6/12/11

Catalogs #10: 1979 Victoria's Secret Catalog


I hate the way models look in catalogs and magazines today.  They are so Photoshopped, they literally do not look like living breathing human beings. A real person has some kind of imperfection or blemish, be it razor burn, a zit, or a wrinkle - something! Their skin looks like it's made of polypropylene, and don't look directly at their gleaming bright teeth, it may cause retinal damage.

Take me back to the days when, if you wanted to touch up a picture, you had to use an actual airbrush.  The 1970s airbrushing looked good on the side of a van, but like shit when applied to a photograph.  So, it was used sparingly - most of the time it was au naturel.

So, let's have a look at the entire 1979 Victoria's Secret catalog, back when skin looked like skin, not a high performance grade polyvinyl chloride.

Click on the images to enlarge.  They're a bit grainy, but such was the cheap paper this catalog is printed on.






















29 comments:

  1. I miss the days when women had nipples. How's a young boy supposed to learn anything these days if they can't sneak a peak at the VS catalog?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow, so different from the Victoria's Secret catalogs of today. I'm totally digging the Victorian backdrops used in the photo shoot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJune 13, 2011

    That dog looks pretty tuckered out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I'm sure he/she is either anesthetized or dead. Look at the picture where the dogs legs are taped. Disgusting, I will never buy anything from Victory Secrets again.

      Delete
    2. That's the dog's tail. It's white hair on the end of his tail. Click on the photo, then blow it up.

      Delete
    3. Not sure if you're joking or not... But that's not tape but the dog's tail, and his eyes are open in that picture. Doesn't look dead to me...

      Delete
    4. Like you ever did buy anything from Victoria's Secret. Numpty!

      Delete
  4. They did have style in those days.
    I miss the days when Victoria and Fredrick could be told apart.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow! Where did you find this? I recall fondly the days when VS had gorgeous Jill Goodacre as its featured model. Those catalogs were highly sought after by all of my male friends back in my college days. Now it's all of that "PINK" garbage; highly highly sexualized, yet not in the least little bit sexy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for sharing. I miss the days when VS could only be ordered by catalog and only sold exquisite lingerie. Now they sell a lot of crap mostly made for teens.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ha, all of this is SO true! I can remember when VS and Fredriks came mailed to you in a manilla envelope, so that your privacy was assured. And the catalogs were drawings, printed in black and white. You READ what colors were available. And the prices were ridiculously low. Just try starting a fetish with THAT when you are 22 and wish to GOD your wife would wear this stuff. It was the foundation for a wonderful, difficult, and ongoing 30+ years of cross dressing for me. And whatever happened to the romantic, loose-fitting silk or fine satin teddy's, camisoles, tap-pants, and chemises? All replaced with tight fitting, modern plastic shit.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My mom used to get the catalog in the '80's and I have been trying to figure out the name of one of the models - a blonde girl with freckles - and all I come up with is Jill Goodacre. I used to love how romantically sexy they were. Now they all look like Cosmo crap.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Those were the days...not a nigger in sight.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1) Please start a FaceBook page...

    2) I wish BlogSpot had a search capability, because I'm wondering if you have either Night & Day Intimates or Mellow Mail images? I still have a few of the latter catalogs from the early-mid eighties in a box somewhere in this house, but I think all the N&D were tossed long ago. Both were exceptional in that no airbrushing was employed...but I also remember a time when Fredericks did not airbrush, either.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow nice pictures! Beautiful and erotic. not like today, full of porn and sex

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Porn and sex? Victoria's Secret? Have you seen one of their catalogs in the past decade? Not a nipple in sight, not like they used to show. Not sure how that constitutes porn.

      Delete
  12. These pics just emphasize what a trashy trainwreck Vicky's has become. They used to stand for sensual but with some class ---- I went into one of the "high end" stores around Christmas and then Valentine's Day - there were TWO items in satin - then about a zillion thongs (yawn) and cutesy bras - the rest were T shirts and flannel. End of an era.....

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am amazed at the prices! This used to be high-class stuff, apparently. Now it's pretty trashy but at least they've adjusted their prices a bit to match this. Seriously though, a $49 bra or a $250 slip in 1979? That's big money!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Their earliest catalogs had much more of a sense of fun and did not take themselves so seriously. This catalog shows women can still be femine. Then later, catalogs are all about Power Tripping with lingerie, control through sexual power, what nonsense - not enticing, not alluring - just obnoxious! The women don't see this, but many, if not most men would, given the chance.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousMay 01, 2012

    No tatoo's

    ReplyDelete
  16. AnonymousMay 01, 2012

    Theres a dog in the photos? I better go back and look again..

    ReplyDelete
  17. I love that you can even see a real live bruise on the models leg in one of the pictures! Real women, whaddya know?!?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Babes of the highest order, everyone of them is a trophy. They didn't hold back in the revealing lingerie department either. Goddamn. I could see why school boys would covert these little treasure troves.

    ReplyDelete
  19. look at the 11th picture from the top. Is that Jennie Garth in pijamas, the girl on the floor?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Neah, I lookd her up and she was born in 1972, so would have been only 7 at the time. Maybe it was her mother. The resemblance is very good.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I agree with you we need more real beauty.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I remember early days...real girls, not models were being used for catalogs. Had a few stores around Columbus, OH and they would use some of the girls for photos. Real pretty girls supplemented by Jill Goodacre, all with dark nips and a patch. Why oh why won't they go back to a simple/cheaper production like that?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Now these are women!!!

    ReplyDelete