little-edie
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 83
i'm kvelling from the gorgeousness!
wish they was mine.
wish they was mine.
My 50's Frigidaire Imperial Refrigerator and Range set... Pics inside! But can you tell me more?
- Thread starter funkyimperial
- Start date
Help Support :
danemodsandy
Well-known member
By The Way:
I've always been a little amused by this model, because this particular Frigidaire's styling was intended to make you think you were getting something you weren't. Because of the detail panel at the top of the door, it looks like it's a separate-freezer model, which it isn't. Now that's not a big deal, because that was done by more than one manufacturer at that time. But the Frigidaire didn't have its freezer at the top, where the exterior styling gave the impression it would be - it was at the bottom. This was the last year of the Raymond Loewy styling programme begun in '48, and by this time, I'm pretty sure that GM was doing many of the yearly changes in-house. I know for sure that Loewy didn't do the Sheer Look styling that was all-new for 1957; that was done in-house at GM, with Loewy asked to do only the brochures.
The '56 Frigidaire trim changes look to me as if they were inspired by what Harley Earl was doing over at GM's automobile divisions; freshening up designs with heavy applications of chrome and applied decoration.
I've always been a little amused by this model, because this particular Frigidaire's styling was intended to make you think you were getting something you weren't. Because of the detail panel at the top of the door, it looks like it's a separate-freezer model, which it isn't. Now that's not a big deal, because that was done by more than one manufacturer at that time. But the Frigidaire didn't have its freezer at the top, where the exterior styling gave the impression it would be - it was at the bottom. This was the last year of the Raymond Loewy styling programme begun in '48, and by this time, I'm pretty sure that GM was doing many of the yearly changes in-house. I know for sure that Loewy didn't do the Sheer Look styling that was all-new for 1957; that was done in-house at GM, with Loewy asked to do only the brochures.
The '56 Frigidaire trim changes look to me as if they were inspired by what Harley Earl was doing over at GM's automobile divisions; freshening up designs with heavy applications of chrome and applied decoration.
Sandy, never realized this had the freezer on the bottom. Duh!!
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Appnut:
You see what a powerful styling cue that chrome applique is at the top of the door? LOL!
I think what GM was trying to do with the glamorous '56 styling was to prepare the public for what was coming with the Sheer Look. If you'll notice, styling was a lot less rounded-looking that year. While there were still rounded edges, they were visually minimised by trim elements.
I also think that GM may have been trying to avoid a repeat of what happened with their car lines in '55. That year, their cars changed so drastically that they P.O.'ed damn near everybody who'd bought a '54. I mean, people were mad; here they were committed to two years of payments, and now something much better-looking was out, something that made their new car look obsolete. All you have to do is to use Google Images to look at '54 Chevys, then look at '55s. The '54 was a stodgy, clunky-looking car, and the '55 was glamorous as all hell by comparison (this was also the case at Chrysler with Plymouths; Ford's styling change in '55 wasn't nearly as dramatic).
So, I think GM may have wanted to avoid a repeat of all the nasty letters they got about the drastic upgrade in their 1955 car styling; the '56 Frigidaire styling looks to me as if it was intended to be a "bridge" between the old rounded styling and the new squared-off Sheer Look that was already finalised in Frigidaire's styling department.
You see what a powerful styling cue that chrome applique is at the top of the door? LOL!
I think what GM was trying to do with the glamorous '56 styling was to prepare the public for what was coming with the Sheer Look. If you'll notice, styling was a lot less rounded-looking that year. While there were still rounded edges, they were visually minimised by trim elements.
I also think that GM may have been trying to avoid a repeat of what happened with their car lines in '55. That year, their cars changed so drastically that they P.O.'ed damn near everybody who'd bought a '54. I mean, people were mad; here they were committed to two years of payments, and now something much better-looking was out, something that made their new car look obsolete. All you have to do is to use Google Images to look at '54 Chevys, then look at '55s. The '54 was a stodgy, clunky-looking car, and the '55 was glamorous as all hell by comparison (this was also the case at Chrysler with Plymouths; Ford's styling change in '55 wasn't nearly as dramatic).
So, I think GM may have wanted to avoid a repeat of all the nasty letters they got about the drastic upgrade in their 1955 car styling; the '56 Frigidaire styling looks to me as if it was intended to be a "bridge" between the old rounded styling and the new squared-off Sheer Look that was already finalised in Frigidaire's styling department.
'Bridge' is a good way of putting it, Sandy. Across the board the '56 models do look different from their '55 counter parts, but no where near as dramatic as the '57's. I'd be interested in the market testing results they did for the '57 - especially the washer and dryers considering they looked nothing that had come before, regardless of the make.
