via European designers. And the Conti had some impact there too, as in the Mitsubishi Debonair.
The Conti’s influence was most immediate on Cadillac and the other GM C-Bodies, which had a new Conti-style roof on the coupes and 4-window hardtop sedans for 1962. And its sides were increasingly cleaned up, and fins reduced. The 1965-66 Cadillac is quite slab-sided; too much so, as it went back to more edges and character lines in ’67.
Of course the ’64 Imperial and Chrysler’s ’65 big cars were the ultimate tribute to the Conti, thanks to its designer Elwood Engel moving to Chrysler.
Let’s also not forget that the German Ford Taunus P3, designed by Uwe Bahnsen, had significant influence on both the 1961 T-Bird and the Continental. The front design of both was very much a copy/variation, and the bladed fenders and slab sides also were highly influenced by the P3.
I first saw one of these in a book in the school library when I was in my early teens – and I still can’t get over those headlights!
Love them both and the Continental Mark II which is a classic of design. Thanks for your essay.
No question for me, the ’61 all the way. Maybe it’s our lack of Googie architecture in the Midwest.
I would say that the 1961 was the first Continental that actually looks like it came from the continent (of Europe).
I always felt the ’56 Mark II had rather a European vibe; if not for the size it could have almost been a Mercedes (front end excepted, of course).
I think of the ‘61 dash not as Art Deco, but as Danish Modern, which was all the rage around 1960. The light colored wood fits with a Danish Modern theme.
Yes – or by another name, Mid-Century Modern Archietecture.
Great article, one that makes readers want to bookmark it for later reference. Excellent comparisons and contrasts.
Were I to have to choose to be hit by one of these cars, the ’61 seems the more survivable. The ’58 will get you any way it can with all those unnaturally mixed shapes. My eyes hurt just looking at it. Since they scooped out the front fender, they should have done that to the rear as well, for uniformity. The back end of the thing looks like it has pincers ready to snap up unsuspecting pedestrians.
That 1961 is a beautiful shape, smooth and flowing.
An interesting comparison might be a 58-60 Linc vs. a 59 Cadillac.
Wonder what GM’s designers thought of the ’58 Lincoln? It was much more rectilinear than their ’58s, but gorped up with all those unnaturally mixed shapes (love your description, BTW), whereas GM went for an overdose of chromium rater than sculpturing the sheetmetal.
Sure, the ‘61 is a simpler design. And to us as enthusiasts, many of a certain age, the ‘61 is iconic for that very reason. But I wonder how it looks to a much younger person, who may see in both cars size, proportion and details that are more similar than different when compared to cars of the 21st century with their curves, integrated headlights and bumpers, etc.
In both automotive design and architecture I prefer clean lined simplicity. I can certainly appreciate the exuberance of the googie design ethos, but can only acknowledge that it’s hard to live with in the long term unless one commits to it as a lifestyle choice of sorts. Having owned a Victorian home for several years, I can say the same about living with it.
The more head space I give to the ’58-’60, the more it intrigues me, but as a curiosity. I can’t really fathom living with one. The ’61 I can actually imagine enjoying for what it is, even though I actually prefer the ’64, perceiving it to be the best incarnation of the design language.
These pictures brought out something I hadn’t noticed before. The ’61, originally a T-bird, continued the tradition of “sports car” hoods. A small flat hood centered in an expanse of sheet metal. “Big car” hoods opened from fender to fender and cowl to grille.
I like that you brought up the Mark III Berline, Poindexter. What a great looking design!
A few comments above, Paul mentioned how Elwood Engel cribbed Ford’s designs for the ’64 Imperial, but I think it went further than that. He was still using Ford concepts as far forward as the ’72 Plymouth Fury! The Turbine Car (which I absolutely love) stole several themes blatantly from Ford concepts. I’ve been reading Paul and Cheryl Farrell’s history of Ford concept cars, and I’ve been noticing a lot of this cross-pollination, which has been fun for me.
