  Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 866 Registered: 11-2005 |
Here's another one. http://s152.photobucket.com/al bums/s164/rhymeswithrawk/Detro it%20postcards/Buildings/?acti on=view¤t=finance.jpg It sure LOOKS like the Dime, yet it definitely isn't the Dime. Or maybe it's just a rendering of the Dime. This postcard is postmarked 1917; the Dime was built in 1910. So unless this card predates the Dime and the guy hung onto it for seven years before mailing it. ... Or maybe it was proposed and never built? Anyone have any guesses? | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 426 Registered: 07-2005 |
hmmm, I don't know what it is. It sort of looks like the Dime Building, but if it is, it's really inaccurate. The post card has three windows at the inside area of the top, while the Dime Building has a lot more. Also, the image might have been flipped horizontally for whatever reason, but there are not, and as far as I know there have never been skyscrapers behind the Dime Building like that. It might have been a proposed building. I'll try to find out what this building is. | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 427 Registered: 07-2005 |
Well, destroyed or not, there weren't any buildings in 1917, or 1920, that look like that. And I can't find any buildings in the city that look like the buildings behind it. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 868 Registered: 11-2005 |
Thanks, Jason. This one puzzled the hell out of me, too. At first I thought it was the Dime, but as I said earlier, it's definitely not the Dime. It could be a rendering for something that never happened. I have several such "rendering" cards. * The 81-story tower addition to the Book Building that never happened. http://s152.photobucket.com/al bums/s164/rhymeswithrawk/Detro it%20postcards/Buildings/?acti on=view¤t=booktower2.jpg * A rendering of the Fort Shelby addition with a different top. http://s152.photobucket.com/al bums/s164/rhymeswithrawk/Detro it%20postcards/Buildings/?acti on=view¤t=shelby6.jpg * A Penobscot with a way different top. http://s152.photobucket.com/al bums/s164/rhymeswithrawk/Detro it%20postcards/Buildings/?acti on=view¤t=penobwrong.jpg | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1360 Registered: 04-2006 |
I would not lose sleep over it. If the building did exist it was only a short life. RWH's first post certainly looks like a rendering to me, and as we all know things have a tendancy to change a lot throughout the development process. | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 428 Registered: 07-2005 |
The building as shown never existed. http://www.dimebuilding.com/ In the history section, the picture on the bottom shows what looks like that two sectioned building in the postcard. It could just be an inaccurate postcard. | ||
Mikem Member Username: Mikem Post Number: 3449 Registered: 10-2003 |
Why is not the Dime?  | ||
Mikem Member Username: Mikem Post Number: 3450 Registered: 10-2003 |
Well, I guess it is taller and deeper than the one in the postcard. Like a lot of post cards from the era, it must have been an artist's rendering. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1459 Registered: 10-2006 |
Was the Dime building ever even called, "The New Finance Building" though? | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 430 Registered: 07-2005 |
Buildings change names a lot over time, but I don't think this one has, or so soon after it was constructed. The building was originally the Dime Savings Bank Building, and it was finished a few years before the postcard, so I don't think the name would have changed so fast, but I guess it could have. Searching for that name on google doesn't come up with anything though. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 870 Registered: 11-2005 |
Mikem, if you look at the front of the building, above the front door, there are major differences. At the top, too. The old Barlum Hotel next to the Cadillac Tower, you'll notice, looks like the Dime, too. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1087 Registered: 12-2005 |
I found this photo in an album with other Detroit & Michigan snapshots that were all taken in the 1917-18 time frame. It shows a Detroit Fireman and was captioned "Looking down from top of Dime Bank" in handwriting beneath the photo.  | ||
Jeduncan Member Username: Jeduncan Post Number: 127 Registered: 11-2006 |
My boy Daniel Burnham designed the dime, I wonder (if that was a proposed building) if that was another burnham project. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 873 Registered: 11-2005 |
What else did Burnham do in Detroit? He did the Ford Building and the Majestic, I know, but any others? | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 432 Registered: 07-2005 |
Cadillac Tower, and the Cadillac apartments (or whatever it's called, next door) were also by him I think. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1364 Registered: 04-2006 |
Didn't Burnham do the Whitney as well? You can tell that it is not the Dime. The dime has a much thinner profile as it was built out of steel. | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 436 Registered: 07-2005 |
