|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]
Posted by GP38 Chris on Tue May 18 11:14:59 2004, in response to Re: Evolution of NYC Subway Tile,
posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue May 18 10:17:52 2004.
Wayne, I have a question for you, since you are our resident tile expert. Last night I was thinking about the Lex line extension tiles which looks like "glorified" IND tile.
I called it a marraiage between IND tile and the older dual contract mosaic tile. Now we have always said that those extension tiles are a play on the IND look, but then I was thinking that maybe it's the classic IND tiles that may be a "play" on the IRT extension tile! The IND was built in the 1930's, and those extensions were done in the 30's, so I'm thinking it's a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" scenario. What came first, the IND or the IRT extensions? It shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
Could it possibly be that we have it backwards? That the evolution from BMT/IRT dual contracts tile to IND tile actually had the IRT extension tile joining them, instead of the IRT extension tile being a "play" on the classic IND tile as we always assumed here?
To me, the transition is smoother if instead of putting the IRT extension tile after the IND, and instead placing it as a bridge between the two makes more sense, but I don't know what came first, the IND tile or the IRT extension tile, which were both done in the 1930's.
Doesn't it seem more logical that the transition went in this manner instead of the IRT tile afterwards?
Dual Contract:
IRT 1930's extension tile:
Classic IND:
Replying to posts on SubTalk are disabled at this time.
|