Color Television was disappointing when first introduced?

[jroberts500]

I have read this from several writers here.
I'm thinking that complaints would have been from those who were bothered by the cost.
Perhaps they mean disappointing to the middle and lower class people?
Seems to me that color TV would have been expected to be purchased primarily by wealthy people. I expect that group would have been more than dazzled by even just a few color programs as money would not have been an issue for them. Also, the wealthy love to brag about what they buy all the while pretending not to be doing so and thus, would not have been disappointed at all.

Today poor people all over will beg, borrow and steal to get large screen TV's. I suspect that in the '50's most lower class people had more sense than to sacrifice for such a luxury as color TV, however, they probably resented those who were fortunate enough to own one.
The poor seem to spend much time resenting the rich for this or that. Seems to me that if they would become better educated they might be able to even the score a bit. Perhaps in the world of the future!
That reminds me... I have alot of learn'n to do.

[Sandy G]

I think the real disapointment from color TV when it was 1st introduced was the expense, the complexity/dodgy reliability, & lack of programming. I've never seen a CT-100, but I wonder how B&W programs "looked" on it. Were they kinda purplish, greenish, or what? IIRC, lots of TVs were somewhat less than reliable like they are today, and, of course, a color set w/3X the circuitry would be even less reliable. Color TV was a disappointment to its backers, as it took til about 1966 before it really took off. I think Sarnoff felt it would have gone off bigger than TV did initially-Seems like I remember reading he thought there would be millions of color sets out there by 1959 or '60. Color TV WAS very expensive at first-$1000 was a LOT of moolah in 1954-that was a pretty decent used car. Even $495 for a cheapo model in '60 or '61 was still not an inconsiderable sum.-Sandy G.

[andy]

---

[Celt]

Color sets, even used ones, were fairly expensive even in the mid-sixties and even then, many shows were still being broadcast in B&W.

[bgadow]

When displaying a bw picture I don't think any early color set could look as good as a middle-of-the-road monochrome set. BW tv really was close to perfected by the mid-50s & was still new to most people. There are 2 things I can think of that would have sold a bunch of color sets. One, if everything was being broadcast in color (even if it was just everything on NBC) & two if the price was more in line with bw sets. Faced with a difference of $200 for a decent bw set or $600 for a similiar color set-thats a stretch. If you could get one for $400 or even like $375 it would sell a lot of sets. I don't think many folks in the middle class were obsessed with getting color in the 50s or early 60s. Later one peer pressure sold some sets. I know my folks & their friends/relatives were living paycheck to paycheck when they were in their 20s, and we are talking about the late 60s. Most of them had color consoles & I think this was part of keeping up with the Joneses. Now, folks like my grandfather, who could have bought 2 or 3 color sets if he wanted to, were too frugal to make the investment. He replaced a cheap 60s bw set with a cheap 70s bw set before finally going color about 1982.

[Celt]

Speaking of peer pressure and trying to impress the neighbors, there was a MAD Magazine cartoon in the 60's where a housewife looked outside and in total hysteria, exclaims to her husband that the neighbors kids are playing with their empty COLOR TV box and have drug it across the street to their own yard. The husband, a bit confused, looks over at her and says "What difference does that make?" "BECAUSE! Now everyone will think that THEY have the new COLOR TV!!!"

[Steve D.]

I think all the above comments ring true. The mid fifties was a time of prosperity. All kinds of new gadgets were coming on the market. Much like today's electronic candy store. Color tv was not a priority purchase in most middle class homes. As stated, there was little color programming, the sets were expensive and the screens small compared to available b&w sets. This along with the complex chassis and multiple adjustments and nightmarish stories of bad purity and convergence problems, more new terms for consumers. And having to watch less then bright images in dimly lit rooms, scared many potential buyers away. There was a wait and see attitude. "I'll wait for lower prices" or "more color shows". RCA spent millions on developement of color and millions more trying to sell the sets. The public wasn't buying. Less lag time, but several years in, HD is just now starting to catch on. There is still much confusion over types of sets. HD ready, HD monitor, HD built in, set top box, HD coverter. Not to mention plasma, lcd, dlp ect. Then there's The network HD broadcast standard, at least 3 of those. Plus the scare tactic of an analog cutoff date. You weren't told in 1954 that you better buy a color set, because all b&w broadcasts would cease after a certain date. Compatible color. But that's another term people didn't understand that scared off early color buyers.

