We’ve covered the development of the “out there” 1959 Cadillac and other GM cars a number of time, and this SIA article reprint really tells it well. GM designers were encouraged to let their imaginations run rampant, and the final production results were a lot more toned down then some of the crazy concepts. But GM knew it had gone too far with the 1959s, well before they ever went into production. Which of course explains the toned-down 1960 models, whose design was locked in before the ’59s first rolled off the line.
As further proof of how well they knew they had jumped the shark fin, Cadillac offered an alternative design in 1959, the Brougham, which clearly previewed the styling direction Cadillac was taking, two years ahead of time.
I can’t go into an in-depth look at all the forces that shaped the ’59 Cadillac, but let’s just say that the architectural/design era was called both “Atomic Age” and “Googie”, and there’s of course a huge amount of overlap between them. Russia’s Sputnik launch in the fall of 1957 fueled it further. Here’s what was on the minds of folks at the time, as encapsulated in “The House of the Future”.
And this is where they would like to be seen pulling up in their 1959 Cadillac.
Let’s also keep in mind that despite their excessive fins, and too much chrome on the Sixty Special model, the ’59s were a huge jump forward in their basic design than the heavy, bulbous and ponderous designs being developed for 1959 (above) before the “palace coup”. But even though Harley Earl may have been outgunned initially, he still oversaw the final development of the ’59s, and the fins and other details are his departing shot.
The Atomic Age/Googie era started in about 1949, and was a direct response to the clean, Streamline Moderne era before the war. It was out there, (and up there) and it reveled in it. But it was also drawing to a close, at least the most extreme versions of it, by around the time the ’59s were designed.
Mid Century Modern, the much cleaner European-inspired alternative influence, had more legs to it, and was becoming more influential. And the Brougham paid homage to that influence as an alternative Century Modern 1959 Cadillac. Or at least more so. As well as showing the growing influence of Bill Mitchell. What the Brougham really was is an expensive preview of the Bill Mitchell era to come.
The 1960 Brougham was even more toned down, with its fins receding. Both the ’59 and ’60 Brougham were of course extremely expensive, given that their bodies and interiors were coach-built by Pininfarina in Italy.
But for those that could afford it, the Brougham was a way to travel two years ahead of time, design wise. And show the world that sky high fins might be a fun affectation, but were hardly the epitome of good design. Or truly beautiful.
The 59 Fleetwood Sixty Special had less chrome on the sides than the 57-58 models did. The Eldorado’s side trim was better though.
2 years ago I bought All original 1978 Coupe Deville bronze exterior with brown leather interior 17K original miles 425 4B engine. With all books and owners manual . Almost showroom condition! I always liked the downsized full size GM B bodies starting 1977. Attached is photo of my 78 Caddy
To me, the 77’s are like the 61’s. Toned down from an excessive era.
Too bad Caddy couldn’t keep their iron block v8, instead of the awful HT4100 into mid 80’s/
Thanks for bringing up the ’59-’60 Eldorado Brougham. It is a beautiful ’59 Cadillac.
In 1987 Thomas Hines wrote “Populuxe”, a great resource book about Mid-Century design. I recall he stated the populuxe era or the United States decade ran from 1954 to 1964. It ended due to three factors; the Kennedy assassination, the Beatles arrival in the US, and the Ford Mustang – a car the ended the California customizing craze.
Quite true. There was a big reaction to the Mid Century Moderne in the years 1963-1965. Curiously enough, one of the key proponents of that was Virgil Exner, who of course had designed the very Googie ’57 Chryslers. His 1963 Stutz neo-classic renderings were right on the very leading edge of that transition: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/the-drawing-and-toy-cars-that-launched-the-whole-neo-classic-brougham-era-virgil-exners-1963-stutz-revival/
It was seen in architecture and interior design. Colonial Revival was big in the mid-late 60s; think Betty Draper’s kitchen. And that led to a massive adoption or neo-classic design, which of course manifested itself in cars with the Great Brougham Epoch, which started to get underway in about 1965-1965.
…and now Midcentury Modern is back, in a huge way –
at least in architecture.
Unfortunately I married my wife a few years too late for us to get into an Eichler in Orange, CA, at what I’d consider a reasonable price. Thankfully, we were able to get a midcentury modern home, but not an Eichler – the few with the space we needed to relocate my parents here from the East Coast are well over $1 million these days.
I had hoped that the hunger for MCM would catch on in the car market, and lead to a move to Mitchellesque, cleaner new car designs. It wasn’t to be…
A good way into American residential MCM is the Case Study Program designs, sponsored by “California Arts and Architecture” magazine beginning in 1945 and mostly built in the West. An East Coast alternative sprang, to a considerable degree, from European imports Gropius, Breuer, and others on the faculty of the the Graduate School of Design (GSD) at Harvard. Eichler was a progressive and prolific housing entrepreneur who hired several West Coast and Bay Area architects to design his houses; he was inspired by a couple of years’ residence in one of Wright’s Usonians.
Joe Eichler’s post-and-beam, open-plan houses, private on the street side but largely glazed at the back — like the pioneering Usonians, introduced in 1936 — were widely publicized, along with the work of those mentioned and many others, and “modern houses” could be found in most major US metropolitan suburbs by the early ‘fifties.
