The nice thing of the internet is how new material keeps popping up on subjects we’ve already covered and explored. The accumulated knowledge of the collective automotive hive; and we’re here for it all. In this occasion let’s look once more into that brief period of time, where hopeful dealers jumped to be part of Ford’s Edsel folly. We’ll start with the image above: Simeon Edsel Co. in Columbus Ohio.
There’s a devoted CC to Ford’s Edsel dealers episode, warts and all. A fine read I recommend all to revisit. In the above image, LA couldn’t stay away from the Edsel-seduction, of course. And what a fine Art Deco building it is. Very fitting for a Lincoln/Mercury/Continental/Edsel dealer. Did I leave out anyone?
I regret to inform you the building seems to be no longer, with a Toyota dealer in its place.
This is the image that inspired this post. The clean, and austere beauty of this Edsel dealer in Houston is something to behold. It’s peak ’50s modernity.
Staying in Houston, a 4 door Citation is proudly displayed in this postcard from the same period. Thoughts of the Edsel itself aside, I always found the brand’s stylized ‘E’ logo a rather sharp design.
This image appeared on our previous Edsel dealers post; it’s Modern Edsel, in San Fernado Valley. I’m including it solely for the purpose of closing with the following promo shot, taken in the same dealer, showing a happy bunch of prospective Edsel buyers:
Further reading:
Automotive History: 1959 Edsel Corsair And A History Of Edsel Dealers – A Different Perspective
I remember being so excited when I saw my first Edsel on the road. I was 11 and just getting started getting into cars!
The photo of the inside of the Houston, TX Edsel dealer is striking for another reason – there is a sense of melancholy that is conveyed – a receptionist sitting at a phone that is not ringing and a salesman staring out the window at the unsold cars on the lot and the customers that are not there.
It looks like Roche in North Hollywood did what history would prove was the right way – they made no changes to their building or primary signage, but merely added a stand-alone Edsel sign in the lot. I’ll bet their Christmas of 1959 was a lot more pleasant than it was for Mr. Simeon in Columbus, OH.
The postcard with the red Citation 4 door hardtop makes me laugh for a couple of reasons. First, it reminds me of the episode of the Dick Van Dyke Show where he has seen a robbery and they guys make their getaway in a red Edsel. Second, one of those color-keyed spinner wheel covers (in white) was the gem of the hub cap collection I amassed as a teen.
I wonder if Simeon at least got a Lincoln-Mercury and/or English Ford franchise as a consolation prize.
I was thinking the same – it’s a very melancholy image indeed. And the contrast between the clean, crisp modernity of the architecture and furnishings, and the over-chromed, sculpted-lard Edsels is almost absurd.
It’s a beautiful building infested by remarkably ugly cars.
A Mercedes franchise would have been much more appropriate.
@ JP: The receptionist is on the phone.
Even by the outlandish design standards of the late 1950s, it’s difficult see how the infamous horse collar grille could have been seen as marketable, to a large audience. Just too polarizing. Should have seemed obvious, at the early design stage. Especially, coming from the company that released the 1955 Thunderbird.
The Studebaker branding dating from 1963, is some of the strongest from that era. The stylized ‘S’, and the tightly kerned, san-serif ‘Studebaker’ lettering, have aged very well. The tightly kerned san-serif typography, being a popular progressive design look, well into the mid-’70s.
At least two of my graphic design professors, noted early in my design career, vertically written typography is a design mistake. As in the ‘EDSEL’ grille lettering. Too hard to read, and generally, unattractive.
The first thing that I thought of when Pepsi revealed their current emblem was that it looked like a melted Studebaker emblem
Do you know who did the 1963 logo refresh? I’ve Googled it, but no answer. Seems like it might have been Loewy, but no hits on that.
Loewy designed the original ‘lazy S’ logo, in the 1930s. From Wikipedia: He was consulted by Studebaker (Egbert) in the design of the Avanti, and the 1963 product line. I’d suggest there was an excellent probability, he played a significant role in the ’63 branding refresh. Given, it was his initial work. But I didn’t spot a specific reference, he oversaw the redesign.
I searched for a reference tying the new 1963 logo to Raymond Loewy but couldn’t find any. I also looked for a link to Brooks Stevens who was also working with Studebaker at the time and has designed some logos (i.e. Miller High Life logo and packaging), but again couldn’t find a reference to the new Stude logo. The new logo was needed because they finally changed their name from Studebaker-Packard before the ’63 models went on sale, four years after the last Packards were built.
