I’ve broken the link because it didn’t adhere to the two click rule.
A man in his forties in the mid-1960s probably served in WWII or Korea, or both, and saw things most people cannot even imagine. That will age you.
You mean men who served in the military and were on active duty in countries that were involved in these two wars. It is a big planet.
Not where I live.
That’s actually funny.
I’ve been thinking about this, and to a great deal, I think it’s the 3 S’s that made people look older back in the day, 2 of which aren’t nearly such a big deal anymore.
Sun, smoking and stress.
Sunscreen wasn’t widely available until I was a boy in the early 1980s, and even then it only went up to 8(?) with 12 coming sometime later on.
People smoked like hell even up into the 70s and 80s, with the only real relief showing up sometime in the 1990s, after the anti-smoking propaganda had time to have taken root.
Those two do a lot for making people look a lot older than they are; combine that with ever-present stress, and you have a recipe for people looking a lot older at the same age than people do nowadays.
This is a yearbook for what was at the time a “State Normal School” or teacher’s college. I’m assuming the students were of the same age as modern college students, but maybe that’s not right. Also with the state of education not as assembly-line then as it is now, there might have been a larger spread of ages among the student population (so it could be that the older-looking student on the left of the page I scanned was indeed in his later 20s). I don’t know how likely it was that someone could be 16 when they graduated, but maybe our handsome Mr. Hollenbachs was very precocious.
If that is indeed him (btw - great find, thank you!), I hope he was an awesome salesman and very happy in his job. Perhaps his service in WWI cast him on a different career path than he had first intended.
Whilst reading this thread I’ve found out I’m the same age as Christian Bale. He’s a heck of a lot healthier* than I am (I have the two usual vices which I try to enjoy as often as possible) but looks a little older under all of his facial hair. I expect his training and lose - gain - lose - gain weight for different movies will age him faster but his healthy regime when not filming will keep him looking younger.
People are definitely slightly larger today so have fuller skin, and don’t spend as much time in sunshine or polluting environments. The skin is the body’s largest organ so it looking better must be good news.
*and richer, more talented, fitter, better looking… I may soon forget we’re the same age 
Anyone wanna take a guess as to this chap’s age, just from a glance. That is, not how old do you think he is, but how old do you think he looks?
Depends- if the photo was taken recently, I’d say he looks like he’s in his 80s. If it was taken in the '60s, I’d say he looks like he’s in his 60s
88?
Say what?
I assume you don’t mean ‘hero’ in the technical sense of ‘the protagonist of a story’.
Now, I haven’t seen All in the Family probably since I was in high school, but I rember Archie Bunker as being an angry, sarcastic racist curmudgeon. Definitely not someone to be emulated.
I’m willing to revise my opinion based on new evidence, though.
It was a joke. Archie was the stereotypical white, blue-collar Republican worker who blamed everything on colours and immigrants.
I’m pretty sure that’s not me. But as far as comedy is concerned, it was damned funny in the 70s.
Mid 70’s?
(dammit. missed the edit window)
People today “look” differently in the face than our older counterparts. Walgreens has a commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC12nr2QRZM now that goes back in time from the 20’s, 40’s, etc. and you can tell just by the actor’s faces that they are modern people and not from that era.
He is 49. This pic was taken in early 1967. His birthday is in December 1967. Believe it or not. If I had just guessed, I would have said mid 70s. BTW, he was my uncle (by marriage).
I have a photo of my grandmother holding me, when I was about a year old. My grandmother’s face is totally wrinkly, and even her wrinkles had their own wrinkles. According to our age difference, she had to be about 65 in that picture, and it makes me think "there’s no way a 65-year-old could possibly look that old.
I’m 67 now, and the woman in that photo could pass for my mother.
And as far as Hollywood celebrities are concerned, the pollutiion in L.A., before environmental laws came about . . . I don’t think they could properly call it “air” back then. That had to have a disastrous impact on appearance (not to mention longevity).
When I read the spoiler, I actually said, “what?!?” out loud. And though I believe you, I still honestly feel there’s no WAY he’s that age! Man, that’s unbelievable.
And I’d love to see more of the old yearbook pages! They’re fascinating (why do two of the girls have “Aryan” and one has “Moor” underneath them?). That Hollanbach guy’s hair is amaaaaaaazing. I can only imagine how insane it would be if he didn’t have tons of hair oil in it!
For women, at least, makeup and hair styles have a lot to do with it. Perms in the 40s and 50s were far tighter and…crispier is the only word I can come up with. Lipstick was usually very dark, especially for contrast in b/w photographs and film. Even for men, the “product” that is sold today for hair is far more natural-looking (aside from gel for spikes) than it was in earlier years.
Of course, as someone who graduated from high school in 1978, I feel that people started looking younger earlier than the 80’s - let’s say by 1975 or so.
Yeah, and they both looked it. Yet the show tried to portray Sam and Darrin as newlyweds fresh out of high school or college. (or, at least, Sam was supposed to look that young.) So they could be argued as looking young for their age.
Also, TV or movies are a horrible way to make this comparison. Looking younger is a trend there, but that doesn’t mean it applies to the general population. Plastic surgery, for example, isn’t available to most people.