Vintage inspo thread - 60's-80's

[Anonymous No.6664277]

I feel like the board could use an image dump today. I'm going to drop Late 60's, mostly 70's and a few early 80's.

I'll be focusing on how the working class and urban poor were styled during these eras, with a few oddities along the way. The devil's in the details.

[Anonymous No.6664281]

[Anonymous No.6664284]

[Anonymous No.6664291]

[Anonymous No.6664288]

[Anonymous No.6664297]

[Anonymous No.6664304]

[Anonymous No.6664301]

>>6664297

[Anonymous No.6664308]

[Anonymous No.6664309]

im monitoring this thread just so u know keep it up

[Anonymous No.6664316]

>>6664309
Cheers, brother.

[Anonymous No.6664313]

[Anonymous No.6664318]

[Anonymous No.6664317]

[Anonymous No.6664320]

[Anonymous No.6664321]

>The devil's in the details.
What does this mean?

[Anonymous No.6664322]

>>6664320

[Anonymous No.6664336]

>>6664321
That although many of these people might seem like common folk in common clothes, there is a lot to be gleaned from the codes, messages and history carried in their outfits. How would these fits look today? What does this say about global trade and culture? How would these fits carry over in the present day?

[Anonymous No.6664337]

>>6664336

[Anonymous No.6664342]

[Anonymous No.6664343]

[Anonymous No.6664346]

>>6664336
What I mean to ask is, How would these same sorts of people be dressed today? How have these common garments evolved over the years? Do we have more choices or less choices?

[Anonymous No.6664350]

[Anonymous No.6664351]

[Anonymous No.6664352]

US Highschool Fashion,1969. Man people were so hip back then

[Anonymous No.6664354]

[Anonymous No.6664356]

>>6664336
>>6664346
That requires a scope of fashion that I don't have.

[Anonymous No.6664359]

>>6664352

The rest if anyone is interested.

http://life.time.com/fashion/life-looks-at-high-school-fashion-circa-1969/#1

[Anonymous No.6664361]

>>6664352

The rest if anyone is interested.

http://life.time.com/fashion/life-looks-at-high-school-fashion-circa-1969/#1

[Anonymous No.6664364]

In large crowds you can scan your eye over large groups of people and pick up what colors and textiles were on the most bodies. Add this to your understanding of the era and its style.

[Anonymous No.6664373]

>>6664361
If you've got anything else to share, please do, I don't have nearly enough to max the limit this time around.

>>6664356
It's easy - just look at a fit and note what it makes you feel. Imagine what kind of character might wear it. Where and when it would be most at home.

[Anonymous No.6664382]

[Anonymous No.6664377]

[Anonymous No.6664383]

>>6664373

I'll see what I have

[Anonymous No.6664386]

[Anonymous No.6664392]

Facial hair and arabcore in the background.

>>6664383
Thanks, brother.

[Anonymous No.6664388]

Bagel Sellers in NYC.

[Anonymous No.6664394]

Bagel sellers in NYC.

[Anonymous No.6664395]

[Anonymous No.6664396]

[Anonymous No.6664398]

[Anonymous No.6664401]

[Anonymous No.6664404]

[Anonymous No.6664402]

[Anonymous No.6664406]

A few reposts to get out of the way.

[Anonymous No.6664410]

60s Paris

[Anonymous No.6664409]

[Anonymous No.6664411]

[Anonymous No.6664414]

[Anonymous No.6664418]

[Anonymous No.6664423]

This is Bowie in the seventies, looking like he stepped out of the 80's. Props for foresight.

[Anonymous No.6664425]

London Underground in the 70's and early 80's.

[Anonymous No.6664427]

[Anonymous No.6664430]

[Anonymous No.6664431]

[Anonymous No.6664437]

Appreciate the thread, OP. Likely more than have posted are also 'mirin

[Anonymous No.6664438]

[Anonymous No.6664435]

[Anonymous No.6664445]

I think this fit is perfect for smoking on the subway.

>>6664437
Thanks for that, man.

[Anonymous No.6664447]

[Anonymous No.6664450]

>>6664342
this could easily be asheville 2013

[Anonymous No.6664454]

Is that a pint?

[Anonymous No.6664457]

>>6664450
Aw Yiss. We're gonna be okay.

[Anonymous No.6664463]

[Anonymous No.6664466]

[Anonymous No.6664471]

>6664469
r/TheWayWeWere is a great place to find pictures of everyday life in the past

>>6664466
mirin dubs

[Anonymous No.6664469]

Punk interests me.

[Anonymous No.6664472]

>>6664469
Should've greentexted that.

[Anonymous No.6664473]

People were so cool back then. I wonder if 50-70 years from now people will look back on our time and reminisce about "2010s Fashion".

[Anonymous No.6664479]

>That pomp

>>6664471
Thanks for the tip!

[Anonymous No.6664480]

>>6664411
>>6664322
>>6664288
>>6664277

[Anonymous No.6664486]

>>6664473
Definitely. They already idolize the 90's teen look, which was utterly awkward garbage.