If I recall correctly, Hine posits that the start of the “Populuxe” era was autumn of 1954 – when the new 1955 car models were introduced. On the lower – priced cars, options such as air conditioning, power assists, flashy interiors and exteriors, and new V-8 engines could be had, these things were previously only available on higher – end/luxury models. A Chevy, Ford or Plymouth buyer could now have the comforts of a Cadillac, Lincoln, or Imperial…”low – price” did not now necessarily mean “drab” or “cheap”. 1955 would be a record year for car sales…
I also have (and enjoyed) Hine’s book, as well as “Googie” by Alan Hess. Both are great resources, as I love this architectural style and overall aesthetic. Both books had a decent chapter on car design, but I felt like the one in “Populuxe” was slightly more comprehensive.
The term Populuxe seems to be Hines’s invention, as far as I can tell. Cultural history is an ongoing project ?
The 1957-58 Eldorado Brougham became something of an icon of luxury excess but the 59-60 version seems to have fallen down a memory hole. It is as if the car does not fit “the narrative” of the era which was all about glitz and glam until the 61 Continental came along and saved the world.
The 59-60 Brougham is a very clean design (certainly for anything having any relationship to Harley Earl at the end of his career) and deserves more consideration than it gets.
The ’59 Brougham is really Mitchell’s first car without Earl’s influence. Earl retired in 1958, and given that the Brougham was hand built by Pininfarina, the lead time for it was of course extremely short. Pininfarina probably got the drawings for the ’59 Brougham about the same time that the ’61 cars were getting close to being wrapped up (1958).
Probably the only reason the Brougham’s front end still looked so much like the production cars was because IIRC, the Brougham did use a number of production front end parts. Or maybe they wanted to make sure folks instantly recognized it as a Cadillac.
Thanks for that. I had read the SIA article decades ago and had forgotten the time line. Your explanation of the timing resolves a lot about this car in my mind. Bill Mitchell really did come along at just the right time for GM.
We could wonder what if the 1959-60 Eldorado Brougham design was adapted to the whole Cadillac line-up for 1959-60?
Wasn’t possible, as the Brougham wasn’t designed until almost two years after the ’59 production cars. See my comment above.
I always felt the basic lines of the 59s were attractive, the gentle curve of the bodysides without the fins sprouting from it would almost give it a 61 Oldsmobile profile, maybe even a hint of 61 Tbird, and I never had anything bad to say about the front end design. The details, as you said were much cleaner than the 58s. The brougham is definitely my pick for the 59-60, it’s still got fins but in an acceptable contemporary way, rather than a shouting “biggest fins ever!”.
It’s interesting to me, I love Googie architecture but not on cars, and find midcentury modern dull and dreary on homes and buildings, go figure.
So, with all the hate I piled on the 59 this morning, let me be positive for a change. I really like the 59 and 60 Brougham. Why?
Because it’s restrained.
The 59 is an example of going too over the top to the point it comes back around to nauseating, so many clashing design themes and details just make it a confused mess of gaudy accessories and add ons. But beneath all of that, there is a basic design that can work.
The 59-60 Brougham works because it dials back a bit, it’s nowhere near as over the top. It’s still recognizably a Cadillac, it’s still making a statement, but by dialing back on the details, the basics of the design shine better. The end result is a car that still makes a pretty bold statement, but doesn’t go over board in making said statement.
To put it simply, the 59 Cadillac is like taking a wedding cake and covering it in sprinkles, jelly beans, and hot fudge, so much is slathered on that your left with a mess. The 59-60 Cadillac brougham (and subsequently the 60 Cadillac itself, because looking at this car and the following mainstream cadillacs for the next model year, it’s pretty clear GM took a lot of inspiration from this car) is that same wedding cake with all that stuff removed, it still makes a statement and it’s pretty extravagant a design, but it’s pulled back in such a way that nothing gets lost in needless frivolities.
BTW, not to come off as egotistical or self serving in any way, but me thinks I maybe had some iota for the inspiration of the article title 🙂
Quite true. Sometimes I find it best to respond with a whole post. 🙂
The ’59 Brougham only looks “restrained” in comparison to the standard ’59. I look tall next to Danny de Vito. Doesn’t make me a basketball player. The upshot being that given the choice between a standard ’59 sedan and a ’59 Brougham, I’d probably pick the latter, but I’d rather have a ’61 Lincoln or a Corvair. Those are what I’d call “restrained”.
Fair enough, it’s still got fins and chrome everywhere. I just used the word “restrained” because I couldn’t find anything better off the top of my head, but the later Continental is certainly more restrained than this brougham.
I didn’t realize there was a second Pininfarina-bodied Eldorado Brougham after the 1957-8 series. I can’t quite tell whether I love it or think it’s a bit odd. Either way, I’m thankful for something new to me.
The windshield and front pillar on the 59-60 are no longer “panoramic” but look suggestive of the “teardrop” look of the Corvair and all of the 1961 full-sized GM cars. There’s a lot of the future in these.
As I noted previously in a comment, these are really from the same time period as the production 1961 cars. Being handmade, there was essentially no time lag in ordering and making the tooling for them. “Suddenly it’s 1961”!
I’ve only ever seen one of these Pininfarina Broughams in real life – i think it was a ’60 model seen decades ago, and the ’60 is my preference. I have heard that restoration of these cars is a real bear because of the hand-hammered panels and such details as brass windshield and rear window frames plus prodigious amounts of lead filler which tended to crack.
Its always interesting to put car design into a contemporary context, and I didn’t know the Pininfarina connection.
Here’s a 1950s UK petrol station, now a listed building with a restaurant built under the wonderful roof. It used to be a regular milestone and some time stop point on the journey to Grad parents back in 60s and early 70s
Before these Pininfarina Eldorado Broughams, Pininfarina did also this Buick Lido. http://www.carstyling.ru/en/car/1957_buick_lido/ A sort of “Proto-Riviera”.