I am amazed at the amount of information you have been able to find in regards to the styling and design from Frigidaire. Information of this nature was not as routinely broadcasted, in comparison to say a repair manual. I would be interested to hear about the different market testing performed and the ideas that were generating in the post Loewy (thanks for the spelling correction!), pre 1961 years. Fascinating stuff!
Ben
I am amazed at the amount of information you have been able to find in regards to the styling and design from Frigidaire. Information of this nature was not as routinely broadcasted, in comparison to say a repair manual. I would be interested to hear about the different market testing performed and the ideas that were generating in the post Loewy (thanks for the spelling correction!), pre 1961 years. Fascinating stuff!
Ben
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Ben:
Whatever market testing was done for the '57 Sheer Look laundry appliances would only have proved the point that you shouldn't put too much faith in market testing. If you'll recall, Frigidaire's initial Sheer Look styling for laundry stuff lasted just that one year; GM put a bunch of money into putting big, glamorous-looking consoles back on the machines for '58.
From what I've been able to dig up, there were two problems. One, the Control Tower was very elegant-looking, just the kind of thing that would impress people with sophisticated tastes in design. But it was small and simple-looking, and people who want to impress others with their purchase of a new appliance generally don't trust simplicity. They want big and glitzy.
The other problem was that the Control Towers for each model looked pretty much alike, unless you inspected the dial closely. That meant there wasn't enough differentiation between models on the sales floor. Sears used to do an absolutely terrific job of differentiation on laundry appliance models - there was no confusing a Lady Kenmore with anything else in the line. With Control Tower models, you got the chrome applique at the bottom of the TOL models' fronts, but not a whole lot more. So, on the sales floor, you didn't see the reason to spend the extra money on the nicer models unless you looked for a while, and let the salesperson tell you about all the TOL features. That added up to lost sales opportunity, because most people look before they let a salesperson get his meathooks into them.
Because of the heavy restyling that was done in '58, I am inclined to think that the sales slump in '57 was considered very serious. In the late '50s, tooling for buttons, dials, switches, trim, etc., cost a bleedin' fortune; it was all done by skilled tool-and-die makers, manually. GM had to have some pretty serious incentive to spend that kind of money so soon after laying out money to tool the '57s. Usually, what GM did was "evolutionary" change; they'd keep the panel the same but change the knobs, then the next year they'd change the texture on the panel. An all-at-once change like you saw in '58 was pretty much against their religion, but they did it anyway.
Whatever market testing was done for the '57 Sheer Look laundry appliances would only have proved the point that you shouldn't put too much faith in market testing. If you'll recall, Frigidaire's initial Sheer Look styling for laundry stuff lasted just that one year; GM put a bunch of money into putting big, glamorous-looking consoles back on the machines for '58.
From what I've been able to dig up, there were two problems. One, the Control Tower was very elegant-looking, just the kind of thing that would impress people with sophisticated tastes in design. But it was small and simple-looking, and people who want to impress others with their purchase of a new appliance generally don't trust simplicity. They want big and glitzy.
The other problem was that the Control Towers for each model looked pretty much alike, unless you inspected the dial closely. That meant there wasn't enough differentiation between models on the sales floor. Sears used to do an absolutely terrific job of differentiation on laundry appliance models - there was no confusing a Lady Kenmore with anything else in the line. With Control Tower models, you got the chrome applique at the bottom of the TOL models' fronts, but not a whole lot more. So, on the sales floor, you didn't see the reason to spend the extra money on the nicer models unless you looked for a while, and let the salesperson tell you about all the TOL features. That added up to lost sales opportunity, because most people look before they let a salesperson get his meathooks into them.
Because of the heavy restyling that was done in '58, I am inclined to think that the sales slump in '57 was considered very serious. In the late '50s, tooling for buttons, dials, switches, trim, etc., cost a bleedin' fortune; it was all done by skilled tool-and-die makers, manually. GM had to have some pretty serious incentive to spend that kind of money so soon after laying out money to tool the '57s. Usually, what GM did was "evolutionary" change; they'd keep the panel the same but change the knobs, then the next year they'd change the texture on the panel. An all-at-once change like you saw in '58 was pretty much against their religion, but they did it anyway.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
P.S.:
Before anyone starts thinking that I don't appreciate the Control Tower machines, the above is only commentary on what my research indicates might have happened within GM. In my opinion as a design professional, the Control Tower laundry appliances were the most beautifully-styled machines ever, from any manufacturer, in any era. A pair of those babies in Charcoal would be a dream come true.
