Jump to content

Talk:Marshall Field's

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magic Trick

[edit]

Does anyone remember a Magic Trick counter in the state street store where the clerk put on regular magic shows? I always stopped to watch the show when I was in the store even though I'd seen the same tricks over and over. I still have a pencil through a plate of glass trick I got there back in the 70's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.202.67 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

[edit]

Marshall Field and Company → Marshall Field's

Marshall Field's is both the official and most commonly used name for this Minneapolis-based dept store company. EdwinHJ | Talk 21:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support although, with the Federated merger, this will not be the name of most of the stores in the chain for much longer, nor will it be based in Minneapolis. And here in Minnesota, most of us are just getting used to the idea that it's not Daytons anymore. Jonathunder 22:46, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Moved. violet/riga (t) 09:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

State Street Store

[edit]

Will the State Street store be the future flagship store of the new Macy's North divison of Federated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audude08 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Flagship

[edit]

The Somerset Marshall Field's store is officially known in Michigan as the Detroit flagship. Thus, I have put this information back in. It was recently referenced again in many Detroit newspaper articles discussing the upcoming change to Macy's.
After Dayton's and Hudson's changed their names to Marshall Field's, Target Corp. made a big deal about Michigan and Minnesota keeping their "flagship" stores- so I think the information should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.184.66 (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, you will need to provide references. In all company materials, the Somerset store is not ever listed as a Flagship Store. Also, to use past information from Dayton's and Hudson's Departments stores in a current article about Marshall Field's in what does not appear to be a historical sense is not proper for Wikipedia. If you can find official company materials from the "Marshall Field's" era with the May Department Stores company stating that Somerset is indeed a Flagship store, it should not appear in the Wikipedia. 64.122.134.85 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are you a native Chicagoan and just annoyed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.96.231 (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not from Chicago; I simply want to keep Wikipedia accurate and correct inaccuracies where I see them. 64.122.134.85 13:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It will be renamed "Macy's on State Street" and will be added as a flagship to the Macy's. 24.118.93.49 22:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State Street Store Landmark Status

[edit]

From http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=20379
Concerning the State Street store: "The building’s landmark status mandates Federated keep the nameplate and the famous Field’s clocks." I'm planning on putting this in.

I also remember hearing that the City of Chicago granted the landmark status after Federated bought Fields to guarantee that even if Federated *wanted* to totaly remove the Fields name, they would have to leave the nameplate and the clocks, sort of to thumb the city's nose at Federated. However, I dont have dates or references for information on when the building (or the namelpates/clocks specifically - don't know which it is) was granted landmark status. Anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.89.6 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Illinois and Chicago historic preservation websites, Marshall Field's is not listed. It appears only on the National Register of Historic Places, which according to their website, does not protect architectural elements of the building - not even the clock and Tiffany ceiling. Would love to know the State Street store is protected, but can not verify the accuracy of the Chicago Tribune article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.77.25 (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current owner Federated agreed with Mayor Daley in granting Landmark status to the State Street Store. From what I know - this is the outside plaques, clocks, outside look. I had read in the Tribune that Macy's wanted to add large lighted signs with their name, and it was vetoed by Mayor Daley. But, Federated made certain concessions to Daley and he has praised them in return.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20051007/ai_n15826320
Kidsheaven 04:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A question I have and there is nothing on whether or not they as agreeing to be a Landmark still get to place the Macy's sign on the roof as in Crain's Business link above. Chase Bank was told no to a roof top sign on the First National Bank building, not a landmark, however I noticed today that they did get their "Chase" sign and logo along with another building with some sort of roof top sign. It was for a number of years that no new signs were added to roofs and I know of one old sign being retained on a hotel that changed names as part of their "Landmark" agreement.Kidsheaven 04:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of State Street Store

[edit]

Would someone be able to take photos of the interior and exterior of the State Street store before it is converted into a Macy's in September 2006? An exterior shot like the one of Macy's Herald Square would be nice, as well as one or two of the unique interior. J2rome 03:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might attempt the photos this week. I also want to get shots of the Tiffany ceiling. --Gerald Farinas 04:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still no photos yet? It's been nearly a month since I first made the request. Would any Chicagoan or visitor to the city be able to take some nice exterior and interior photos of the State Street store soon? I've always wondered what it's unique interior looks like and of vartity of photos would be nice. J2rome 06:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Picture I took of State Street from Christmas the year 2000 Marshall Field's. The photo was taken on January 1, 2000 looking North on State St. It is two 35mm photos placed together to fit the street in one page. I had no idea at the time that the store would change names or close. Anyone on the site here is welcome to place it on the page. Federated made so little of the name change.
Yet they want to make sure that no other company can use the name. Currently they are using the Marshall Field's name and keep it as a licensed name by actively using it. They have the following uses I have seen in November 2006:
  • The store name plaques
  • Collectables
  • Frango boxes with the Marshall Fields name, (some with Chicago photos) - though they are very clearly state "produced for Macy's" on the box bottoms.
The store is now called Macy's on State Street. The flags in the photo are now missing and ornaments added to the horns with the Macy's name and logo. Kidsheaven 03:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Marshall_Field%27s_Christmas_2000.jpg