And let’s enjoy some other works then Pininfarina did for Cadillac.
http://www.deansgarage.com/2014/the-king-the-cadillac-and-the-cover-up/
http://mycarquest.com/2014/12/still-missing-the-pininfarina-cadillac-skylight-twins.html
http://www.carstyling.ru/ru/car/1961_cadillac_pf_jacqueline/
Land yachts.
America’s worst years How awful.
Paul please give us your take on Amber Vs Red tail lights. With amber you always know what the driver in front’s intensions are, not so?
Kind Regards,
Serendipity.
Ah, the love-hate relationship with amber turn signal indicators in the United States. That would be an excellent topic for Daniel Stern to write here, especially the convoluted history.
I have this fantasy where the alternate universe is United States adopting ECE lighting system in 1957, mandating the amber turn signal indicators and flexible headlamp designs. Thus, collecting the photos of export version of Big Three vehicles…
The problem is two-fold: some Americans are so deeply conditioned to see red only and recoil at the sight of amber colour on the taillamps. Another is the idiotic federal law enacted in 1972, allowing the manufacturers to demand that the forthcoming safety equipment would have cost-benefit factor and not cause the ‘financial hardship‘ for the manufacturers.
I find it really irony that the manufacturers, especially the American, would exalt all of airbags, ABS, traction control, safety body shell, etc., but ignore the amber turn signal indicators just because they weren‘t federally required.
You add side turn signal repeaters. Every car should have them.
They almost do, except in North America.
Yes, side turn signal repeaters should be mandatory. They (and amber rear turn signals) came close to being mandated in 1969, in the same docket that proposed a serious look at replaceable-bulb halogen headlamps, but NHTSA got distracted—or perhaps persuaded—and dropped the ball.
Many US cars now have turn signal repeaters on the side mirrors. And a lot of US cars do have amber rear turn signals.
The point is, they don’t all. Both are treated as style gimmicks, to differentiate one model year or trim package from another, rather than as the basic safety equipment they certainly are.
As for a taillight debate, why don’t tractor trailers have backup lights on their trailers in the U.S.? Is it the added cost of about 10 dollars per trailer? Safety first!
Yep, this is a(nother) stupid omission in US regs.
I can’t imagine how the question of turn signal color is relevant to this entry about a ’59 Cadillac (and I’m not Paul), but here y’go.
Love that second picture – just so spacey. Am I the only one who feels cheated that the world never turned out like that? Guess that’s why I like reading SF so much.
As an aside, you have a typo in the following paragraph – it should be Sputnik. That”s a sore point with me: Dad was going to call me that. Not Funny. 🙁
Good information, gentlemen! I looked up production figures: 99 for 1959 and 101 for 1960. I first saw one in 1959 in midtown Manhattan, where we lived. My gut reaction when I saw it that May of 1959 was that the man driving it had a very early production 1960. later on, I learned that this was the next generation Eldorado Brougham Town Car and again was priced at over $13,000.00. It was a stunner and with such production figures, you know why most of you have never seen one up front. Living in Manhattan I would see many rare autos. A walk on Park Avenue above 59th Street would yield chauffeurs waiting with Rolls Royces and Bentleys and snappy little European sports cars coming out of underground garages underneath apartment buildings. I also like the Eldorado Brougham but I like the overdone 1959 Cadillac just for what it represents in excess and style and comfort.
The ’60 Eldorado Brougham is a personal favorite, elegant surface development that previewed GM luxury cars on the 1960’s. Wish the ’61 Cadillac had exactly the subtle side panel surface development seen on the ’60 Brougham, rather than the exaggerated forms they produced.
The excellent SIA magazine ’63 Buick Riviera article included photos of the development clay models when it was still called “LaSalle II” showing four door versions that have the much of the sculptural surface development of the ’60 Brougham. The styling process for the ’63 Riviera had its roots in the ’60 Eldorado Brougham.
Interesting piece; I actually had forgotten about the 1959-1960 Brougham.
Now I can appreciate the regular 1959 Cadillac design from a retrospective viewpoint for its historical significance. That being said, if we’re talking outlandish, tailfin-laden late-1950s/early-1960s automobile styling, I much prefer the 1960 Imperial.
This Brougham, however, is far more visually appealing to me than any other 1959 Cadillac. While toned down in comparison, I’d hardly call it conservative, with all its flamboyant-ness and still very prominent tailfins. I do really like the integration of the very angular “formal” roofline with the body’s curves. I wonder if this was the same look stylists were trying to go for with the 1991 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight? In any event, they didn’t pull it off anywhere near as well.
… and I love that second picture of a “atomic age” futuristic vision of a beach house… it somehow speaks to me! I love looking back through history at various time period’s visions of what they believed to be the not-so-far-off future, visions that ultimately did not pan out that way.
BTW, the SIA magazine covering the ’59-’60 Eldorado Brougham shows a clay completely sans tailfins!
I think for me it’s the roofline and rear quarter panels that make me truly like this- it gives the sedan air in a different way, as opposed to the bubbletop, which looks like a cartoon. This looks like something Paul Bracq might have penned.
As I started to read I got stuck at the artists rendering of the house of the future. There’s a lot going on there. I really like that you can see the guy waving from the “craft” on the far left. Open air cockpit and all. And then those huge tail fins and jet?/turbine? engines inches from the water. They could dream.
Never saw a second-generation Eldorado Brougham until today; thank you Paul ! Per usual, great illustrations and examples. I really like this one, as prophesied. That this marks the moment when Bill Mitchell came into his own; so glad to have that.