Before anyone starts thinking that I don't appreciate the Control Tower machines, the above is only commentary on what my research indicates might have happened within GM. In my opinion as a design professional, the Control Tower laundry appliances were the most beautifully-styled machines ever, from any manufacturer, in any era. A pair of those babies in Charcoal would be a dream come true.
norgeway
Well-known member
Great Find I think I have manuals
The range is a 55 the fridge a 56, I think I have instruction manuals for both of them, let me know if you want them and ill hunt them up. Hans Craig
The range is a 55 the fridge a 56, I think I have instruction manuals for both of them, let me know if you want them and ill hunt them up. Hans Craig
Sandy:
What I've always found fascinating are the 1958 model year cars. GM spent thousands per individual brand, let alone the entire fleet, for specialized tooling and design that lasted: 1 year. A good example of this is a simple part - the carrier bearing on the '58 cars are specific to that year. Nothing before nor after fit.
Not an expert by any means, but I've found the similarities between the '57 Frigidaire line and the '58 autos to be fairly striking - no in design but more of independence. With the pinnacle of automotive GM creativity peaking on 1959, that feat was thankfully archived on a common chassis that was carried up until the '64 model year. There is something special found in the '58 cars that the buying public will more than likely never see again. Unabashed spending - and not at the expense of the buyers, but that for pure design. We'll never see that again.
While I agree that the '57 is a striking design, I feel that the 1958 through 1960 control panels truly fit into a conservative mold of what the late 50's represent, with the '57 acting more in place of that like the '59 Cadillacs. A product (both car and white good), where the designers signed the checks, and not the bean counters upstairs.
Ben
What I've always found fascinating are the 1958 model year cars. GM spent thousands per individual brand, let alone the entire fleet, for specialized tooling and design that lasted: 1 year. A good example of this is a simple part - the carrier bearing on the '58 cars are specific to that year. Nothing before nor after fit.
Not an expert by any means, but I've found the similarities between the '57 Frigidaire line and the '58 autos to be fairly striking - no in design but more of independence. With the pinnacle of automotive GM creativity peaking on 1959, that feat was thankfully archived on a common chassis that was carried up until the '64 model year. There is something special found in the '58 cars that the buying public will more than likely never see again. Unabashed spending - and not at the expense of the buyers, but that for pure design. We'll never see that again.
While I agree that the '57 is a striking design, I feel that the 1958 through 1960 control panels truly fit into a conservative mold of what the late 50's represent, with the '57 acting more in place of that like the '59 Cadillacs. A product (both car and white good), where the designers signed the checks, and not the bean counters upstairs.
Ben
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Ben:
You're absolutely right about that one-year 1958 styling for most of GM's cars (Caddy was a facelift of the 1957 styling). And as fondly as we remember the (literally) fantastic 1959's, GM came off that styling theme with pretty fair haste, too, because there was a lot of criticism of those tailfinned beauties at the time; they were considered excessive in both ornamentation and overall size. There were heavy facelifts to simplify all the tailfins and chrome in 1960, then yet another complete new styling trend in '61.
What it means to me is that GM was, in those days, in complete command of itself. Since the company was run by human beings, not every new product or design would be a success, but back then, GM was so soundly run that it had the cash reserves to deal with its mistakes. That's not as true nowadays.
I would love to see a company gamble on really different stuff again, and I would love to see it able to afford such risks. But as some people say down here in the South, them days is gone.
You're absolutely right about that one-year 1958 styling for most of GM's cars (Caddy was a facelift of the 1957 styling). And as fondly as we remember the (literally) fantastic 1959's, GM came off that styling theme with pretty fair haste, too, because there was a lot of criticism of those tailfinned beauties at the time; they were considered excessive in both ornamentation and overall size. There were heavy facelifts to simplify all the tailfins and chrome in 1960, then yet another complete new styling trend in '61.
What it means to me is that GM was, in those days, in complete command of itself. Since the company was run by human beings, not every new product or design would be a success, but back then, GM was so soundly run that it had the cash reserves to deal with its mistakes. That's not as true nowadays.
I would love to see a company gamble on really different stuff again, and I would love to see it able to afford such risks. But as some people say down here in the South, them days is gone.
What it means to me is that GM was, in those days, in comple
They certainly were.
The photo below is a favorite of mine. One you don't see everyday when going through ad's for the '58 models.
Not sure if the backdrop is Detroit, but a Fleetwood found in the middle of an identity crisis, a GM Golden Anniversary, and a National Recession. Fast forward 50 more years. Some has stayed the same, but a lot has changed. CTS at the helm, GM falling to pieces, and the 'Great' Recession. Society in cycles.
Sorry to get this thread off track. Late 50's + GM design = some of the best to come from the Motor City.