Official website

[edit]

I put the website URLs back in both the infobox as well as the external links. The site does not redirect. It still has links to Field's pages. Clipper471 01:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When I clicked on the official site, it had a message saying "We're now now moving to macys.com Please Join Us!" and everywhere I clicked will make me go to macys.com! Bucs2004 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everywhere, that is, except for the travel link -- which directs to Marshall Field's Travel (not yet rebranded). -- ArkansasTraveler 23:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Field's to Macy's

[edit]

Please check mall websites and macys.com before making any changes to the Marshall Field's stores in the mall. All of these stores should reamin Marshall Field's until September. When I have checked macys.com and the mall website that operates Marshall Field's in the mall, it is still called Marshall Field's. So, please check these websites before making any changes. Cheers! Bucs2004 00:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second-largest?

[edit]

Both the Hudson's and this article claim their flagship stores were/are the second-largest in the country, next to Macy's. Perhaps both claims were true at one point in time, but this should be clarified. --Rehcsif 12:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Field's State Street Store was the largest store in the world when completed in 1907. This title passed to Macy's after completion of the Seventh avenue addition in 1924, dropping Field's to second largest. Hudson's Woodward avenue store became second largest at (or perhaps sometime before) its completion in 1946. After the 1998 demolition of Hudson's, Field's State Street Store again became second largest. The foregoing inferred from reading Wikipedia. MrLou 07:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long?

[edit]

The article is now flagged as 'very long', but it doesn't even seem as long as lots of other articles. We could break out the list onto a separate page, but it doesn't really seem worth it to me... Discuss? --Rehcsif 12:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of stores, since it is a list, can be merged out. Also, I would convert it into a table for better scanability (see Dayton's#Former Dayton's locations for what I did this morning). In addition, there should be only four main sections in this article: History, Subsidiaries (can be eliminated because it is a subsidiary, unless it has owned something else in the past), Corporate governance, and Business model. I have yet to actually the article for more ideas. Tuxide 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take back my comment about eliminating a Subsidiaries section, since it did have its own divisions back when it was a public company. Tuxide 18:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take back even more of my comment here since I have revised Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Company page structure this morning. Tuxide 18:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After going through it some more, I've realized that its tone is not what I was expecting. I am marking the article as {{essay-entry}} because it seems to be more creatively written than factual-based. Simply toning the article down should reduce the size of it and make it more interesting to read. Also I see someone else has spotted this, but anything not directly related to the chain shouldn't go in this article. For example, "Sam Walton used to work for JC Penney" would go in Sam Walton, not History of Wal-Mart. Tuxide 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are format problems, since the topic is of historic interest to Chicagoans, and has been so treated. However, the list of existing stores no longer seems necessary (let that be covered under Macy's North). Busjack 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But not all stores in Macy's North were Marshall Fields (e.g. Mall of America store). --Rehcsif 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Macy's North article already sorts that out (or is the correct place for doing so). Busjack 17:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles on Wikipedia about defunct retail chains have sections on former locations. Consensus should be reached for all such articles before removing this section. Also, it is not the format that I am mainly disputing now, it is the tone that it is written in. I now realize that articles about defunct chains should have a different format than articles about existing ones. Tuxide 18:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the section on former locations was removed (moved) I added "Information on other former Marshall Field's locations can be found at Macy's North." to the beginning of the article for clarity in finding this useful chart of stores. Please do not delete this phrase unless you provide some alternative direction.MrLou 23:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This type addition is redundant and has been deleted. If more information is sought, the divisional link to Macy's North is already Wiki linked. Adding sentences specifically for such redirects defeats the purpose of Wiki links.66.25.184.47 04:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign your comments. Its not an addition. Its a replacement for the large list of stores that was moved to Macy's North by Busjack. I added the "Information on other former Marshall Field's locations" because it is not clear that "Macy's North" is the place to find such information. Rather than revert, I will rewrite the sentence so that it does not seem redundant and provides useful information. Perhaps Rehcsif, Busjack, or Tuxide can comment as to this latest revision that I am about to implement.MrLou 17:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[1] for convenience. I like the idea that I presented in my first post the best, and I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough. The list takes up 11.6k and should be forked into a new article called List of former Marshall Field's locations with a link provided in the See also section of both Marshall Field's and Macy's North: First, the list is directly related to both chains; and second, WP:CORP says that a "List of Wal-Marts in China" article would be informative. Tuxide 20:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Wrong with the Article

[edit]

I see nothing wrong with the style of this article. It appears to be very informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.192.2 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see at least one thing wrong - it should be mentioned that Dayton's in Minneapolis, MN was an upper crust store very on par with Marshall Field's. The Target stores were the discount retailer, not Dayton's - ever. Many of Dayton's customers were upset at the company's decision to change the name to Marshall Field's - the stores Dayton's had actually acquired. It hurt the store in Minnesota, definitely. Dayton's/Target had co-existed peacefully for years in Minnesota all in one company - with the Dayton's store selling very upscale items and Target being a discount chain. The decision of the company to pull down the higher end retail after acquiring Marshall Field's was odd indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.88.210 (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Store List

