April 12, 2007: Bathing girl revue 1922

[Undertoad]

What an awesome idea: Shorpy is a blog that features photos that are about 100 years old.
This particular entry is not quite 100, but it's fun nonetheless: swimsuit models of 1922.

Amongst other things, notice how only about 1 in 10 is smiling, and notice how footwear,
headgear, and umbrellas are part of the mandatory costume. But are they sexy? Not a
chance, this is a whole 'nother culture.

[Perry Winkle]

Some of them are pretty sexy. Namely in the back row (from right): 2, 4, -8 and front row (from left): 7, 16, 17, 28.

[glatt]

true. 28 in the front row is not bad at all. She's actually smiling.

[Sheldonrs]

"Welcome and thanks for playing "Spot Your Grandma When She Was A Slut".

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by grant

Some of them are pretty sexy. Namely in the back row ... 8 ...

She had big cans before big cans were cool.

She's also smiling, not wearing headgear, and has her head tilted a little... downright modern of her! She knew what sexy was before anybody else!

The whole thing makes me think: there was a time when smiling for a photograph was not the convention.

Just like putting your hand out with a fake gang sign. There was a time when that was not the convention.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

She had big cans before big cans were cool.

She's also smiling, not wearing headgear, and has her head tilted a little... downright modern of her! She knew what sexy was before anybody else!

The whole thing makes me think: there was a time when smiling for a photograph was not the convention.

Just like putting your hand out with a fake gang sign. There was a time when that was not the convention.

I think part of the reason smiling was rare in photos back then was because taking a picture took a little longer than today's point and click. You had to hold the pose for a little while and it's easier to not smile.

And while you straight men are sitting there admiring the attributes of these ladies, remember this was taken before ladies felt they had to shave. Beneath those bathing suits, it's a jungle down there. lol!!!

[SteveDallas]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

She had big cans before big cans were cool.

Wait, there was a time when big cans weren't cool? When was this?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The whole thing makes me think: there was a time when smiling for a photograph was not the convention.

Absolutely--my paternal grandfather, who died in 1950, was remembered by many in the family as very funny and jovial. But you wouldn't know it to look at his photos; he's scowling like mad.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by grant

Some of them are pretty sexy. Namely in the back row (from right): 2, 4, -8 and front row (from left): 7, 16, 17, 28.

Are you sure you don't mean 8th from the left, the one dressed like little red riding hood? I agree about number 8 in the back. If you cropped her out of the rest of the image and just looked at her picture, you couldn't date it. Some styles really are timeless.

What is with all of the ropes or chains on the woman at the bottom left with the dog? That's an outfit you might see today - at a bondage convention.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Are you sure you don't mean 8th from the left, the one dressed like little red riding hood?

By -8 from the right, I meant 8th from the left. I just didn't want to change sides mid-row. It's kind of a pythonism I guess.

[SteveDallas]

Dammit Sheldon, how did you know that was Grandma Dallas??? (4th from the left, front row)

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by SteveDallas

Dammit Sheldon, how did you know that was Grandma Dallas??? (4th from the left, front row)

Pretty easy to figure out. 1. She's wearing the suit you use for your MySpace pic. 2. She's a slut.

hehehehe

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

Pretty easy to figure out. 1. She's wearing the suit you use for your MySpace pic. 2. She's a slut.

hehehehe

I thought it might be her Cellar tattoo.

I didn't know they had a "panorama" setting on the cameras of that era.

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I didn't know they had a "panorama" setting on the cameras of that era.

Good lord, I'm glad you mentioned that--I missed half the pic!

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I thought it might be her Cellar tattoo.

I didn't know they had a "panorama" setting on the cameras of that era.

I've seen another old picture of a big group like that. I was told that they actually had to pan the camera (maybe that's where the name comes from: pan-o-rama), and in this picture the man who was at the left end of the group initially ran behind everyone and was at the right end when the camera got there, so he appears at both ends of the photo. (Either that or he had a twin brother wearing the same clothes and my father was kidding me.)

Opinions?

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

I've seen another old picture of a big group like that. I was told that they actually had to pan the camera (maybe that's where the name comes from: pan-o-rama), and in this picture the man who was at the left end of the group initially ran behind everyone and was at the right end when the camera got there, so he appears at both ends of the photo. (Either that or he had a twin brother wearing the same clothes and my father was kidding me.)

Opinions?

Just how old are you chick?
When I was at school in the '80s it was still common to have school photographs taken in this way. I'm not sure about the exact method used, but it was certainly possible for someone to appear more than once in the photograph.

We had a montage style poster at my school because we had a better art department, but the slightly more staid boys school that some of my friends attended still had the formal rows of faces. The school discouraged running round the back to appear twice with a set penalty of a weeks suspension (which also applied to anyone assisting them). Funnily enough, it had the opposite effect and at least one boy a year attempted it.