Regarding the two cars – obviously, the ’61 is far better looking objectively. It’s not even close. Even Lincoln designers were lukewarm on the ’58 and many preferred the Berline, but Lincoln’s commitment to unibodies and bad timing (to help amortize the Wixom Thunderbird plant) precluded them from using that style.
On the other hand, I saw a ’60 Lincoln Premiere for sale for $1000 when I was 19, and I wanted to buy it so badly! I still picture myself driving around in that big old beast – dark gray – with the Beatles’ “Sun King” playing (that’s the album I was listening to when I saw the car for sale). Good memories…maybe better left as memories in terms of actually buying one of the biggest Lincolns ever.
I was 7 when the Chrysler Turbine came out, and even my provincial country hick mind said “Cool, but it’s a Thunderbird”.
For me, the 1961 Continental is much more in line with my preference for clean lines and luxurious materials used to great effect on a simple design (which here is actually far more complex than it first appears).
On the other hand, there is something about the 1958 model that is a cohesive expression of the enthusiasm and optimism of its times. I would much rather have this Continental than any 1958 Cadillac, Buick, or Oldsmobile, which, if anything, are even more vulgar in their excessive ornamentation and period design cliches. Perhaps only a 1958 Chrysler is the purer example of late Fifties design trends.
I’ll take the ’58 Lincoln as the 1958/60 Lincoln’s are among one of my all time favorite Lincoln’s ever built, for the suicide door Lincoln’s i prefer the 1966+ models over the 1961/65’s
I have decided that the 58-60 Lincoln is the most conservative of its class (not a high bar). It combines a modern rectangular shape with oodles of gingerbread. My pick of the bunch would be a 59 Mark IV as I prefer the toned down front.
The 61 is nice, but the 64 is better proportioned.
Wonderful subject. The 61 was an almost timeless design, which influenced Lincoln design for nearly 30 years. The 58 was typical of the short -lived planned- obsolescence that permiated 50s auto design, designed to look fresh for a few scant months until next year’s model makes your almost new car look like last week’s newspaper, old and dated, shaming you in front of the neighborhood, that you cannot afford the latest and greatest.
Still the 58 design had merit. Styling details came about with sheet -metal creases that served to stiffen panels, instead of the Harley Earl tendency to stick chrome pot metal castings all over the cars . These creases created attractive highlights in the paint as the metallic finishes shimmered in the sunlight. This is a delightful effect we don’t see in the 61.
I am in the third group, I’ll pass on both, especially the 58, diagonal headlights just don’t work for me.
The 58 looks like they were throwing any idea that they thought of on the body. Those front fenders, ugh!
The 61 is a little bland, from the side it looks like it was a two door hardtop design and they switched it to a 4 door. Front end looks like it is depressed.
Gingerbread vs zen.
61 ….BUT I’d rather have that beautiful Victorian house over that shoebox with bunker slit windows that is midcentury modern.
I think the 61 is very attractive, yet I get a fleeting feeling with it. I imagine that design from both the vantage of 1961, where it must have seemed like an antidote to the excessiveness of the previous few years, and the later 1960s and even 70s where I feel as though it would kind of blend in and dare I say be bland amongst full size sedans, sure it has better details but it really was a forbearer of boxy – frankly, Bill Mitchell’s “sheer look” was Engel’s 61 Continental without blades or shoulders. The rebuttal of course is that the 61 is timeless class, but the very idea of class is partially what turns me off of it, the idea that the wealth that afforded one this car carries with it an inherent eliteness that must reject the aspirations of the common man, even if that’s where you came from. The 61 brought with it an old world snootiness to American luxury automobiles that may well have doomed them all in the end.
I appreciate the expressiveness of the 58-60, its just too much detail at the same time, these Lincolns were like if you took all the cumulative annual facelifts a model gets during its run and combined them all together. More so though I think these criminally don’t get enough credit for being full unibodies, that carried on into the 61s but its more unexpected in these barges, you’d think with the crazy late 50s styling they’d be typically conservative under the skin, but they were really cutting edge in at least that respect.