I was in college in the early ‘sixties, and cars were out of my life for the duration — except for the handsome new Buick Electra sedan I kept passing, parked in a churchyard, on my way to class, and a downtown Providence billboard, hand painted, showing a ’60 Cadillac against a shaded sunset background, with the black-crescent fourth wheel omitted.
The Buick Lido is some kind of Italian joke at America’s expense ? The other PininFarina work for GM is hardly better. And I’m a PF fan, having possessed and loved a 124 Sport Spider. Kind of tells you what the sophisticated European designers thought of Detroit, doesn’t it — despite the world’s respect for the American product, no doubt ?
One quibble, Paul, and perhaps you can enlighten me: in architecture (called by some the Mother Art ?) the MCM period goes by Mid-century Modern; Moderne is used for the hothouse post-Deco work of the later ‘thirties and ‘forties. Streamline Modern or Moderne was a subset, as you note, leading naturally to Schindler (at Sardi’s) and Lautner’s Googie coffee shop, et al, after the war.
So, in auto history (a subject I always though I would find in some city college night class, and have instead stumbled upon here, happily) is Mid Century Moderne the denomination in use, for this unique high point in American styling and design ? I have so much to learn, and so late, too . . .
I’ve never really seen “midcentury modern”, however you spell it, applied to cars that much. There tends to be more specific descriptors because the “eras” tend to be shorter. The fat-fender, tailfin, early-Bill-Mitchell-knife-edge (doesn’t really have a name), muscle car and Brougham eras all ran concurrently with midcentury modern art and architecture.
That being said, MCM spread well beyond architecture and Fine Art – my favorite example is the early years of Peanuts. Schulz later developed a “lumpier”, freer-handed style that allowed more character expression, and couldn’t have done Little Nemo or Paranatural-style lush artwork if he’d wanted to because the medium just wouldn’t support it in the decades after newspaper “features” as a USP and before webcomics’ unlimited canvas, but his early pared-down style was very much in step with then-current trends.
Well, it’s the first time I’ve used MCM in reference to cars. But I do think that the cleaner, leaner look that came to predominate after 1960 is likely a valid reflection of MCM’s increasing influence at that time. Things settled down some from the exuberant Googie/Atomic era, which may have been in part due to the 1958 recession. I think Americans began to realize that there may actually be some limitations to their expansiveness.
Interestingly, it coincides with the Kennedy era, which ushered in an appreciation of a more refined aesthetic sensibility.
” Interestingly, it coincides with the Kennedy era, which ushered in an appreciation of a more refined aesthetic sensibility.”
Though, there is that slight irony of Mrs. Kennedy’s appreciation for Exnuberance.
http://imperialclub.org/Yr/1960/Kennedy/index.htm
FWIW, there wasn’t much of an alternative. The Kennedys did not do Cadillacs, as they were associated with “new money”, and there was no Lincoln limo at the time. And the Imperial limo being built by Ghia didn’t hurt either.
Although Paul’s usually very precise in his terminology, I think the he common usage whether for architecture, or any other industrial design, is “mid-century modern”. Unfortunately, a term that is highly misused by real estate agents marketing generic ’50’s tract homes.
Quite right about the spelling. I belted this out in a short break while waiting for one color of paint to dry before starting on the next in my finale of painting my house. It was essentially a long response to a comment at the ’59 Cadillac CC this morning. Now I need to proof read it. 🙂
This car is simply beautiful, I never get tired of it. Never seen one, sadly.
I recall reading there’s the frame and running gear of one of these at the the bottom of the Detroit River – an unfortunate incident while slinging it aboard apparently.
And the rear quarter light on these lovelies glides aft as the rear door is opened to widen the opening. Can’t imagine how much fun it would be to try and maintain that today. Whatever it takes would be worth it, if you lose the house you can live in the trunk.
Here’s a quick vid of the rear quarter light in operation
It’s sublimely lovely, isn’t it. Gone is the wrap-around windshield, but not all quarter is given up: there’s just a hint of wrap at the bottom corner. Sweet.
The photo of the black 1960 model shows the door glass closed, and no apparent molding whatever between the front and rear lites. There must be *something* there, but . . . really, the illusion holds. The operation of four-door hardtop glass is already something of a miracle, and that sliding quarter lite (again, the architectural term — sorry) is the cherry on top. Would the panel slide outside the C pillar, do you suppose ?
Diagonally downwards parallel to the trailing edge would be my guess
Ah — that makes sense. Unless there’s actually room inside the pillar ?
One thinks of the recent Cadillac 16, for something comparably forward-looking and deluxe in a four-door. As a four-door (if not station wagon) kind of guy, these cars appeal to me at least as much as, say, your garden variety Bugatti Type 57SC Atlantic of yore . . .
Never knew about these beautiful ’59-60 Eldorado Broughams until about 8 or so years ago. I was very much car-aware when these were new but with their extremely low production volume, what chance was there of spotting one in the Pittsburgh area? And I was a little too young to be reading Motor Trend and such.
Love that illustration of the beach house of the future, that is, the future that never was.
Now, about those wheels: they are direct descendants of those on the previous Eldorado Brougham, which in turn are elaborations of the stock ’57 wheel cover ? Each iteration has a larger center ring ?
I saw one of these parked in Florissant MO with a for sale sign on it, some time in the late 80s, very early 90s. The small hood opening was what really had me confused, and I knew it wasn’t a normal Cadillac of that era. It was parked in front of, I think, a little Sav A Lot Food store on New Florissant Rd and it was black.
