Esquire September 1939 - more men's clothing images

[Anthony Jordan]

Lots of "back to college styles" in this edition:

 

[LabelKing]

What's always struck me are the sometimes quite eccentric titles that vintage publications would use for spreads.

 

[c3cubed]

Lots of "back to college styles" in this edition:

The best artwork of the period [I think one of the more iconic illustratiors was "L Fellows" ?] - I wish some of the better magazines would return to the "look" of these issues... the maturity is missed.

Labelking's remarks are true for the new generation - the titles are amusing today, given the change of vernacular and innuendo.

Which is sad - this sort of thing seems to reinforce the perception of "simpler times" in vintage ads. Whether actually true or not - I like the innocence.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by c3cubed

The best artwork of the period [I think one of the more iconic illustratiors was "L Fellows" ?] - I wish some of the better magazines would return to the "look" of these issues... the maturity is missed.

Labelking's remarks are true for the new generation - the titles are amusing today, given the change of vernacular and innuendo.[/b]

Which is sad - this sort of thing seems to reinforce the perception of "simpler times" in vintage ads. Whether actually true or not - I like the innocence.

Truly amusing is that marketing in those days was quite insidious and sometimes rather sexual which belies the common notion that people had primitive or simplistic ads back then.

I think a lot of the creative marketing was actually dominated by homosexuals so you had a lot of interesting innuendo--visual or otherwise.

 

[c3cubed]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Truly amusing is that marketing in those days was quite insidious and sometimes rather sexual which belies the common notion that people had primitive or simplistic ads back then.

I think a lot of the creative marketing was actually dominated by homosexuals so you had a lot of interesting innuendo--visual or otherwise.


I see your point from today's perspective. On the other hand, the censors were much more restrictive so if such a thing were true [and I'll give your remark consideration in this] then it would have to be speaking in some sort of "underground code". If it were so obvious to the general public, given the times regular consumers were more "naive" - such ads would have been banned more frequently if the innuendo "spoke" in the same light to everyone. One has to remember too, that in those days - a large percentage of the population went to church every Sunday.

If on the other hand, the innuendo of the times was was generally accepted, well then, one would then have to say it was a very tolerant time and less obsessed with the scandal such effects would create - unlike today in which the mass media swarm strangely seems completely obsessed with the discussion of innuendo - to the point that it has trickled down even to pre-schoolers.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by c3cubed

I see your point from today's perspective. On the other hand, the censors were much more restrictive so if such a thing were true [and I'll give your remark consideration in this] then it would have to be speaking in some sort of "underground code". If it were so obvious to the general public, given the times regular consumers were more "naive" - such ads would have been banned more frequently if the innuendo "spoke" in the same light to everyone. One has to remember too, that in those days - a large percentage of the population in those days went to church every Sunday.

If on the other hand, the innuendo of the times was was generally accepted, well then, one would then have to say it was a very tolerant time and less obsessed with the scandal such effects would create - unlike today in which the mass media swarm strangely seems completely obsessed with the discussion of innuendo - to the point that it has trickled down even to pre-schoolers.

Yes, that was my point--a lot of that old advertising was quite subversive though of course an average consumer would never have "gotten it." I do tend to believe that those people who created those ads had a perverse joy in incorporating certain unconventional elements into mainstream society.

One example--not of advertising--that I can think of was Paul Lynde. His wit was kinky and quite overtly--to our society--sexual, if not homoerotic and certainly rather camp.

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Originally Posted by Anthony Jordan

I know I *** loudly.

 

[RJman]

Originally Posted by SoCal2NYC

I know I *** loudly.
Don' go there girlfren'!!!

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by RJman

Don' go there girlfren'!!!

Oh no you didn'!

 

[c3cubed]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Yes, that was my point--a lot of that old advertising was quite subversive though of course an average consumer would never have "gotten it." I do tend to believe that those people who created those ads had a perverse joy in incorporating certain unconventional elements into mainstream society.

One example--not of advertising--that I can think of was Paul Lynde. His wit was kinky and quite overtly--to our society--sexual, if not homoerotic and certainly rather camp.

Yes, and I think the other fellow comparable was Charles Nelson Reilly on "Match Game" - and yet if one chose to think squarely, only thought of them as being eccentric and with an animated camp. Certainly the types that would have been amusing at a dinner party. But when younger - I would never have interpreted anything homosexual about either of those folks. Perhaps just a little weird but kooky.

Which goes to show anyone could choose to read innuendo into absolutely anything or any person these days, products, sounds, smells, all the tactile senses. Even the most banal items, and even if it is not actually intended.

 

[LabelKing]

Also Rip Taylor.

 

[c3cubed]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Also Rip Taylor.

There it is - things come in threes.

And I only thought he was just a really strange and over the top "clown".

 

[RJman]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Oh no you didn'!
no ur doin it wrong.

"Oh no you di-in't!"

 

[YoungAmerican]

Uhmmmm... if you think people didn't get that Paul Lynde and Rip Taylor were camp... wow. They got it, trust me. That was the joke.

 

[c3cubed]

Originally Posted by YoungAmerican

Uhmmmm... if you think people didn't get that Paul Lynde and Rip Taylor were camp... wow. They got it, trust me. That was the joke.

I don't believe the posts are debating that, unless they had a curious Victorian affiliation with Robert Baden Powell in their youth.