If you are comparing interiors, look at the ’60 vs. the ’61. The ’60 was a one year only design and really pretty impressive. Also, don’t forget that the ’58-’60 was a better LUXURY car than the ’61. Because the ’61 shared the cowl structure with the T-Bird, it didn’t offer lots of options that the older body style did, notably rear reading lights, power antenna, power vents, FM radio, more sophisticated A/C, 15 more horsepower. These options were gradually added in ’62 and ’63, but let’s give the ’58-’60 its due! As far as looks, however…
I Love Lucy vs. the enigmatic Robert S. McNamara. Remember the Falcon frown? The ’61 Continental, writ small. The 1960 zeitgeist.
I’m sorry. I’ve always considered the slant-light Lincolns really hideous, and for years I’ve referred to them as ‘The Batmobile’.
When I see a 1960 movie or TV show, where a shiny new Batmobile Lincoln is featured, I sometimes wonder what the proud owner of a ’60 Lincoln thought back then, after the ’61s came out!
Happy Motoring, Mark
I’ll have to say the ’61 was a better design, but I wouldn’t want a world where the ’58 didn’t exist. I feel some affection for the look of these cars, with the exception of the scalloped front fenders. There are some lines of the ’61, as classic as the overall design is, that appear awkward now. Maybe sometimes, every now and then, ‘more’ can be ‘more’?
The front end of the ’60 is interesting, with the simplification of the grille and bumper pointing to what was on the way for 1961. Still, there were likely a fair number of embarrassed Lincoln owners desperate to get rid of their 1958 cars when the 1961 was introduced. Style can be a cruel master/mistress. Maybe the relatively low sales of the ’61 were a result of a disgruntled Lincoln customer base trading for new Cadillacs instead.
The ’61 is a brilliantly cohesive design. By all objective conventional parameters, it is superior.
The ’58 is a collection of details forced to co-exist. Oh, but some of those details! That steering wheel and dash, for example, is love at first sight for me, whereas the ’61 is merely OK. And I’m just the kind of person who would choose a car like this purely for its contrarian reverse-snob appeal.
The real wonder is that only 3 years separate the two.
My favourite styling feature of the 61 is the way the front wheel arch is cut up high in the fender, it catches my eye every time .
Not keen on the front grille design though , but overall a beautiful car.
The 61 was a classic design that has held up. The 58-60 was obsolete very quickly.
What do people think of the 61 front end design as compared to the 62-63? The 61 had much more in common with the Thunderbird. Do you think Ford thought of the T-bird as the 2dr Lincoln and that’s why they didn’t create a 2-dr Lincoln in 61?
Back in the mid 1960’s I used to accompany my Dad as we prowled the second and third rate used car lots along E. 14th. St. in Oakland Ca. These Lincolns were usually parked along the back row, while Cadillacs of similar vintage were placed closer to the front. In the 1950’s and 60’s styling would change every few years, sometimes quite dramatically. Consider a ’54 Chevy, followed by the models from ’57, 59, and ’58. They looked quite different, and the early models looked pretty outdated by the time they were ten years old. Still Chevys were considered to be a good value used car since the mid 1950s. Cadillac was the most admired of American luxury cars and if the styling of finned cars started to look a little dated by 1965, it was still a prestigious car and highly valued on the secondary market. The Lincoln was never as popular through the 1950’s therefore demand was lower.
I remember thinking that the front end was the real problem with these cars. It was really the canted head lamps. They looked cross eyed and goofy. The sides of the cars had interesting horizontal lines, and didn’t appear that different from the new ’65 and ’66 Cadillacs. If Lincoln had put horizontal head lamps in the grille and maybe filled those slanting pods with a pair of big turn signals, like the 63 and 64 Riviera, it could have been a big improvement. I find the 1960 version the easiest to take.
It’s kind of amazing that Lincoln would adopt such an extreme design from a jet/rocket dream car to their most important and expensive model. It would have made more sense to scale it to be a Thunderbird which was already full of jet age gimmicks.