The asking price was minimal, but I was fresh out of college and didn’t have two nickels to rub together. I would have just ruined it anyway, probably a good thing that it didn’t follow me home…kind of like the 59 and 62 Fleetwood 75 limousines that my friend’s aunt had in her garage. She had operated a funeral home in Venice IL, and whenever the Bishop of Belleville IL got a new limo, she would buy his old one for funeral use. She was selling them during that same time, late 80s, and I just couldn’t swing the purchase price.
IMO, the 59-60 Broughams were the most elegant, beautiful Cadillacs ever offered. Not to mention they were hand built and came with all kinds of exotic interior options.
So — a registry of the remaining vehicles would be a worthwhile project ? How does one assemble such a list ? Are motor vehicle registrations public data, in some or all states ?
I too agree that this car is more elegant than the volume selling 1959 Cadillacs. I actually like this better than the ’61s, which have rear details that I’ve never cared for. Personally, I find the ’62, even with its (slightly) controversial skeg fins to be my favorite. The fact that the basic design had real staying power and sold very well through an elegant finish in 1964, even in the face of serious new competition from the ’60 Continental, the ’63 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight and Buick Electra and the ’64 Imperial, says GM got this one very right.
Still, I’m nowhere near as hard on the standard ’59 Cadillac as some were the other day, and thought all the discussion of American hubris was, umm, excessive analysis more excessive than the car itself.
To me, it boiled down to a scare that Chrysler put into the American auto industry with its 1957s; a radical new look could potentially cause a major shift in buyer habits. GM was used to 20 years of design leadership at the time, and it’s apparent that GM leadership was lined up at the bathroom door in the fall of 1956 least their suits get soiled.
Indeed, the industry suddenly felt the need for radical new looks, possibly every year. The trouble is, design tends to be evolutionary, and the details tend to get refined over time. The evolution of the ’59 Brougham through its beautiful conclusion with the 1964 six window sedan is testimony to this. Successful revolutionary design, every year, was an impossible task.
So, for a brief period, essentially 1958 through 1963, every American manufacturer put out something that raised eyebrows, stretched the definition of good taste, and sometimes resulted in sales disasters. As noted, a lot of other crazy stuff was on drawing boards and built up in clay. Beginning with 1965, the industry collectively took a breath and settled in on 5 year and longer design cycles once again, closing a very colorful period in American auto design.
The ultimate expression of the 1959 Brougham?…………
The longer design cycles probably have much more to do with huge model lines than any arbitrary decision to ‘take a breath.’ Chevrolet continually expanded its product line from one standard passenger car line plus Corvette in 1959 to five lines plus Corvette in 1967.
+1
Additionally segments with higher margins typically recieved larger periodic updates than ones lower margins, like the traditional compacts (66-70 Falcon, 67-75 Dart/Valiant, 68-74 Nova). They were really the only domestic models to have such extended design cycles.
Later on longer cycles became the norm for various additional reasons, safety and emissions regulations consumed development budgets. Better chassis engineering made skin deep restyles(which is what most 50s and 60s cars were, despite the sometimes wildly different appearances) much more difficult to credibly mask. And the quality perception may have been a major factor as well(longer production theoretically means refined), if nothing else just for the perception, since that’s what the Europeans did.
I disagree about details getting refined. The vast majority of the time, for a long running basic design, the original design works the best, with few exceptions. When full restyles happened annually or biannually the designs tended to be more uniform, even if radical and polarizing.
Few things happen in a vacuum, and platform proliferation, not to mention the other issues brought up contributed to a cooling off in the styling race, but little of that was likely foreseen in the fall of 1956 when GM was suddenly on the defensive – The Imperial was looking like an emerging competitor at the top end, and Ford outsold Chevy for the first time since before WWII. Stale design took a lot of the blame at GM, and put Harley Earl in the crosshairs.
Arguably, the always sober Robert McNamara was the first to blow the whistle on styling insanity, and the entire 1961 Ford Motor Company line-up reflects that. But, for the same reason, things were so conservative there that GM was mostly wiping the floor with Ford in the early ‘60s.
Both GM and Chrysler were working very hard on the next big thing in the late 1950s, especially Chrysler in a vain attempt to shake up the market again in their favor. The results for Chrysler in 1961 were mostly disastrous, and that doesn’t take into account the even crazier non-symmetrical stuff left behind in the styling studio.
Multiple things slowed the styling cycle, but the constant risk of presenting something all new that the public might reject was certainly among them.
Even with all the wild stuff that GM either produced, or considered in the late fifties, it can’t be denied that there was still a streak of conservatism. By all appearances, Harley Earl’s final mandate was to follow Virgil Exner’s lead with the 1959 standard Cadillacs………..
Thanks for the matching images of Cadillac and Imperial convertibles, Dave. I’ve been looking at their “hooded” headlights for a long time, and seeing this form a somehow military — as in, a visored Major General, expecting a salute from his inferiors. That both makes opted for a very similar form, here, is remarkable ?
As to your other points, I well recall sitting in a classroom overlooking the old Post Road, in the fall of 1956, and seeing new ’57 Fords go by on a carrier. I thought they must be Chevrolets, based on windshield wrap, and long low fins, and wheel arches . . . I guess.
I think that’s overstating it a bit. The 57 Chrysler’s took the already in motion desire, by all automakers, to make their cars *look* longer lower and wider to a place where they actually measurably were. Prior to 57 two tone paint schemes, trim, skirts, and fins were being used accentuate length. Sales brochure sketches of models embellished them even further, to the point of cartoonish.
