Show172
“Janitress”? Really?!? Submitted by gracep, 1/27/2011.
+ I didn't believe it either but then looked it up here! HamBurger 7/23/2016
++ Same as stewardess, actress, mistress, hostess, seamstress, ... jfh 27Dec2019
+++ English seems to be rather inconsistent - incomplete? - in how it treats professions; as noted, many have parallel titles, many do not: acting: yes, singing: no (the word "singeress" apparently exists, but is not commonly used). In recent years, it seems, there has been a general trend toward gender neutrality: "flight attendant" replaced the "steward/stewardess" pairing, and lately the "actor/actress" appellation has been reduced to simply the former (something that at times I find confusing. particularly when someone I've always thought of as an actress is now called actor). Notcom, 070924.
+ Well, "songstress" is a real though uncommon word referring to a female singer, as opposed to the even more uncommon "songster." But indeed, social pressures (perhaps correctly) have led to a reduction of gender differentiation through suffixation. Ed Zoerner 7/9/24
Checker Motors Corporation was established in 1922 and built only taxicabs until 1959. It launched its first-ever passenger car models for sale to the general public in late 1959. Checker production was always tiny compared to the big automakers, reaching its all-time high in 1962 at 8,173 cars (6943 taxis, 1230 non-taxis).† The factory price of the 1962 Marathon 4-Door Sedan pictured in the linked ad was $2650; the roughly equivalent 6-cyl Chevrolet Bel Air and Ford Galaxie 4-door sedans were $2510 and $2507 respectively. I recommend this quick-read Illustrated History of Checker Motors by Paul Niedermeyer. A comprehensive history at coachbuilt.com includes lurid details of the 20th Century American Taxi Wars, incidentally explaining some of the names and structures of the North American Taxi Industry today.
Strictly speaking, the car in this episode is a "Series A9" or A11 although Checker Taxis built from 1960 onwards are commonly but erroneously referred to as "Marathon"s. Marathon was a civilianized copy of the Checker Taxi and was the foremost model offered for retail sale to the general public from 1960-'82, see here. Considering that original Checker Cabs were driven hundreds of thousands of miles into scrap condition, there is a reasonable tendency for collectors to paint and accessorize originally-civilian Marathons as taxicabs, perhaps as this beautifully-restored example may have been (note the side trim and "CHECKER Marathon" lettering, absent from real taxis).
Because the original airdate of this episode roughly coincides with the all-time peak of Checker
Motors production, I believe this Checker's appearance may be a product placement as part of a general sales effort. Added by Gary Woloski, 9/5/13.
† Standard Catalogue of American Cars, 1946-1975 ed. Ron Kowalke; Checker chapter pp46-75 by G Marshall Naul contains Checker data for 1960-75.
Grammar Police: Mr. Hatfield asked Hollis, "Whom did you give the number to?". Properly, he should have asked, "To whom did you give the number?", or even (less properly but more conversationally) "Who did you give the number to?" jfh 27Dec2019
+ Sorry, Officer, but the program writers were correct in using "whom." In the interrogative sentence "Whom did you give the number to?" the subject is "you" and the object is "whom." Recasting the sentence in the declarative would result in "You did give the number to him/her," not "You did give the number to he/she." However, I agree that eliminating the trailing preposition with "To whom did you give the number?" is the better option. Pedantic Professor 5Apr2020
Business Location: Were the Wilburn and McKinney Electronic Industries and Mr. Hatfield's office supposed to be in the Brent Building? The establishing shot looked like the Bank of California Building seen in previous stories. Submitted by H. Mason 1/19/15
Perry's cameo: I was watching MeTV on 04/03/15 (I believe) and did not record it, so I could not review it, BUT when I saw this, I had to write in down to see if anyone commented. No one did, so here goes: When Perry makes his "cameo", to me, it looks like his hair was "frosted/highlighted", or in a style I've never seen before. Does anyone think so, or can leave a comment? It looked wild! Thanks in advance! Submitted by mesave31, 04/21/15.
+ Nope, both my wife and I agree, it is the lighting above their heads as it shows similar in the scene with Della and Mr. Hatfield. HamBurger 7/23/2016
++ See my comment on the previous episode (Show 171): I saw the same thing last week and commented that Burr's hair was shorter (brushy, not wavy) and looked grey. I suggested that he did not show up at the studio and thus Annabelle did not do his hair. This hairdo (and/or the lighting) makes him look aged. Submitted by catron, 05/05/18
+++ IMHO, Perry, away from the office, in his PJs, recuperating at home, simply didn't apply his usual hairdressing prior to answering the phone. jfh 27Dec2019
++++ I'm just happy he wasn't shown recuperating in a suit !! Smarta**ed by Notcom, 052621.
IMHO Paul Drake looks mighty dapper in this episode. jfh 06Mar2017.
About halfway in, Walter Pidgeon struggles trying to remove a cigarette from the pack.
This final episode without Perry actually works! In the previous 3 episodes, Bette Davis is just plain weird; Michael Rennie is painfully out of his element as a law professor in the courtroom (those who can't, teach); and Hugh O'Brian is a fantasy playboy lawyer/international man of mystery. Walter Pidgeon is totally convincing here as a wise old lawyer who knows how to surprise the truth out of people, bringing us properly back into Perry's realm with style and integrity. Joyce Bulifant is also fun to watch, playing a seeming goofball who's smarter than she looks. ckbtao 7/19/20