I did find some info about the logo other than who designed it – from 1000Fonts: “The lettering from the last Studebaker emblem was written in a modern and bold sans-serif typeface, which is very similar to Europa Grotesk and Neue Plak fonts, though due to the connected letters and their bold lines, the brand’s inscription looks unique and very stable. Despite the lack of spaces and air in the wordmark, it still looks balanced and clean, making a perfect addition to the minimalist emblem of the company.” Too bad the new logo almost didn’t make it onto the cars themselves, appearing only on the 1964-66 hood ornament. The main badges on the car still used distinctly ’50s-looking lettering. Too bad, because the update is a very clean design that still looks modern today.
I too have long noticed the resemblance of the ’63 Studebaker logo to the Pepsi logo turned on its side, making me wonder who used it first. Pepsi had something with that basic design as early as 1950, but only from an indirect view of a bottlecap with “Pepsi-Cola” written between the red and blue sections. They didn’t introduce the simplified one that looks like the Stude logo until 1991.
“Tele-touch motoring”.
The B/W pic of the inside of the modern dealership is very telling; not a single customer inside with a lone salesman staring deep out the window wondering where it all is going wrong
Not telling, more like staged the way they wanted it. Publicity shots are not just random, ‘we will shoot whatever we find upon arrival’. They could easily have shown it full of people if that was the desired look.
Edsel :
The car that flopped .
-Nate
The heavily remodeled dealership building at 4437 Lankershim in North Hollywood is still there, Google Maps is off a bit. It’s a furniture store of some sort.
That’s what I thought too. The Google Maps link shows the side of the Toyota dealership building; here’s the same building from the front – note window size/shape/position, front door location, area over window all match.
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@34.151713,-118.366801,186.45h,-2.78p,1z,Stdh3ddJWjgG-wZ8drdg2w
65 years on, I find myself sympathetic to these dealers. Ford Motor Company had been a successful, highly regarded company for 40+ years. Seems like it would have been easy to buy into the hype, especially for established dealers of Ford’s other nameplates.
And when they’d made the decision to buy in, none of them had seen the cars. They just trusted Ford. Of course, the existing Ford and Lincoln and Mercury dealers who added the Edsel line suffered (and spent) significantly less than those dealers who built exclusive/standalone Edsel facilities. Those folks really took it on the chin.
Agreed. I’ve thought the same.
One of the nearby Edsel dealers, Covington Edsel, was originally a Packard dealer but bailed after learning the ’57s would be Studebaker-based; not only was there already a Stude dealer a few blocks away, but they didn’t want to have to stock an entire different set of spare parts. They heard about the new Ford division to be positioned between Mercury and Lincoln for ’58 and bit. (Edsel was ideally timed for the decline of the independents; some Hudson or Kaiser dealerships made the same jump). When that didn’t work out, they became Covington Buick which years later sold my dad a ’95 Park Avenue. They remained in business until GM culled their dealerships during their bankruptcy.
I also learned there was an Edsel dealership, Bowman Edsel, about two blocks from where I used to live at 7215 Baltimore Ave., now a Zips dry cleaner. It looks like the current building could have easily been a car dealership built in 1957, with a glassy showroom in front, service bays behind it (some now bricked off). Odd thing is that there’s no other car dealers nearby, although there are several a couple of miles in either direction. I can’t find any photos from when Bowman Edsel was in business; there is one online of Covington Edsel though.
My dad purchased a Packard Executive. 2 door hardtop at Covington Packard in April 1956. He had been shopping for a left over 55 400 so the dealer called him about the Executive, It was love at first sight. It had everything that Packard offered except A/C. As I remember, they were asking A$4200 and change. The car was everything that our 49 Buick Roadmaster sedanet was not. 275 HP V8 power everything. Excellent road car for our family trips. I learned to drive on it. Covington called us when they introduced the Edsel franchise. I was so disappointed, to have to come down from Packard to that. Glad to read they got a Buick franchiseWe moved back to California in 1961. Dad traded the Packard for a 1960 Imperial 4 door. Another fantastic car. All power and dual A/C. One of the most memorable family cars was our 1971 Buick Riviera GS which I bought when Dad bought his last car a 1976 Caddy Eldorado. I graduated from Bethesda Chevy Chase H.S in 1961
Quite the contrast between “mid-century modern”architecture and especially the Scandinavian-style office chairs, and mid-century Detroit styling excess. A 1965 Ford or Chevy goes better with a 1955 building than a ‘55 or especially a ‘59.
Edsel seems such a strange name. The only Edsel I’ve ever heard of was Edsel Ford. Makes me wonder what ol’ Henry was thinking to lumber his son with that name.
And, given his appreciation of beauty, what FoMoCo were thinking to use it on such a ‘challenging-looking’ car.
