9th November 2009 / 4 Comments
Woman's Own /
20th June 1969
“You wear ’em. Then you chuck ’em away.” Hmm. I had heard that disposable knickers were available in the ’60s, and the reference that this ad makes to ‘some chuckaway panties’ hints that this was quite a fashionable thing back then, if not totally reliable. The 80% rayon that these are made of may well have prevented the pants from disintegrating, but I’d put money on them causing a fair amount of sweating ‘down there’ by the end of the day, even in the middle of winter. Lovely.
Putting aside the ecological disaster that are Chukka panties, the rash claim that one size fits everyone up to 38″ hips seems unlikely when you see how tight they are on the (skinny) model. They don’t even look like they’d cover her arse when she sat down. The Advertising Archives shows that Chukkas stuck (literally, probably) around until the early 1970s at least, although they look a lot bigger in the ads on that site than they do here (apologies, by the way, for the very poor quality of the source material). A response to customer feedback, perhaps?
Tags: bad ideas, fashion, retail, social history
20th October 2009 / 7 Comments
Woman's Own /
20th March 1970
Wow. Now here’s a sign of the times. The reason that I have these magazines is because of the old custom of dressmaking, actually, as a couple on my local Freecycle moved into a house which was previously occupied by an old woman who used to enjoy making clothes. She left a large collection of women’s mags from the ’60s, as they were known for their dressmaking patterns, and they were eagerly picked up by me on Freecycle. Thus, Gypsy Creams was born!
Of course, due to modern technology and cheap overseas labour, it’s now a lot less cost-effective to make your own clothes, although possibly not as ethically or ecologically sound. Perhaps, given these concerns, dressmaking will make a comeback, although there is also the problem that most modern women (or, indeed, men), may have trouble finding the time!
Tags: fashion, social history
3rd October 2009 / 5 Comments
Woman /
9th December 1967
Ah, corsetry. Ever since women struggled out of whalebones, the fashion industry has been yelling at us to get back in them, albeit in different forms, whether it be the Bridget Joneseque control pants, or frantically doing toning exercises, as if being a bit cuddly was some sort of crime. Yes, I AM overweight and oversensitive, thank you for asking. My mother used a pantee girdle for years; I can assure you it made very little difference to her figure, and imagine my pre-pubesent horror when she informed me that it would soon be my turn to struggle into the elastic. Obviously, I didn’t follow in her footsteps (for reasons of fashion as well as principle), but looking at the large number of girdle ads in my collection, the elephant in the room looms larger and larger (if you’ll pardon the pun); where does the displaced fat GO?
Tags: blatant sexism, Carol Cleveland, fashion, retail, social history
20th September 2009 / 6 Comments
Woman's Own /
20th June 1969
Crikey. Sexual innuendo, all for 17 shillings* (85 new pence) a roll. Bargain! And, judging by the pattern of the wallpaper, you get eye damage for free. Can’t say fairer than that.
* Incidentally, if you’re interested, this magazine quotes an average income of £20 a week for a woman, with the pound being made up of 20 shillings, or 240 pence, meaning each wallpaper roll costs about 4% of the weekly female wage.
Tags: blatant sexism, Crown, fashion, household, retail, social history