Like FeAudrey says, the lower end of that range would be in diapers. But it looks to me like that ad is for “dress up” clothes which even now can be found in size 2.* And 12 is about the largest size “dress up” will go. The ad might not be real, but the size range is realistic
*(and sometimes smaller , although 12 month-sized dress up clothes are ridiculous)
Here’s what Mitch O’Connell has to say, in a personal communication:
He signed his email “The World’s Best Artist.”
It doesn’t look like anything from Better Homes & Gardens. Even back then, it was a somewhat higher-end magazine about decorating & entertaining. I’m sure Betty Draper read it!
The ad has the look of something found in the back pages of the lower tier magazines–next to the wig ads. Is this supposed to be an ad for items featured in Better Homes? Fashion & child-rearing were not that magazine’s specialties.
I guess we’ll just have to find a copy of the magazine ca. 1959 and take a look, won’t we?
Mitch was good enough to send me this link to a large number of vintage underwear ads. Although he didn’t swear to it and didn’t itemize the sources, I think they are all genuine:
I would say they are Pretty Safe For Work as long as your workplace isn’t a super-prudery establishment.
If he really owns the kit, then it should be easy for him to take a video and show us. And then he won’t be in his element if the ad is something he created, and we’ll be able to easily spot if it’s fake.
What kit are you talking about?
I’m guessing that the second link in Exapno Mapcase’s post 17 has the “Child’s Bra & Panty Set” he’s referring to in his reply to Musicat. Not sure how well it matches the ad copy, though.
That was my first guess. But there’s no possible reason that would need a video, so I’m not getting it at all.
Maybe a picture of him holding it in one hand and today’s paper in the other.
Mitch O’Connell sent me this image, which I am reposting on my own site, but it looks like the same one as on his site. I have only his word that it represents a product that he personally owns:
FYI: Be patient, I may have a definitive answer in a few days (The question is, “Is the sample ad one that was originally printed in a 1950’s magazine?”)
My first guess was National Lampoon or Mad Magazine parody ad. Reading the lower posts, though, I guess it’s possible it could be real.
It would have to be a video, because, if he’s faking these ads, then he must be very skilled at making fake pictures, to the point that we can’t see any photoshop errors.
Perhaps the modern hypersexualization of little girls represented by such phenomena as kiddie pageants has made some of us oversensitive.
It doesn’t match the ad copy at all- the ad refers to a bra and panty, while the pictured set has panties , a girdle and nylons. I’m certain sets similar to the ad existed, and the ad itself looks realistic , but I doubt the ad was in Better Homes and Gardens ( because it wasn’t the right magazine for that sort of ad ) and I think the line saying “Better Homes and Gardens” was not part of the original ad. None of the other ads on the website have the magazine’s name at the bottom of the ad, and there really is no reason for it to be there.
Well, anyway, that was all well and good for the '50s. Time marches on. Now we can buy our daughters the Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset.
And Honey Boo Boo has her own show. Time marches on, but little girls will always be sexy. And their mothers will make sure that we know it.
Your last link should be NSFW
You’re right. I’ve reported it so a mod can break the link.
'Tis done!