They certainly were.
The photo below is a favorite of mine. One you don't see everyday when going through ad's for the '58 models.
Not sure if the backdrop is Detroit, but a Fleetwood found in the middle of an identity crisis, a GM Golden Anniversary, and a National Recession. Fast forward 50 more years. Some has stayed the same, but a lot has changed. CTS at the helm, GM falling to pieces, and the 'Great' Recession. Society in cycles.
Sorry to get this thread off track. Late 50's + GM design = some of the best to come from the Motor City.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Nice Shot!
:The photo below is a favorite of mine."
I can see why. Great car, great background, and a very sophisticated colour sense.
There must be 250 pounds of chrome on that Caddy. At that, '58 Cadillacs weren't the GM chrome champions that year - that distinction went to that year's Buick Century. Even though the Century wasn't the TOL Buick, it had more chrome (by weight) than either the Caddy or Buick's own Limited Riviera.
That year's Olds was no shrinking violet in the chrome department either.
:The photo below is a favorite of mine."
I can see why. Great car, great background, and a very sophisticated colour sense.
There must be 250 pounds of chrome on that Caddy. At that, '58 Cadillacs weren't the GM chrome champions that year - that distinction went to that year's Buick Century. Even though the Century wasn't the TOL Buick, it had more chrome (by weight) than either the Caddy or Buick's own Limited Riviera.
That year's Olds was no shrinking violet in the chrome department either.
funkyimperial
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 11
Wow-
Thanks for all of the input and ideas and compliments. I showed my boyfriend these entries and he was blown away—amazed that so many people would share our admiration for these beauties. That led us into an interesting debate as to why mainstream styling has become so watered down over the past 30 years. I'd venture to say that only recently has styling re-invented itself with the mid-70's being about the last era of unique 'across the board' styling.
Then we started looking at all of the innovations of the past- the "turn away" steering wheel of the Thunderbirds, sequential lighting, etc. Where did all of those great ideas go?!?
Lowering the standard of what is deemed to be acceptable quality in a product is a dangerous thing; it is a Pandora's box. Once decreased, it is next to impossible to reverse it—especially in today's highly consumer-tested markets that suggest people don't expect something to last for more than a few years. Case in point: IKEA.
The problem is simple. Companies care not as much for their reputation as they do for their bottom line and they are going for volume. In past days, products were BUILT TO LAST because that was their handshake. Today, they are manufactured with built-in life expectancies. Volume vs. quality.
It's a shame that "quality" is a term synonymous only with names such as Vuitton, Rolex, Bentley and BOSE.
BUT I DIGRESS!
Here are some scans for ads that I show people whenever they are over. Pretty interesting.
Does anyone know how the "Ice Ejector" works on this fridge? I think I am missing some parts there too... Grrr. And thanks for the info on Raymond Loewy. Damn, if it was interesting, this guy styled it! I'm thinking the fridge is a '56 and the stove is a '55—a likely testement to the original owner buying the stove first then saving up for a year to get the fridge.
In regards to the replacement of parts, I have found a plumbing company here in Los Angeles that has a HUGE warehouse of nothing but old stoves, fridges and other appliances from the 40-70's. Probably about 500+ machines. They sometimes rent to the studios but otherwise they are just sitting there available for people to purchase, etc. I am going in the next week or so and I will take pics of the place and post them. Lastly, for insurance purposes, what should I estimate their value to be?
Again, THANKS for the info. on these pieces I've received. If there is anything else, keep it coming!
Thanks for all of the input and ideas and compliments. I showed my boyfriend these entries and he was blown away—amazed that so many people would share our admiration for these beauties. That led us into an interesting debate as to why mainstream styling has become so watered down over the past 30 years. I'd venture to say that only recently has styling re-invented itself with the mid-70's being about the last era of unique 'across the board' styling.
Then we started looking at all of the innovations of the past- the "turn away" steering wheel of the Thunderbirds, sequential lighting, etc. Where did all of those great ideas go?!?
Lowering the standard of what is deemed to be acceptable quality in a product is a dangerous thing; it is a Pandora's box. Once decreased, it is next to impossible to reverse it—especially in today's highly consumer-tested markets that suggest people don't expect something to last for more than a few years. Case in point: IKEA.
The problem is simple. Companies care not as much for their reputation as they do for their bottom line and they are going for volume. In past days, products were BUILT TO LAST because that was their handshake. Today, they are manufactured with built-in life expectancies. Volume vs. quality.
It's a shame that "quality" is a term synonymous only with names such as Vuitton, Rolex, Bentley and BOSE.
BUT I DIGRESS!