-Steve D.

[Steve Hoffman]

Also, the brains at RCA didn't realize that in order for people to want to buy a color TV, there must be a programming reason as well as other reasons. In other words, when they wisely started showing BONANZA in color, the show was so popular that people wanted to watch it in color. When RCA and Disney decided to do the "Walt Disney Presents" show in color in 1961 they changed the name to "The Wonderful World Of Color" and rubbed it in with every episode and commercial that black & white wasn't cutting it anymore. THAT is when color TV sales started really talking off if you look at the graphs.

Too bad RCA didn't think of that about 5 years earlier.

[Steve D.]

Originally Posted by Steve Hoffman

Also, the brains at RCA didn't realize that in order for people to want to buy a color TV, there must be a programming reason as well as other reasons. In other words, when they wisely started showing BONANZA in color, the show was so popular that people wanted to watch it in color. When RCA and Disney decided to do the "Walt Disney Presents" show in color in 1961 they changed the name to "The Wonderful World Of Color" and rubbed it in with every episode and commercial that black & white wasn't cutting it anymore. THAT is when color TV sales started really talking off if you look at the graphs.

Too bad RCA didn't think of that about 5 years earlier.

Steve,

I agree. Bonanza and Disney were a turning point for color. And the NBC Peacock at the start of each show didn't hurt a bit. Although it wouldn't be until 1967 that color sets outsold b&w.

-Steve D.

[Steve Hoffman]

Steve,

That's about the time I was saving my allowance money to get one of those silly GE PortaColor sets. I wanted color TV, dammit! We didn't get a color set until November 6, 1968; a Zenith with Space Command. The first thing we watched on it was Mannix.

That date sure stuck in my mind; it was an important one in my young life I guess..... (Ya think?)

[Celt]

Our first color set was a used Admiral that Dad purchased around 1965. I think the Admiral was manufactured in the late 50's. Luckily, it had a pretty good picture and was fairly reliable. However, it was a huge black metal box with fugly gold-painted wooden legs.

Another factor was the service problem. Many of the servicemen did not know how to service a color set. RCA conducted service seminars through their distributors in an effort to correct that deficiency, but those who attended still had to purchase a lot of expensive test equipment if they were serious about it. For the small percentage of color sets, it was hardly worth the investment. There were many small shops who were still paying off loans on their monochrome test equipment. Of course all of that changed suddenly around 1964. Then you had to make the investment to stay in business.

[old_tv_nut]

Let's not forget that tube gear (cameras and receivers) was a lot less stable than transistorized sets, and the variations from set to set and program to program were pretty huge. The question repeatedly asked was "when do you think they'll perfect color TV?" When I was a kid, I just ignored it, but when I became an engineer, I always answered "I hope they never do - that's my job!"

But really, some of the things done to get brighter pictures (new phosphors) and brighter-looking pictures (9300K bluish "white" ) made it even harder to get consistent flesh tones, and I remember often seeing blond hair that would look unaturally greenish, for example.

[Celt]

Originally Posted by old_tv_nut

I remember often seeing blond hair that would look unaturally greenish, for example.

And here I thought that was a bad rinse job!

[old_tv_nut]

Actually, there was another reason for green hair - The optics in the TK-41 were sensitive to polarization, and when backlight is used, the reflection off hair is polarized (at least to some extent). This polarized light went preferentially to the green pickup tube. Later camera optics reduced or eliminated the problem.