Yeah, that's right, he also did that one. And I want to say that he's done one that was demolished, but I might be thinking of something else. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 876 Registered: 11-2005 |
The Cadillac Square Apts. was the Barlum Hotel: http://i152.photobucket.com/al bums/s164/rhymeswithrawk/Detro it%20postcards/Buildings/barlu m.jpg That would make sense that he did that building as well because it looks so similar to the Dime. I don't know which others he did, Jasoncw, but he definitely did the Majestic Building, which was demolished in 1962 to make way for 1001 Woodward. It was Detroit's second skyscraper (some would say its first because the Hammond wasn't very tall). What a loss, both for historical and beauty reasons: http://i152.photobucket.com/al bums/s164/rhymeswithrawk/Majes tic%20Building/demo8.jpg | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 438 Registered: 07-2005 |
It's definitely too bad that we've lost so many of our older buildings. I generally like the buildings we have now, but now we don't have very much around from that time period. | ||
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie Post Number: 1130 Registered: 11-2003 |
That's definitely the Dime Building, no matter what the differences are between the postcard and what was actually built. I've seen lots of other postcards of buildings which differ a lot more than what was finally built. | ||
Quinn Member Username: Quinn Post Number: 1440 Registered: 01-2005 |
Frickin' awesome thread rawk...what a cool resource. Thanks! | ||
Andrew69 Member Username: Andrew69 Post Number: 26 Registered: 12-2005 |
The building is not on the right corner to be the Dime (there should be buildings to it's right), but that could also be accepted as artist interpretation. However, the building to the right in the background looks an awful lot like the back of the Dime Building. | ||
Andyguard73 Member Username: Andyguard73 Post Number: 243 Registered: 03-2006 |
It looks a lot more like the Pebobscot Annex to me than either the Barnum or the Dime. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 5152 Registered: 08-2004 |
I have to agree with Burnsie on this one. I do believe that that image is of the Dime Building... likely an early architectural rendering that was made into a post card before the final architectural design was completed. Although many downtown buildings have undergone renovations to "modernize" them... such as the David Whitney, the Michigan Mutual (Stroh HQ), and United Artists Building, this building doesn't fall into that category. However, I have seen renderings of the Michigan Building with a triple archway (taking up the whole block), instead of the single archway and 80% of the block that it occupies today. I think that this design image was turned into postcards prematurely. (Message edited by Gistok on August 22, 2007) | ||
Mplsryan Member Username: Mplsryan Post Number: 156 Registered: 11-2003 |
Those old postcards are sooooo unreliable. They often changed the buildings and the streetscape to fit the artist's 'vision' or the builders ideas. Hell, most of those cards show a tall proud flag pole on top with an American flag flapping in the breeze. A few structures had them but most were drawn in on the original lithograph. Proportions were often skewed to make a 'landmark' building appear taller and more impressive. It's funny to see the old postcards where they drew in the street life. The cars, horses, people etc. were always too small in a sort of random chaos. http://www.lileks.com/mpls/pen ce/index.html a funny example of the postcard street life ^^^ | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 890 Registered: 11-2005 |
I have to agree with Burnsie on this one. I do believe that that image is of the Dime Building... likely an early architectural rendering that was made into a post card before the final architectural design was completed. But I don't think it is. I mean, it COULD be, but it's really unlikely, Gistok. Again, the postcard is postmarked 1917. The Dime was built in 1910. Why would they sell inaccurate postcards with the wrong name of a building seven years after it was built? The only way it could be the Dime would be if someone bought this card BEFORE the Dime was built and mailed it seven years after it was finished. Possible, though unlikely. | ||
Mikem Member Username: Mikem Post Number: 3458 Registered: 10-2003 |
Because it was postmarked in 1917 doesn't mean that it was produced in 1917. I still see postcards from the early 1970s for sale. It could have been produced before or shortly after the Dime was built. I have several postcards of buildings from that era which are embellished by the author. Scale is exaggerated, details added or left out, color is off, etc. | ||
Aiw Member Username: Aiw Post Number: 6352 Registered: 10-2003 |
I agree with Mike. Just because it's postmarked 1917 doesn't mean it wasn't printed in 1910. I think everyone was reading way too much into the name, think about it, it was a bank, and it was new. Hence the name: "New Finance Building". |