I’ve come around a bit on Edsels lately; if you can look beyond the toilet-seat grille (which admittedly is hard to do), there’s a cleanly-styled car behind it, bereft of tail fins or excessive chrome as on the ’58 Olds, Buicks, DeSotos, or Dodges it competed against.
I would image those that bought into the Edsel program were offered Ford or Lincoln/Mercury dealerships as a consolation.
Franchise agreements were a bit more loose as compared to today as dealers jumped from brand to brand with the independents consolidating and/or folding in the 50’s. Also, Euro brands were making a beachhead which allowed for some diversity, especially along the coast line.
You have the Columbus, Ohio dealership wrong it was Krieger Edsel. My father was the only dealer in 1958. It was on North High St
Honestly, I am weary of the overly-common, over-clichéd regurgitation of lampoons of the ’58 Edsel’s looks. There were many cars that were uglier (the ’58 Impala comes to mind) and far more outrageous. In the case of the latter, Edsel’s stable-mate, the ’58 Lincoln, comes to mind; if car-spotters bothered to do their research before publicizing their lampoons, they’d go silent on the Edsel’s looks because the ’58 Lincoln made the Edsel look conservative (attached is proof to stifle future lampoons, or at least steer them in the proper direction).
Part of Edsel’s problems was the fact that Ford never really made its mind up exactly where Edsel was to fall on the then-existing class scale of cars. Ford actually had that problem ever since they merged Lincoln and Mercury into one division, which would have been tantamount to GM merging Cadillac and Buick into one division (if you want a for-instance)…but Edsel really got the consequences of identity crisis hard. Plus, at the time that Edsel debuted, the pieces were in place for the U.S. economy to all-but-collapse, the flash-recession of ’58 that saw the biggest slowdown of the economy since the Stock-Market crash of 1929. When that happened, people just lost the whole mentality of flashier-is-finer. As one Ford exec said about Edsel in retrospect, “The aim was right, but the target moved.” That I say is an accurate assessment; Edsel already had issues with introducing itself to the world, which it may have been able to overcome if the ’58 recession had not hit, and if Ford execs bothered to establish its place in the class scale of cars. But cars, be they one model or an entire division, with confused identities do not tend to last very long, and alas with the added upshot of a weakened economy the Edsel was gone before it could demonstrate itself.
But, expensive a mistake as it was, it was hardly the catastrophe that too many make it out to be. Ford was making record profits just a few years later, and it managed to dig itself out of that financial hole without a hand-out from the government.
I am a Ford man, have been since the first saw the 65 Mustang, I have also been a fan of Ford station wagons, I always thought they were the best of all big wagons. The Edsel name should have never been used, even though it was Henry Ford’s son’s name. Ford styling was always different than GM and Chryslers. To be fair it was Chrysler’s styling that was the most daring. In my opinion Edsels were ill timed, in 1958, the auto industry had too many brands to begin with, the the economy was crumbling, so the last thing Detroit needed was another brand in the already saturated market. So the economy, the saturated market, the name Edsel and the weird front end styling, all played a part of the Edsel’s failure. Ford has built some great looking cars. The 57,58, and 59 Thunderbirds, all great looking, the 57 Fairlane was the top selling car in 57. In my opinion, the 59 Ford has always been the best-looking cars to ever roll out of Detroit. Both sedans and wagons are beautiful, elegant, and bold, all at the same time. There are a lot more I could mention. So the Edsel’s looks were a miss, and so were the 58 Lincolns. But Lincoln was able to stick it out, and in 1961 the Lincoln Continentals became the icon for car design that for all full-size luxury cars were took after. As much as the Edsel was considered ugly, it wasn’t alone. The 61 Plymouths were excruciatingly ugly, and yet they don’t get bashed nearly as much as the Edsels do. I still think Edsels biggest problem was its name.
No one planned a 40% drop in auto sales during the 1957-58 recession. Considering how many American auto brands that year – it is stunning how many didn’t make it past the Recession.
GM:
Chevrolet Pontiac Oldsmobile Buick Cadillac
Ford:
Ford Edsel Mercury Lincoln Continental
Chrysler:
Plymouth Dodge DeSoto Chrysler Imperial
Independents:
Hudson Nash Rambler Clipper Packard Studebaker Kaiser-Jeep
After the Recession we see eight fewer US auto brands. GM was seriously considering axing Buick, Chrysler was seriously considering axing Plymouth and Ford was seriously considering axing Lincoln. That 40% drop changed the market permanently.
Where was Krieger Edsel, located on N High Street, Columbus?