1947: The Three Faces of Steve
As a teenager, I became a student of early photography. I enjoyed watching documetaries anbout it, and sitting at the library going through photo books. There was a lot of early “trick photography” made possible by the extended exposure times. You could create “ghosts” by moving the person every few seconds or so. Occassionally, a mistake would happen in the modern photolab and you would get pictures run together. It doesn’t happen now with digital, but sometimes with 110 or even 35 mm film, you got someone who was asleep at the switch or you just didn’t advance the film far enough and got an overlap.
Why am I even talking about this? There is a very disturbing 1947 suit advertisement I came across and I am just trying to figure out the purpose/inspiration behind it. It reminds me of a particularly creepy multiple exposure.
I don’t know what it is that creeps me out the most. Maybe it is not really the three headed multi exposure but the haughty glare this young man has on his face. He seems to say, “How dare you disturb me, a pox on you!” Maybe he is a vampire. Shame on me for “judging” someone who I don’t know, and may have never existed in the first place.
I understand that the advertiser is attempting to illustrate that the satin rayon lining comes in three wonderful colors - navy, black, and brown (woohoo!), but even to the trade, I could imagine that they would have inadvertantly scared people away from their booth at the trade show.
Maybe I am oversensitive or just have an overactive imagination, but if I was a child in 1947 and got ahold of this, I would have had nightmares for sure (worse than clowns).
1940s, vintage ads | Comment (0)Forever in Blue Non-Jeans
1974 was an interesting year for fashion. Simultaneously, it was the golden age of synthetic fabrics and corduroy pants. All factors collided to make it a fashion moment that you are either utterly repulsed or you wax niostalgic over.
I brought this 1974 Jeep CJ/5 ad out of my collection today. It touted a special trim package of Jeep in Blue Jeans.” For a little while, I mulled over the benefits of a denim interior, and ultimately gave it the thumbs up. It may pose issues when sliding onto your seat in the middle of a rain storm that vinyl would never pose. Namely, your seat would stay wet longer. However, there would be many other benefits. It wouldn’t matter if it faded. You could always patch it too. Maybe I never really “read” the ad until now, but quite clearly it states:
Look what the well dressed Jeep CJ/5 is wearing! New Levi’s styled seats with matching folddown top. Made of riggged easy to care for vinyl fabric in absolute ayuthentic styling-right down to the copper rivets!
Umm..vinyl?
Talk about a “bait and switch”
This was not the only false denin item being sold in 1974. Levi’s and Lee were clearly in cahoots.
Brawny - That’s the word for these Lee doubleknit jeans and matching shirt-jac. The cut hails from the West. In every detail…And comfort comes from the new non-glitter, snag -resistant doubleknit of 100% Dacron polyester.
Dacron isn’t denim! They sure don’t look like “jeans” to me.
It would seem logical that if something was labelled “denim” than it is made of the heavy cotton fabric popularly known as denim. It not, it is “denim look” or just quite simply “indigo vinyl.” If pants are not denim, but rather polyester, then they are slacks, cords, trousers, or pants, as they have nothing in common aside from a zipper.
I hate to be a stickler for details. Maybe it is because of my checkered past at a small high school where we relished our rare “jean days.” Show me a pair of pants that could be worn on a regular day and you won’t get me to call them jeans, no matter what the marketing department said.
I am going to go put on my gray fleece jeans, considered too “revealing” for school and take a jog around the block to try to cool off about this.
Until Next Time,
When Socks Mattered
Socks are something that are sorely neglected today. I don’t mean “today” literally. It is obviously the middle of summer so a lot of you are not wearing socks everyday. I meant, in general. Flashback to 1947, where hosiery ads (a.k.a. sock ads) were evenly sprinkled throughout the March 1947 Fairchild Men’s Wear Magazine (A trade publication to the industry). The argyle numbers, above, were being touted for the outdoors inspiration in their patterns and colors. They were retailing at $2.00 per pair. Sounds pretty reasonable for fine Australian wool, right?
Adjusted for inflation, men expected to pay approximately $21.03 for a pair if you converted into today’s money. A lot of you would say that was quite pricey, when you can make your way over to the mall and buy some for $1.99 on the clearance rack and scoff at how the $9.00 socks are the result of price gouging. The fact of the matter is, socks were just made a heck of a lot better. In fact, people used to repair their socks. When proper ladies and gentleman want to swear, but are not angry enough to forget their matters, they say “Darn It,” to this very day. So it is actually a very positive statement versus merely being a euphemisn for something far less polite.
Even though socks were more cared for back then, apparently they were still a cause for unrest. This ad from Westminster Ltd. was a little puzzling. The slogan was “You’re Asking for a Good Sock…”
The message is simple enough. What is a little puzzling is the whole scene that is playing out in the restaurant.
We have a waiter that is looking either a little peeved that the gentleman left a rotten tip or is a little snooty. The man looks really angry or embarrassed about something. The young lady appears to be looking at you, maybe to motion over to you to intervene, or to sort of apologize for what has just happened? What does this have to do with socks? Maybe I have it all wrong, and the waiter can’t believe the man lights up a cigar in this white table-clothed establishment. However, the man is so uncomfortable because he is wearing socks are too tight, and his toes are poling through the holes, that he can’t help but act on it.
This ad was directed towards the “industry:” clothing stores and boutiques, manufacturers, and others in the trade. Therefore, I am wondering if I am missing the joke or the reference, not being a post-war textile manufacturer, or perhaps this is something that will make perfect sense when I have a eureka moment at 2 A.M.
Sometimes I just think too much…
Until Next Time….
Caviricci Redux
Quite some time ago, I wrote about Z. Cavaricci pants. Let’s take a trip back in time, shall we?
I had a bad flashback today. I read an article that mentioned Z. Cavariccis. For those that want to forget, Z. Cavaricci created a men’s style in pants that in the late 80s to early 90s. Many a young man who I knew wore them. I am asking whoever made themselves in charge of looking at influences from the 80s to overlook this one when designing next season’s clothing.
They were high waisted like tux pants, but the belt loops were a bit lower, at the natural waist. The legs were pleated, and what made them veer way off the track of a classic trouser, was that they featured a deep “v” front yoke. It caused the legs of the pants, because they were pleated but flat acrossed the stomach and groin area, to pleat out even farther. On the tall, gangly, and knobby kneed gent, it was actually flattering because the pleats laid right and it made his legs look more proportional. You noticed the guy’s overall ensemble.
But on everyone else…it was “Here comes pants.”
If you were stocky, or were fit but were more muscular of leg, the pleated legs brought a strange adaptation of puffed out harem pants to mind or made one look bowlegged. Of course, this was overcontrasted by the virtually flat triangular yoke covering the stomach to the top of the groin area, appearing like a virtual “directional arrow” towards something that I am sure the designer could not have realized, or the joke was on the wearer that their whole…um… “area”… was being pointed to. The finishing touch was to buy them long and cuff them.
The rear of the pants had little style, most of the budget had been put into the front.I have no photo to show you. I could not find one anywhere. So you may just have to take my word for it!
Well, flash forward to this week, when an alert reader sent me the following image:
The shirt is hiding just how high the waist band is on the man, trust me. Maybe I remember them worse than they actually were. However, having them on a model doesn’t have quite the same effect.
1980s, 1990s, cavaricci, vintage ads | Comments (7)