The proportions were the big thing that changed, and that’s what sent GM and Ford scrambling to match, and automakers never really left the proportions set by Chrysler until the late 70s. The styling applied was simply what was fashionable, and sometimes it was a step too far – but that’s always been the case, previous traditional tall narrow cars from the independents could be grotesque at the 61 Plymouth level – but styling wasn’t the big thing, as evidenced by 1959 GM following Chrysler’s lead to the dot, and even the 61s Chrysler’s were still well within the parameters set by the 57s. The result in their case was simply a perfect initial design getting muddled, rather than refined. With GM they were simply trying to find the right look for each division for the new proportions, and the good ones evolved.
What you seem to overlook is the next big thing being chased after the 57 Chrysler’s for automakers were the compact, intermediate and personal luxury segments of the 60s. “Full size” got conservitave at this point because most brands finally settled on their design direction, that was the breath taken as you said, but there was so much uncharted stylistic freedom in these fresh new categories below, especially as the Ponycar was spun off and the long hood/short deck proportions(the next big thing) trickled into other segments. The period between 1965 and 1973 saw a variety of new designs, greater in my observation than what was seen with the fin car era.
I agree that everyone was looking for the next big styling trend. Chrysler leapfrogged the industry with the 57s (which were likely mostly finished by early 1955) but that period between 1957 and maybe 1962 marked a sort of free-for-all as to what that next big thing was going to look like.
When starting on the 60 models Virgil Exner asked his designers what was going to be the next big thing but could not find a consensus. His decision was that until they could figure out what the next big thing was they were going to stick with the fins.
By about 1959-60 Exner was convinced that the long hood-short deck look was it, as evidenced by the 1962-63 big cars at Chrysler. Bill Mitchell was trying to clean up Harley Earl’s late excesses and the guys at Ford were banking on square shapes and Thunderbird-style roofs. I think that a little bit of all of those trends converged by the mid 60s. It was not until the 80s that there would be another great shift in styling.
Actually the long-hood short-deck style appeared first on Exner’s 1960 Valiant, which was styled in 1958.
The big problem with that (as has been so often repeated) was that introducing a fairly dramatic new design language on the low-end Valiant was probably a mistake. It should have been on an all-new 1960 Chrysler or Imperial. But I suspect Chrysler didn’t have the bucks to do a drastically new big body for 1960.
One of the big unanswered questions left for me is how much of the ’57-’59 body was recycled into the unibody 1960? I suspect more than meets the eye, literally. The basic shape and dimensions strongly suggest that the ’59 body was essentially “unitized”, rather than anything approaching a clean sheet design.
Every Chrysler product except Imperial was new for 1960, so they could have made whatever changes they wanted to the proportions. They only carried over the powertrains and torsion bar suspension. That was the year that Chrysler changed to unit bodies for the standard size cars and introduced the new Valiant.
Imperial kept the 1957 frame and underbody, probably because the Imperial-only Warren Avenue factory was equipped for separate frames.
The thing with the 1960s is the front end still had a separate bolt in frame for the engine and suspension, similar to a 67 F body, that may be a tell. The all new 1960 Valiant and all new 62 Plymouth/Dodge on the other hand were truly one unit bumper to bumper.
I don’t have intimate knowledge of them but considering the proportions DIDNT change and distinctive details like the windshield and vent windows remained, I think you may be right in that the basic inner bodystructure was carried over with a redesigned floor pan and reinforcement.
“One of the big unanswered questions left for me is how much of the ’57-’59 body was recycled into the unibody 1960? ”
I believe that the similarity was more about engineering and styling languages Chrysler was used to than about actual re-use of components. I do not believe that the windshield interchanges between any of the 57-59 and 60+ versions of the same car. The windshield shape for the sedans was markedly different between the two generations.
Comparing pictures of the cowl structures/door openings of a 58 and a 60 Plymouth shows that they are just totally different in both shape and in execution. The sills, the hinges, everything is just done a different way. Also the cars have a totally different feel with the earlier car being a little flexible and the later version being solid as a rock. I am not going to deny that they might have adapted a minor stamping here or there for re-use, but I think what these 2 represent is two very different bodies that have common proportions and styling cues.
Sounds right to me. Does the ’57 Imperial windshield opening match the shape of the other divisions’ ditto ? The Imperial has its own extra-bulgy windshield (like the one on that ’60 Plymouth below) — but it occurs to me now that that glass might have been made to fit the same opening as in the other sedans. Or does the Imperial have its own body shell ?
I well recall standing next to the new Valiant and being struck by its new and different feel. It took a minute to realize that the door skin was only slightly proud of the plane of the (flat ?) glass. “Fuselage,” indeed !
The Imperial was built on a unique body shell. I do not believe that any Imperial windshield interchanges with any other Mopar of the era. The Imperial’s vent window shape was always uniquely shaped compared to the other Divisions’ cars. In certain cars (like the 60-61 Plymouths) some 60 models used a “bubble” or “compound curve” windshield while the 61s reverted to simpler, flatter glass. Both would fit in the same opening, however.
There is just nothing about those two bodies that lines up. The sedan windshields are completely different. Look at the center pillar – bolt upright on the 59 and swept slightly backwards on the 60.
So was the 60 body an adaptation of the 57-59? My answer is nope, nope, nope.
JPC: Thanks for answering my question. I find it a bit odd that the ’60 Valiant was so fundamentally different in its proportions and massing, yet the ’60 big cars were so similar to the ’57-’59s in those regards. I realize that the details were different, but they sure do feel like one continuous design evolution.
