View Single Post
  #6  
Old 05-17-2015, 09:40 AM
jerseygary's Avatar
jerseygary jerseygary is offline
G@ry Cier@dkowski
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 848
Default

That's a neat looking sign, but a few things jump out that make me think it may not be original. Some of these things can be explained away but there are enough that would make me think twice about its originality, or at the least it being from the mid 1950's.

The copyright symbol with the "C" in the circle was the first thing that caught my attention. The copyright line on the bottom is what really bothers me. I just don't see a concession company paying to copyright a simple menu board. Besides, it looks huge on the board. When was the last time you saw a copyright slug that big? Usually they are smaller, almost a footnote. (I originally wrote that the circle "C" was used from 1955 but I was mistaken).

The second thing is the typeface used for "CONCESSION STAND" and other headlines. I believe this is Helvetica, a Swiss-designed family of typefaces that was released in 1957. This looks like the "Helvetica Black Extended" version of the typeface. While very hip designers in the States were using Helvetica by late 1957, I don't think that sign shops that would do concession signs like this would have used Helvetica that early. Buying type back then wasn't as simple as downloading a font to your computer. It was very expensive and quite an investment. A simple sign company that made concession signs would have used an older typeface like Franklin Gothic if they wanted a san-serif look.

While I can't tell for sure what the other more condensed typeface used for the items on the board is without close inspection, I wouldn't be suprized if it is another Helvetica style called "Medium Condensed".

There have been many different "cuts" of Helvetica since 1957, all with tiny differences which would make it easier to narrow down at least the earliest time period a piece using them could have been made.

The Coca-Cola logo looks to be modern. If I were buying this I'd check a Coke collectors guide book and see what was the common Coca-Cola logo in use at the time, paying close attention to the type style used for the words "ENJOY" and "ICE COLD".

The one big thing that bothers me is the hand-painted looking 49ers guy and script name combined with the printed text. Back in 1954 it would have been more common for a sign company to either hand paint and letter a sign or have one mechanically printed. Each of these employ two separate skilled workers - you would either job it out to a sign painter or a printer. A sign painter would have done the top portion like this is but the text below would have been also hand painted. A printer would have set the type as seen in the lower part of the piece but if there was graphics they would have been limited to the blue, black and red used in the rest of the letters, not full 4-color process like it is here. It would have been too expensive to produce unless you were printing many of them. For a stadium I wouldn't think there would be more than 10, right?

Now like I said, many of these things could be explained away. Maybe it is a more recent sign than 1954 and the copyright symbol is on there with the 1954 date for some legal reason and does not reflect the actual date of manufacture. That would explain the 1957 typeface used if it is indeed a later piece. The Coca-Cola logo could check out as accurate to that time period. The mixture of sign painting and printing techniques could be explained away with the concession company had money to burn so splurged on more expensive 4-color printing for a handful of signs.

Did you research "STEVENS ENTERPRISES"? "Enterprises" seems like a more modern name, more 1970's than 1950's. I'd check out when that became a commonly used word for corporations.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. It's still a neat looking piece, real or fantasy.
__________________
MY BASEBALL CARD PROJECT:
www.studiogaryc.com/baseball-blog/

Last edited by jerseygary; 05-17-2015 at 11:52 AM. Reason: mistake on date
Reply With Quote