Wade,
Here is a photo of the wagons that Ringling elected to save a take to Sarasota. In light of the mass destruction of anything that was circus in Peru from 1939 to 1941, its just a stroke of luck that these few wagons survived. As you can see by the photo date, these wagons all remained in Peru for a few more years before finally going south in 1944. Sorry the Two Jesters isn't in this photo.
Bob
Posts
2 comments:
The North brothers, in consultation with designer Norman Bel Geddes, intentionally earmarked several vintage circus wagons for use on the circus, initially the ex-Sells-Floto steam calliope and the Ringling bell wagon. This effort was then expanded to include several bandwagons, tableaus and cages, which were also put to use in the mid-1940s [though some were not, such as the ex-Sells Floto bandwagon with the elephant on the side in this photo].
The mass destruction of assets at Peru was largely the result of a deal cut by John North to settle the federal tax obligations of his Uncle John's estate. Those negotiations endured from 1936 to 1949. In lieu of paying taxes, the government agreed to the destruction of "assets" as an offset to the obligations. [Seems to equate taxes with destruction!] North utilized the wagons as "valued assets," likely accelerating their value as high as possible. As a result, other than previously-identified vehicles, not one stick was saved from destruction at Peru, despite the fan protests, lest the feds step back and say the estate obligations were not fulfilled.
The Peru quarters were being cleared for sale, and in the early 1940s, with the war nearly upon the US, who was there to preserve old circus vehicles? There was the calliope in Dearborn; some panels had been salvaged from the Peru quarters by Jess Adkins for the Miami County Museum; Hertzberg died in 1940 [the museum in his name opened in 1942]; and the Ringling Museum circus exhibit [1949] and CWM [1959] were not yet conceived. Prospects for preservation were very limited.
Anonymous,
Thank you for the inform. The "destruction of "assets" as an offset to the obligations" is about the most cockeyed thing I have ever heard of.(Next to dumping milk, or letting crop's stay in to ruin, to keep price's up) Is that a normal procedure of all situation's like this, or was this an exception made for John Ringling.
Wade
Post a Comment