As stated in another of my comments below, the next big thing was long-hood, short-deck, and Exner did just that on his 1960 Valiant, styled in 1958. But it was too weird in its details to go over well, and Exner backed off a bit for for the new 1962s, although they did have many of its elements. The ’60 Valiant and ’62 Plymouth and Dodge werevery significant design-wise, and vastly ahead of the competition in basic proportions and their “fuselage” sides. Of course they too were spoiled by their details, especially the Dodge.
But Exner really did show the way forward, again, with these cars, and the ’64 Mustang took it to the next level.I think the Mustang owes more than a bit to the ’62 Plymouth and Dodge.
“…big problem with that (as has been so often repeated) was that introducing a fairly dramatic new design language on the low-end Valiant…”
“One of the big unanswered questions left for me is how much of the ’57-’59 body was recycled into the unibody 1960? I suspect more than meets the eye, literally. The basic shape and dimensions strongly suggest that the ’59 body was essentially “unitized”, rather than anything approaching a clean sheet design.”
+1 on both points. Why Exner who was savvy to the affects dramatic proportions could have on market response would push to have his next new design direction introduced by the lowest-end model is an unanswerable mystery.
Examination of both BoF 1959 bodies compared to 1960 unibodies reveals that between 40% and 60% of the substructure stamping were carried over or modified as part of the unit body. The differences in the upper cowl/A-pillar/windshield stampings were changed as a matter of course in recognition the deeply wrapped windshield was passe. A re-skin in new styling completed the impression they were completely new. In terms of economies, this approach makes sense, Chrysler had mastered this styling slight-of-hand by the 1960‘s. Shortly they would perform the same ‘magic’ to transform the downsized ‘62-’63 Plymouth and Dodges into successful ‘64 intermediate Belviederes and Coronets.
58L813: Do you have sources for that claim of 40-60% of body substructure stampings being re-used. I would love to get a old of any info on that, to clear it up. Frankly, that squares with my long-held suspicion. There’s just too much dimensional similarity; creating and tooling new body substructure parts is expensive.
Paul, The sources I had were access to Mopar body parts catalogs which when comparing item part numbers revealed a high percentage shared components between the 1957-’59 bodies and the ‘60 and later unibodies. This was further corroborated by the dealer body shop man who repaired those cars after accidents. Some years later, when these cars were common in the junkyards, it was easy to examine understructures when they were being salvaged. Cowl, floor structures, multi-piece door frames were clearly held over. Engineering drawings would be the real proof, if it were available.
Any photos of the rear?
I’d like to see how those twin turbine jet exhausts ( ! ) appeared in the Brougham.
And from the photos above, it looks as though the red-lens brake lights were absent in the fins ….. Is that true?
I guess I don’t recall seeing these back in the day, or since.
If I did, I might have thought it was a custom version.
Everyone knows the ’59 fins were extravagant …… but why drop the wrap-around windshields? Yes, there was the problem of the “dog-leg” corner when the door was open ….. Was that the big shortcoming?
Ask, and you shall receive.
The 1962 came closest to replicating the ’59 Brougham rear end. My brain keeps seeing Thunderbirds when I see this, something that never occurs to me when looking at the ’62.
The fin lights were running lights as I recall, the rest in the mains in the bumper of the ’59, the 60 the fins were still runners as I recall upper and lower were both brake and turn signal as well as running. It’s been over 50 years since dealing with them.
The dog-leg necessitated some structural gymnastics, and thus (from a design logic point of view) was a wrong turn — eventually corrected in the evolution that followed. Not that structural logic ever interfered with a styling decision !
Thanks for the window video, Greg. (Man, there’s a YouTube contribution on any subject imaginable, isn’t there ?) That motorized quarter lite operates flawlessly . . .
They didn’t always.
I’ll throw these down, for what they’re worth: 1959, 1962, 1964.
1962
1964 (see 1963 production)
Nicely said, Dave B. So the ’64 four- and six-window sedans are on the same wheelbase ? More leg-room in the six-window ? Such handsome cars . . .
I hesitate to quote Pinterest — one doesn’t necessarily find sources or even names there — but the pictures are fun to look at. There’s some stuff for us on this page; is that a de-finned ’61 ? Proof that the fins are an integral part of this design, throwing the whole back end of the car into chaos when absent ?
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/429882726909805522/?lp=true
What I like most about these is the way its style was a preview of things to come.
Basically, you were buying a future design. Much the way the 1976 Seville was like buying the styling future that was to be used on 1977 Cadillacs.
Right — exactly. For those who can see the future, and aren’t afraid of it — or simply have a good eye. What to present to the public for sale has to be carefully calibrated to the tastes of the buying public. One thinks of the progressive youngsters (and not-so-youngsters) in the studio being tempered by the bean-counters and the sales research forces.
Paul treated us, at the top, to photos of clay, some of it hilarious or frightening, from the period: good gracious, what cheek. Makes the Edsel positively tame in comparison. The eventual production choices show us the “good eye” of Earl, Mitchel et al ?
“. . .the original design works the best, with few exceptions.” Copy that. In the larger sense, refinement can be seen from one generation (body shell) to the next, if a single theme is being explored ? In any event the Cadillacs following the 1959 fireworks were certainly refinements of a theme.
I remain dazzled (bemused) by the all-new GM bodies in 1958, for all five makes (with many shared components, of course), and again, in 1959. 1958 was an expensive year !
Honda for decades made model changes every four years, the different lines on a staggered basis, keeping the designers and engineers nicely occupied on a predictable and set schedule. That’s refined manufacturing . . .?
