Talk:Montgomery Ward/Archives/2014

This is an archive of past discussions about Montgomery Ward. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Continuity of business

Could someone supply more information on the continuity (or discontinuity) of Montgomery Ward during the period after its demise and beginning of Internet sales business in 2004? It appears that someone bought the trade marks and misc. intellectual property and started business thereunder. (web domains had been on sale.)

I don't have any details, although I really wish there was more information about the new proprietor and their background. It's sad that such a large company with a long history that was such a big part of American culture is now run as a simple website with no history and no available information whatsoever. --Jkonrath 19:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It does seem sad, I'll agree. I even remember the various intellectual properties that had been up for sale, to an extent. I seem to recall they included usage of the wards.com and montgomeryward.com domains, and department monikers such as Electric Ave. and Gold 'n Gems. Maybe Auto Express was included, too, but my memory — just as my recent web searches — fails me. — ArkansasTraveler 20:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish the new online Montgomery Ward would advertise more. I had no idea they existed until I read the Wikipedia article. I think they should invest in ads on pages such as Yahoo and Google. If they get publicity going strong enough, then perhaps they could open some small outlet-type stores... though that may be just wishful thinking... Mellophonius, 9-18-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.10.181.50 (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This has happened to other companies as well, like Crazy Eddies and Fifth Avenue. The rights to the name are bought by entities who throw up sketchy web sites. Eli lilly (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

MW & labor

I noticed this in July 19

1945 - Montgomery Ward is seized by United States Army troops at the direction of Attorney General Francis Biddle because of its refusal to obey National War Labor Board orders. Montgomery Ward chairman Seward Avery is carried out of his office by troops

and this in Teamsters (about a strike)

1905 Montgomery Ward - over 100 days, took 21 lives, and cost about $1M

perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge could put in a few paragraphs about this aspect of the history? I should do it myself of course but my knowledge is limited to those two sentences so it wouldn't be either coherent or complete. Jobh 20:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree more needs to be added; editors should consult the Sewell Avery article (please note spelling), as it appears that Avery, acting as president of the company, made the decisions that contributed to these labor and government conflicts. In addition that article explicitly says that business people consider his conservatism the reason for the company's decline in the postwar years.Parkwells (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Standard T Chemical

I'd like to find more information about Standard T Chemical, a subsidiary of Montgomery Ward. They manufactured all of the Wards brand housepaint at one point, and they also made cleaning chemicals and janitorial supplies that were used by the stores' custodial workers. Standard T may have been some offshoot of the Mobil years, but I'm not sure. All I can find on the internet is a bunch of toxic cleanup problems with the company.

I worked at Wards in the late 80s in the paint department, and remember that Wards was the only department store that made their own paint, instead of reselling other brands or having a third party make their own house brand. --Jkonrath 19:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"Wards"

I think the whole logo should be used instead of the newer "Ward" one. Wards was hardly used on builing signage. 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero

We're using the "Montgomery Ward" logo and the "Wards" logo --Caldorwards4 23:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You all ought to check in. the logos have been deleted and it would be helpful to look at why. Seems like its fair use, but is there something i am missing BrandlandUSA 03:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Since there's a concern over lack of supporting citations, a good and brief source for the early history of Montgomery Ward's is Alfred Chandler's The Visible Hand, 230-233. JimmyTheSaint 18:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the ISBN? Tuxide 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Amazon says ISBN 0674940520. Powers ^T 14:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Logos and fair use

There has been some discussion that the logos for montgomery ward are somehow not fair use. If the deleted logos arent fair use, then where are they fair use? I get how Man in Black wants to keep copyright infringement off wikipedia, but the use of any logos or pictures of logos of a company to talk about a company is done all the time on wikipedia.BrandlandUSA 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion goes way beyond this page. See Wikipedia:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries and Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Historical images for more. DHowell 03:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The upshot is that that one non-free image to identify the article is okay; all other non-free images need to be the subject of commentary or illustrate specific points in the text. DHowell is proposing a change to these rules, which I'm largely sympathetic with in principle (if not in practice, on some trivial points), but the fact remains that they violate our current fair-use policy, which is necessarily strict. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is fascinating discussion, and am glad to have been sent to the page on the discussion of historical images. I will take a look at the criteria and see if it can be improved. The reality is that the image-logo changes were part of strategy changes over the decades, and thats why they are telling, but without any explanation, much of that is lost. I will take a look at it.BrandlandUSA 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Admiral product line

Can someone expand and explain how Wards bought the rights to use the name 'Admiral' for their private line of tv's? I'm not sure how this was done. Admiral was a long retired name for tv's that were popular in the 1950's. Shortly before Wards closed they were offering Admiral tv's (and appliances). The packing boxes were plain white with blue lettering. Literature with warranty info gave an address in Chicago and made some reference to being owned by Wards. Prior to using Admiral, Wards private tv's were called Signature 2000.

03:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC) The Admiral brand was used under a royalty/license agreement from the Maytag Company. The Admiral major appliances were purchased directly from Maytag.

Montgomery Ward actually used the Admiral brand, Signature 2000 (owned by MW) and the Bell + Howell brand (licensed) simultaneously for a period of time. The Signature 2000 products were lower end models, Admiral was used for the demand segment, and Bell and Howell was reserved for higher technology products.

The Admiral brand was licensed for TV and VCRs in 1991.

Fair use rationale for Image:Montwards logo.gif

Image:Montwards logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pre-Wardslogo.gif

Image:Pre-Wardslogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-mw.jpg

Image:Logo-mw.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-mw.jpg

Image:Logo-mw.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I can find no evidence whatsoever of a Jefferson Ward in Concord Mall. Can someone verify? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The company is out of business, that's a list of previous locations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli lilly (talk • contribs)

I know that. I'm just saying that I can't find any sources that stated that there ever was a Jefferson Ward store in Delaware at all, much less in Concord Mall. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that there were two stores in Delaware that were among the first to open in 1980 which were served by the distribution center in Burlington, NJ. These stores' merchandise were tagged as "Kirkwood" and "Concord". There was a store somewhere on Concord Pike, Delaware -- somewhere other than the Concord Mall(?) -- perhaps a former J.M.Fields. Njbob (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bifurcation

Since the two incarnations of Montgomery Wards are separate entities linked in name only, shouldn't the articles be split into something like "Montgomery Wards (1872-2001)" and "Montgomery Wards (2004)", or is the latter just not sufficiently notable on its own? SWalkerTTU (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be two articles. These are distinct entities.

(JamesReyes (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Me too! TheListUpdater (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no link other than the name, which was purchased after the original company had closed.oknazevad (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

list of stores

This list is getting out of hand, even if it is hidden. And not a whit of it is sourced. Since I'm the fool who put it there in the first place, I propose that the list be removed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Heck with it. Nobody wants to source it and it's just listcruft, so I killed it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Electric Avenue and More

Is there a difference between their "Electric Avenue" brand and the "Electric Avenue and More" stores, or is it just a shortened reference? Hypertext (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cedar Rapids IA or Monroe WI?

The first paragraph says the reincarnated Wards is in Cedar Rapids IA, but the box at right says it's in Monroe WI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.34 (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Article updated.Msw1002 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Wards closing.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Wards closing.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Article Must Be split

This discussion is now closed. The result was no split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.120.188 (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It is really egregious that this article conflates two separate business enterprise which share nothing whatsoever but a name. If a business, government, individual, or other entity dies or discontinues and then later some other entity takes up its name, are we to conflate them? Will we have one entry for all the Russian "Dimitri's" both the real one and the "false" pretenders? Subsume the Holy Roman Empire into the entry on Imperial Rome?

This article needs to be split into two distinct entries: One for the retail chain which closed in 2001 and a separate one for the enterprise begun in 2004 that raided the brand graveyard. No doubt the owners of Wards are delighted that their business strategy of conflating the two in the public mind has succeeded to the extent of subverting wikipedia. But Wikipedia should be about accuracy and clarity, and not do the advertising work of private enterprises. TheCormac (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well split it then. Op47 (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

But it's not two business entities that just happen to have the same name; the trademark was actually transferred. That makes it a little different. Powers ^T 14:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If it was a long article, with a lot of detailed information about the two entities, I'd be more inclined to agree with a split, but considering the relatively small amount of material there is in the article, I think it's more reasonable to leave it as it is, since they are connected by the common trademark. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about location of first store

confused about the location of the first store. Kedzie and North Clark do not intersect and both run north and south, unless the street names have changed.LynnieU (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where "Kedzie" came from, but the source I found said that Aaron Montgomery Ward's first office was at 825 North Clark Street. According to current numbering, that's between W. Chicago and W. Chestnut Streets, but, of course, the numbering system may have changed since then. I've changed the article and put in this new information, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

To confuse matters more, the article originally said "Kinzie Street" not "Kedzie", but someone changed it in 2007, either mistakenly or as a piece of vandalism. I've located sources that say that Ward started in a loft on Kinzie, so I've added that to the article, since I have no criteria for knowing which is correct. In any case, it wasn't North Clark and Kedzie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)