[edit]

I moved the list to a new page, Former Marshall Field's Locations, because it was quite long. If there is reason for it to be included in the main article, by all means move it back. Nenyedi 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List has been subsequently deleted. It is currently available at [2] TPM2006 01:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rumors of Macy's Sale

[edit]

Recently in the news:

Mishawaka location conversion

[edit]

I've been modifying this lots of times, but it keeps getting reverted. The Mishawaka location was converted in 1997, not 2001 like most of the other Hudson's. I was there, I saw it, but here's a newspaper article to give proof:

South Bend Tribune (Indiana)

April 30, 1997, Wednesday, MICHIGAN

HUDSON'S TO BECOME MARSHALL FIELD'S

BYLINE: HEIDI PRESCOTT Tribune Staff Writer * Tribune Photo/HEIDI PRESCOTT

SECTION: LOCAL/AREA, Pg. B3

LENGTH: 495 words


MISHAWAKA -- Jane Barker of Goshen has always enjoyed Marshall Field's--back to the days when she gazed at the lavish window displays while buying school clothes with her mother.

But they shopped in Chicago.

Dayton Hudson Corp., one of the biggest names in department stores, revealed plans Tuesday that will bring Marshall Field's closer to home. Hudson's Department Store, which has been located in University Park mall for 17 years, is being converted into Marshall Field's. The store is scheduled to open in October.

Then Barker and other shoppers won't have to drive all the way to Chicago.

Dayton Hudson, which acquired Marshall Field's in 1990, believes area consumers will identify more closely with the new name.

Not that anything is wrong with Hudson's, which continues to have a strong presence in Michigan. Dayton Hudson officials said they just wanted to stop sending mixed messages in some states.

Shop Hudson's here.

Shop Marshall Field's there.

Renovations also are scheduled at Hudson's stores in Fort Wayne and Toledo, Ohio. That will wipe out the remaining Hudson's in these two states and Illinois, according to Steve Prebelich, regional director of stores for Dayton Hudson.

According to city building permits, Dayton Hudson will spend roughly $2.2 million on the renovation. This is the last of the four mall anchor department stores to complete recent renovations.

More than $7 million was spent to update L.S. Ayres, Sears and J.C. Penney within the past two years. Mall co-owners Simon-DeBartolo and Cressy Associates also completed a $15 million mall-renovation project.

While the name Hudson's could switch to Marshall Field's at any time, Dayton Hudson wanted it to coincide with the new merchandise and shopping atmosphere.

"We will be re-hanging the name of our store as Marshall Field's," said Daniel Skoda, store president. "Upon completion our guests will see a more visually appealing store and a broader merchandise assortment. It makes sense with the location."

Designers still are working on computer modeling prototypes of how the new store will look. Although interior renditions are not completed, the floor plans have been revealed.

The first level of Marshall Field's will feature an expanded section of women's apparel (which currently is located on both levels) as well as juniors, intimate apparel, cosmetics, shoes and accessories.

On the second floor, the store will contain the men's, children's and new home department, along with a packaged food and candy area with the famous Frango chocolates.

Wider aisles, improved lighting, updated floor and wall coverings, new fixtures and more guest seating are some of the improvements planned for the store.

Assistant U.P. mall manager Milt Lee said the new store not only fits with the entire mall mix, it also meets area shoppers' desires. Many people have indicated in surveys that they enjoy shopping at Chicago stores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.58.103 (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ft Wayne Location Missing

[edit]

The store locations omit the Ft. Wayne, IN location. I believe it was in Glenbrook Square. It opened as a Hudson's and was converted to Field's when all the non-Michigan stores were converted in the 1997 timeframe. It was shuttered by May before the Federated-May merger was completed, and was never Macy's (although the LS Ayers at the same mall became Macy's) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.15.11 (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Field's isn't gone

[edit]

The store chain still exists its just representing the Macy's nameplate if Macy's, Inc doesn't want any department stores in Illinois they will pobably divest the division Matthew Cantrell (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content of Article

[edit]

This article is clearly written on an opinion basis and is not based on facts especially when you pass the Macy's merger section this should be fixed at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamprin (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott and protest stuff

[edit]

I'm thinking that section really needs to be shortened. The actual number of people involved is tiny -- 300 people protested? 3 people spoke up at the shareholders meeting? Though I agree that the absorbtion of Field's and others by the Borg Federated is unpleasant, and while those protests might have seemed newsworthy at the time, in retrospect they're pretty trivial and unencyclopedic. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Women Want ?

[edit]

Wasn't it in that movie? 64.53.191.77 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marshall Field's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marshall Field's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marshall_Field%27s&oldid=1209688558"