The larger 1958 GM cars were built on a version of the previous frame and who knows how much of the inner body. The 1958 Chevys and Pontiacs were on new (and different from each ohher although more or less sharing bodies) frames and had completely new bodies. The larger cars do not have foot wells below the door openings but the Chevys and Pontiacs do.
The 1959 Chevys and Pontiacs are on about the same frame and suspension etc. as the new for 1958 models. Probably the same underbody, but definitely nothing the same above that.
The larger GM cars were new for 1957 and carried over all but trim and front and rear sheet metal for 58.
In all the years of car events and simply keeping a look out for these ’59-’60 Broughams, I’ve only encountered three: a restored ’59 at the Hershey meet for sale, the others both 1960 MY at a St. Catherines, ONT restoration shop. One ’60 was fully restored in the showroom, the other a badly deteriorated and picked-over parts car.
All 1957-’60 Eldorado Broughams are welcomed by the Brougham Owners Association (BOA) that documents surviving cars, would be the best source to find out how many are still extant.
In the first years of my restoration shop I got a call from an old man that wanted two cars “refurbished”. I went to his large property outside town. I’d never been through the gates before. My mom had told me tales of the “Whole family is crazy,trying to kill each other off” and other lurid tales. she said one of them had burned the mansion down in the late 40’s. Driving down the paved driveway it was obvious there had been a huge mansion there at one time, the foundation was still there with chimney remains for many rooms. There was a much more modern three story house and as I parked my ’63 Electra convertible, I could see a garage, counting 14 doors on it. An old man, looked around 100 (later found out 89), had a very firm handshake, we went to the end of the garage and he opened a walk in door and hit the power for the end doors of the garage. There were two Eldorado Brougham’s there. It didn’t register at first they were ’59 and ’60 models, they were covered with dust. Both were black under the dust. Inside they were still very nice. When I looked at the odometer on the ’60 I ask if it was accurate, he said it was, 11,400 miles, the other had 28,000+. He said the original intent was to use them for business and formal functions in the “city”, but the air suspension was problematic, and they used them closer to home and not as much. He said he used to drink too much, everyone in his family did, and he had run into his ’55 Thunderbird coming home drunk and damaged the front of the ’60. Looking at it the front was bent down and lead filler was cracked and split all over the front end. The grille and bumper weren’t in great shape either. He said the other wasn’t as bad. Another drinking night, but by his sister, she ran the front end up on a brick planter. It cracked all the filler joints but didn’t knock it out. Of course they were both sitting on the ground. There were some other scrapes, but not terrible. He said main thing was they sat too long and not much worked any more. He wanted to know what I could do for him and how much. He knew they were rare, now he’d heard they could be worth something.. I looked over at the other cars in the garage. Next to the Eldorados was the rear ended ’55T-bird. It had a full width Continental kit on it that had absorbed most of the impact. Next was a 1957 New Yorker convertible in solid white, covered with dirt. Next to that a ’58 Imperial Le Baron six window sedan. I couldn’t see past that. I asked if we could open the other doors. He said he’d see if they worked. They did with shrieks of metal moving. 6. 1958 Buick Limited Riviera sedan, on flat air suspension. 7. a gray XK-E coupe, 8. a ’61 Rolls Royce series II sedan, 9. a Ferrari coupe, couldn’t tell which model, looked like 330 GT 2+2., 10. a Facel Vega coupe, 11. an Aston-Martin DB III coupe, 12. a Mercedes 300 SEL 6.3 that looked new but dusty, with flat air suspension, and bent front fenders from turning the wheels with the bags down. I told him he had a fortune in cars, most in very good condition just needing alll the systems refreshed and detailed to the hilt. What I proposed was refresh and detail the best, sell them, and that would do the rest to sell and redo the damaged cars. We did the usual resto items, gas tank, lines hoses, carbs and detailed them until they looked new. The family had a strong preferrence for black, which most were. Turned out the Mercedes suspension pumped up once started, after repairing the fenders and spraying it was a quick sale. so were the others. The ’58 Limited also pumped up, then went down about 20 minutes later. After tightening fittings and sealing the system it pumped and held. So did the Eldorados. We took the Ferrari, Aston, Rolls, and Jag to a local import specialist to deal with their problems, then cleaned them. The Eldos were nightmares, having to remove all filler in the front, realign everything and fill again. there was more filler, Chrome that needed redone. A local chrome shop was able to slowly fix the grilles and front Bumpers on the Cad’s. the rear 1/4 windows didn’t retract. Once the motors were rebuilt the right rear on the ’59 jammed about every 3rd time the door was opened. We ended up doing all power motors, serviced the radios, Finally they were done (and the T-bird, with rear kit removed, detailed fine) I always figured their designs had to have been done after the regular Cadillacs were finallized. The ’59 was a perfect representation of the ’60 Cad, and the ’60 Eldo did actually jump two years, to the ’62 Styling. If you wanted a future design and had the money, the Eldorado Broughams were the only game in town. If the ’59 had the standard windshield it would have looked like a mild custom ‘stock ’60. I had a ’62 Cadillac convertible at the time, and line for line the ’60 Eldorado was the same. Turned out the owner had wanted to make enough to pay property taxes (the 3 story house was 14 bedroom) and we helped him pay for many years. He kept the ’59 and was seen for several years around town. He brought it in for detail regularly, and occasional glitches. He told me his whole family fought all the time, and the original mansion (23 bedrooms, huge place) had burned because his sister had started a fire in the fireplace and didn’t put the screen back. e lived and drove to 97 years old. I never found out where the ’59 Eldorado Brougham went.
Wow.
Where was the motor for the retractible quarter window placed; from where did you access it, do you recall ?