Actually, i do think you look like Mitch, mate!
And maybe a bit to that character ?
In response to Cernabbas and Roys comments on cameras and photos - I agree that the cameras were too expensive - no one in our mob owned one and they were too bulky.
It seemed only relatives took your picture (under protest) at weddings, holidays, funerals and other family events.. I don't recall ever being given a copy of the photo or even seeing the originals - probably stashed away for aunties private viewing of how tall you had grown or how ugly you were becoming and hoping that you would grow out of it !!
We never wanted our pictures taken - probably a teenage thing as I have witnessed with my lot over the years
We did not think to have photos taken during our teens and skinhead era as we probably did not think of the future particularly changing and we just living the moment and did not see any relevance of recording it
Like Roy I have a friend from that time who has photos from the day and each time I see her (usually every 5 years at someone's funeral) she always says she will sort them out - still waiting
the photos of Roy and Colin - both have button holes - so wedding pics
Photos are really very important
Nicely put - especially as I got a mention as well !!
I would say that if your shoes were shit hot and you had a great shirt and jacket then you could pull anything off.Crap shoes/boots and jacket,then you'll just look like a scruffy twat.IMO
Clouseau, I will take that as a compliment, as for the character bit, yes I'am a bit of a nutter, though have been called far worse haha!!!........problem with being mad, is you become sensitive to bullshit and can detect it from a mile off...and believe me, there is one serious bullshitter on here!!!!
con man...I just put 1960s cameras into images and I can see what you have done,you have trawled through them all and stuck up pictures of the 4 smallest ones !
I clicked on the top one and its on some American dream site its a Kodak and I doubt they were even available over here.
I reckon the average camera size then was almost the size of an egg box ( half dozen ),but they had the lens permanently stuck out the front...they were delicate,thats why they mostly came in a leather case,to protect them !......They would not have fitted in your pocket and they were expensive !
A few on here have got back to you on this and said the same things.....size,price,expensive development of films etc etc,but you have just picked out size !
I don't get what you are trying to prove....that all the older blokes on here who cant show a picture of what ever they said they wore are bullshitters ?...do you or anyone else you know take pictures of all your clothes ?
Think back to the first mobile phone you saw ( mine was about the size of a brick,maybe slightly smaller ) now think how much smaller they were 10 years later ( and how much cheaper ).
I first saw colour tv in 1970,England playing in the world cup in Mexico ( crap picture it was too ) I think those colour tv sets were hundreds of pounds THEN ! compare that price to a tv now,and the modern ones are a lot smaller too !
You are wrong on this,like I said before there were thousands of skinheads about then and there are not thousands of pictures of them.
Re suede cleaner ' Punch ' ring any bells with anyone?
Cameras, the one my family had was a Kodak instamatic, very basic and not very big, i think if anything they gradually got
bigger as more features were added over time, built in flash, batterys etc, quality wise the pics would vary, but black and white
seemed to get the best results.
This was the model my parents had for years
Have to agree with whats been said regarding the taking of pics, it never really occured to me to take a pic in a boozer etc whilst out, in fact dont think i owned a camera till i was at least 21/22.
Re, what you can remember/memorys, weird one that is, it's gonna vary from person to person, being born in 67, i cant remember anything pre 70,
which is when we moved house, i have memorys from that, but its very fuzzy and not clear in my head if that makes sense.
Ive been going thru more family pics of late, a lot of the early ones of me just dont register, although theres the odd thing in them that i might remember, things like wallpaper etc, weird!
Take this pic of me,Mum and me brother, no memory of it what so ever, but i do remember the pram, probably because it hung around for years
before getting chopped for a kart, this pic is from september 69
No hand grenades, just my thought.
Nice to see you posting Conrad, are you still sporting the ginger tache? brown booze, pint please
I didnt say all were bullshitters, I said one.
I think the honest answer would be, that most Skinheads, would only have been a young lad or girl, that was into it, for no more than 6 months to 2 years and couldnt be arsed to get their picture taken. It is the same with the two tone generation of 79/81, there were thousands of them, but you see very few photos, because it only lasted a maximum of 2 years. It was over before it started.
I have all due respect for the early Skinheads, my initial question was, if you had all this finery (Clothes} why no photos?
It was then stated that cameras were to big and yes this might be the case, but that doesnt account for the photos that are out there.
I never said that people should have carried them around and gone to night clubs with them, others said they didnt do that and I understand that.
But if someone says that they had all this top notch gear and you had to be one step ahead of the game, yet were only 15 in 1972 making them just 12 in 1969 and more of a Mod than a Skinhead, how can he be ahead of the game when he was a Mod and 12, (and Mod had its heyday in 64, making him 9 years old then), surly if he's a Mod in 69, he is well behind the game and as a 12 year old who had all this fine, top notch clothing, maybe mummy and daddy bought it for him, but by the time he would have left school and been able to afford to buy his own, it would have been 73.
So the question was, where is the photographic his evidence of all this finery, could he not have got his parents to take one, in all his spendiferous glory, that he is so proud of and so proud of telling everyone on here.....I smell bullshit!!! .....even if no one else does
Ay Up Mike, no I never grew it, got on my tits after a bit,
with the lads I knocked about with, one did carry a camera and took loads of pictures, but he passed away and god knows where the photos are,
someone got hold of a 3 or 4 and they are on my facebook, though are not good quality, me and my missus took one or two of us and quite a few in photo booths
that is a good photo of your family and proof that picture quality was good
my dad had a kodak instamatic at around the same time and I have got photo of me in 67,68, one of me and my cousin in Rhyl in 1970 and one of me wearing an American Astronauts toy helmet that was my brothers a couple of years earlier (sign of the times) which was taken in 1973 all taken with the same camera and all good quality.
I don't know how expensive cameras were back then, but the old man worked for the GPO and my mum worked on a pottery factory so they wouldn't have had a lot of money