Ad Campaign – Fiancées Shoes, 1960

Inspiration…the golden touch of Fiancées!

Inspiration…Andy Warhol!

The golden shoe in the ad sure looks like a Warhol work to me, but nowhere on the page of the Fiancées ad could I find his name or signature.   It could actually be his work, but I’ve not been able to find this particular shoe, nor have I located information about Warhol ever having worked for Clark Shoes (the owner of the Fiancées brand).  Still it is possible, as Warhol was still working as an illustrator in 1960, and still very much into illustrating shoes.  But by 1960 he was really making a name for himself, and it is puzzling as to why a company using his work would not display the fact that this up-and-coming artist had illustrated their ad.

While working as an illustrator in the 1950s, Warhol began experimenting with gold decorated shoe drawings.  In 1957 he had a showing of them at a NYC gallery and was surprised that they sold well at $50 to $225 each.  Today they bring about $40,000 each.

Warhol’s art continues to inspire.  From the fall/winter 2012 Dior collection:

Photo copyright:  Giani Pucci, InDigitalteam, GoRunway.com

Photo copyright:  Giani Pucci, InDigitalteam, GoRunway.com

Photo copyright:  Giani Pucci, InDigitalteam, GoRunway.com

Photo copyright: Monica Feudi, Feudiguaineri.com

Ad Campaign – Crescendo Gloves, 1956

Crescendoe gloves give your hands a slim and lovely look…Leather-tailored of wonder fabric that wears longer and washes better.

I’m really not very nostalgic when it comes to fashion accessories of the past.  I had enough of garter belts and stockings and little hats as a pre-teen to do me for a lifetime.  But one thing I really wish I’d gotten in on was the wearing of dress gloves.  I can remember wearing them as a very young child, but by the time I was 8 or so, the wearing of them had passed from being de rigueur to being just one more thing we didn’t want to fool with.

I look at the hands of many women in their 70s and older, and realize their hands look younger than mine.  It has to be that they got much less sun exposure as teens and as young women.   Those $4 gloves turned out to be a very good investment in skin care, and did a lot more good than do today’s $25 hand creams.

Happy first day of spring to you all!

Ad Campaign – Johnson’s Baby Oil, 1972

When you have the face of a girl and the body of a woman you still want the skin of a baby.

A few days ago I wrote about how teens in the early 1970s were really into little girl prints and ruffles and such, and here is an ad that plays directly to that trend. It is from 1972, and I found it in a copy of Seventeen, which was the major teen fashion magazine of that time.  Ditsy print, ruffled cap sleeves, and curled pigtails:  that was high school in the early 70s.  (But not the exposed midriff, not at school anyway!)

Ad Campaign – Majestic, 1968

We have to file this ad from 1968 under “Overly Optimistic.”  To think they could market the same outfit to a woman in her twenties and to her grandmother in her sixties was just out of touch.  To paraphrase the old fairy tale, for one it was too old, for one it was too young, but for Mom in the middle it was just right.

One of the current magazines (Southern Living, I think) does a feature where they dress a young woman and her mother in the same clothing, but then they accessorize the two very differently.   The addition of a headband (dumb choice) and a chain was just not enough to distinguish the looks in this ad.

This ad was in Glamour, which is geared toward younger women.  I can’t imagine anyone in that demographic would want to dress in Grandma’s clothes.  But if the situation were reversed – if it were in a magazine for older women –  would the ad be any more effective?  It’s something to think about.

Majestic was a lower mid-priced line of sports separates, so notice the prices.  Adjusted for inflation, the pants and vest were $104.16 each, and the blouse was $78.12.  It helps explain why people in the recent past had more space in their closets than we do today.

Ad Campaign – Grace Line, 1950

After it became obvious that airplane travel was here to stay, and that a trip to Europe could be completed in 10 hours instead of five days, the cruise line companies began to shift gears from providing transportation to providing vacations.  A ship voyage was already a pleasurable experience for those with the money to buy first class tickets, and so that level of luxury was easily converted to the idea of the ship as a hotel that visited different ports.

The idea really caught on after WWII, when the cruise lines got their ships back after their wartime service.  Cruises to Hawaii and South America became big business.  These pleasure cruises would last up to a month, in contrast to the common three and four day cruises of today.

I’m sure you have all read how the 3100 passengers on the Carnival Triumph got an unwanted four day extension of their four day Mexican cruise.  This was big news in the US, and completely overshadowed what was an even worse incident on a cruise in the Canary Islands when five crew members of the Thomson Majesty were killed during a routine lifeboat drill.

I’m not qualified to comment on the safety regulations and procedures of cruise ships, but for an industry that has people talking about the accident of the Costa Concordia over a year later, it seems to me that they have some ‘splaining to do.

Does anyone beside me remember that series on The Mickey Mouse Club where Annette took a trip to Hawaii?  She went on a cruise ship and I thought it was the most fun thing ever.

Several years ago a friend and I took a cruise through the Aegean as part of an educational tour of Greece.  As such, we were on a small ship which held about 600 people, and I thought *that* was big.  I can’t imagine being on one of those floating towns of up to 5000 people that pass for cruise ships today.  Especially now.

Ad Campaign – Riegel Fabric, 1949

Riegel’s Fine-carded Gabardine is a ’round the year fabric for smartly styled garments that must look well, wear well… and cost less!  It has the rich “feel” that identifies quality everywhere… in a range of colors and weights for heavy outerwear or summer playclothes.

Whatever is wrong with actually dressing to fit the weather?  Can you imagine the young woman above in stiletto booties with no socks or tights, and a shaggy white fur jacket?  Or how about white wide legged pants that drag the ground, gathering snow and getting soaked through?  And my personal favorite, white print skinny jeans with four inches of bare leg between them and  white wedge shoes.  Yet in the aftermath of a snowstorm in New York City, these outfits were a common sight.

I know that there are people who spend weeks planning their ensembles for NY Fashion Week, and far be it from me to say they don’t have the right to look as foolish as they wish.  But there is a lot to be said for being a bit flexible when it comes to dressing for the weather.  Is it not possible for one to be both comfortable and fashionable?

I know that I’m missing the point here.  The purpose of dressing up for Fashion Week is so that one will be photographed.  Suzy Menkes calls it the Circus of Fashion.  The saddest part is that she is right:

Having lived through the era of punk and those underground clubs in London’s East End, where the individuality and imagination of the outfits were fascinating, I can’t help feeling how different things were when cool kids loved to dress up for one another — or maybe just for themselves.

 

Ad Campaign: Ski-O-Twill, 1937

Salute to “Lastex” for Ski-O-Twill special ski fabric that stretches… for fit, comfort and freedom

A chorus of ohs and ahs greeted this charming ski costume at the designer’s fashion shows, held while you were romping in the surf.  Where well-dressed skiers congregate this winter this suit will be seen – the last word in the prettification of the ski.  And you might as well be seen in it.

A lot has been written about how the invention of Lastex revolutionized the knit swimsuit, but here it is in a ski suit.  At the time most ski wear was being made from thick wool melton so this must have seemed to be a huge improvement.  But I’m not so sure that it caught on.  I’ve seen quite a few ski sets from the 1930s, 40s and 50s, and none had any degree of stretchiness.  I’d be interested in more information about Ski-O-Twill.