Here are some scans for ads that I show people whenever they are over. Pretty interesting.
Does anyone know how the "Ice Ejector" works on this fridge? I think I am missing some parts there too... Grrr. And thanks for the info on Raymond Loewy. Damn, if it was interesting, this guy styled it! I'm thinking the fridge is a '56 and the stove is a '55—a likely testement to the original owner buying the stove first then saving up for a year to get the fridge.
In regards to the replacement of parts, I have found a plumbing company here in Los Angeles that has a HUGE warehouse of nothing but old stoves, fridges and other appliances from the 40-70's. Probably about 500+ machines. They sometimes rent to the studios but otherwise they are just sitting there available for people to purchase, etc. I am going in the next week or so and I will take pics of the place and post them. Lastly, for insurance purposes, what should I estimate their value to be?
Again, THANKS for the info. on these pieces I've received. If there is anything else, keep it coming!
funkyimperial
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 11
.
More ad pics.
More ad pics.
funkyimperial
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 11
.
Another ad pic. This one is possibly a '56 stove?
Another ad pic. This one is possibly a '56 stove?
danemodsandy
Well-known member
You've Done Pretty Well!
Shawn (is that your name?):
I hope you appreciate how good a job you've done on both your Frigidaires and the advertising you've collected. It is amazing that you were able to find adverts for the exact models you have, in the exact colour you have.
Your appliances are not only pretty rare, you have obviously spent some real time cleaning and buffing them to the condition we see. Most appliances are that clean for the first two hours after installation - and then, never again, LOL.
Remember that while Raymond Loewy established a general styling direction for Frigidaire appliances in 1947, GM seems to have begun handling yearly styling changes in-house somewhere around 1954 or so; you can see a change from Loewy's simplicity to more glamorous styling that resembled what GM was doing on its cars. That means the '55 and '56 models may not be completely Loewy-designed. Then in 1957, GM did the new squared-off Sheer Look completely in-house, with Loewy's company, Raymond Loewy Associates, doing only the brochures.
Shawn (is that your name?):
I hope you appreciate how good a job you've done on both your Frigidaires and the advertising you've collected. It is amazing that you were able to find adverts for the exact models you have, in the exact colour you have.
Your appliances are not only pretty rare, you have obviously spent some real time cleaning and buffing them to the condition we see. Most appliances are that clean for the first two hours after installation - and then, never again, LOL.
Remember that while Raymond Loewy established a general styling direction for Frigidaire appliances in 1947, GM seems to have begun handling yearly styling changes in-house somewhere around 1954 or so; you can see a change from Loewy's simplicity to more glamorous styling that resembled what GM was doing on its cars. That means the '55 and '56 models may not be completely Loewy-designed. Then in 1957, GM did the new squared-off Sheer Look completely in-house, with Loewy's company, Raymond Loewy Associates, doing only the brochures.
I remember my aunt having this type of refrigerator in 1972 in a rental house in Pasadena, CA. Thought it was so weird to have the freezer below.
Curious how the refrigeration system works...does the fan suck the cold area from the area above the freezer and send it out at the top? Was the freezer self-defrosting, or did you have to defrost it?
Curious how the refrigeration system works...does the fan suck the cold area from the area above the freezer and send it out at the top? Was the freezer self-defrosting, or did you have to defrost it?
customline
Well-known member
Wow.....
You have some beautiful units here. I'm very jealous !!!!!
You have some beautiful units here. I'm very jealous !!!!!
funkyimperial
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 11
Thanks danemodsandy!
It's nice to see that people recognize that I did work for a day or so scrubbing each of these guys with a toothbrush! I'm a bit OCD when it comes to things like this... I want them to shine as if it were 1956!!!!!
It is true that Loewy probably had less to do with the design on this model. That's OK. Whomever worked on it (if they are still with us) deserves a huge compliment. I wonder if I called Frigidaire if they would be able to pint me into the direction of getting more info on the design. I love seeing old mock-ups and design drawings, etc.
I'm also wondering what I have these insured for? It's difficult to determine because prices seem to be all over the place.
It's nice to see that people recognize that I did work for a day or so scrubbing each of these guys with a toothbrush! I'm a bit OCD when it comes to things like this... I want them to shine as if it were 1956!!!!!
It is true that Loewy probably had less to do with the design on this model. That's OK. Whomever worked on it (if they are still with us) deserves a huge compliment. I wonder if I called Frigidaire if they would be able to pint me into the direction of getting more info on the design. I love seeing old mock-ups and design drawings, etc.
I'm also wondering what I have these insured for? It's difficult to determine because prices seem to be all over the place.
Similar threads