[Anonymous No.6664502]

[Anonymous No.6664496]

>>6664480
Dubs, you say?

[Anonymous No.6664506]

Gonna take a break here, might dump a few more later on if I can't catch up with that elusive sandman.

[Anonymous No.6664592]

>>6664486
You mean Boy Meets World style, not grunge, right?

Thanks for the dump. Most of these are awesome. I'm seriously going to take notes on some these shots.

>>6664354
>>6664377

One not directly style thing I couldn't help but notice: either the guy in white or the camera guy is the fattest person in these festival shots, and that was just 40 years ago.

[Anonymous No.6664624]

>>6664592
>Boy meets world
Exactly. Grunge was a wonderful sideline that lives today but to me the hallmarks of the decade will always be shitty jeans and ugly sweaters.

>>6664592
Fun fat fact - High Fructose Corn Syrup hadn't been introduced quite yet at the time of that pic. I firmly believe that shit, which started really hitting us in the late 70's and early 80's, is the driving force behind our obesity epidemic. The shit is in EVERYTHING.

Glad you liked the thread.

[Anonymous No.6664665]

>>6664624
When I think '90s, I think grunge, the interesting designer stuff that was happening then, and lameo Dot-Com business casual.

But then I was 11 when the decade ended, so.

As far as HFCS goes, do you think it's uniquely HFCS, or just HFCS getting added to everything hugely amplifying the simple carbs in everyone's diets?

Also, IIRC, it wasn't until the early '70s the government/nutritionists/etc. started promoting the whole food pyramid, eat more carbs and less fat deal. And I wouldn't be surprised if people were still walking more - the US might be more statistically urbanized now, but a lot of those urbanites are spending two+ hours on a freeway every day to go from one desk to another.

[Anonymous No.6664729]

>>6664665
I think it's how HFCS replaced sugar. The whole thing actually goes back to Nixon's election bid but whatever. Here's the thing - the government pays much huger subsidies on corn than it does on sugar cane. Corn is like, THE American crop. So now these Japanese scientists have invented a way to make a supersweetener from corn that's cheaper and more calorie dense than sugar, and on top of that the US govt is subsidising the hell out of the corn crop. Is it any wonder that HFCS suddenly turns up everywhere?

>>6664665
I felt like the 80's were the last really clearly defined unique decade in terms of style and feel. After that, fashion began to molt, unsure of which way to go next. Of course, this is opinion.

[Eat Static !!phRT0sR27si No.6664784]

>>6664321
Posting irrelevant pictures in a dump thread. Have some manners m8

[Anonymous No.6664805]

[Anonymous No.6664817]

>>6664729
>ere's the thing - the government pays much huger subsidies on corn than it does on sugar cane. Corn is like, THE American crop. So now these Japanese scientists have invented a way to make a supersweetener from corn that's cheaper and more calorie dense than sugar, and on top of that the US govt is subsidising the hell out of the corn crop. Is it any wonder that HFCS suddenly turns up everywhere?

Yeah.

>I felt like the 80's were the last really clearly defined unique decade in terms of style and feel. After that, fashion began to molt, unsure of which way to go next. Of course, this is opinion.

I don't know; in the '80s you had stereotypical '80s, punk, and glam stuff going all at once. Maybe it was more the last decade that wasn't plagued by some retro throwback trend.

And the Aughts had some fairly consistent trends: a return to slimmer tailoring and darker colors/more contrast than mainstream '90s wear had, for instance.

[Anonymous No.6664827]

[Anonymous No.6664832]

>>6664817
I think my own perception of the time is warped by having lived through it during certain formative years of my life, too.

[Anonymous No.6664834]

>>6664624
>blaming HFCS for obesity

so what, you think that people who sat on their asses all day eating sugary shit didn't get fat until that sugar came from monsanto products?

lifestyles have just gotten more sedentary year on year since pretty much forever

in the 70s your average working class schlub would have been more likely to work in a steel mill or a coal mine than an office, but after the seventies the situation is obviously no longer the same.

[Anonymous No.6664838]

Oh, exploitable

[Anonymous No.6664858]

[Anonymous No.6664855]

>>6664834
There's more sugar, salt and fat in EVERYTHING the average person eats than there ever was before. Portion sizes are larger, too.
This is my opinion after reading quite a few books on the subject, seeing "King Corn" and watching a fascinating lecture by some prof about the injection of HFCS into the American diet in the early 80's.
They basically told their food scientists to make the stuff as addictive as possible. To provide an illusion of satisfaction that fades quickly. I swear it. It's not tinfoil hat territory either.

[Anonymous No.6664892]

>>6664832
>I think my own perception of the time is warped by having lived through it during certain formative years of my life, too.

Of course. I've got weird feels all over the place about the late '90s and early Aughts.

>>6664834
>>6664855
It's probably both, and a lot of other stuff, too. '60s office workers weren't 300 pounds and athletic people today eat HFCS like everyone else. 60% of a population's bodies going haywire in a single generation isn't the kind of thing that goes down to a magic bullet factor.

[Anonymous No.6664896]

>>6664855
there's also health-centric teaching throughout all school stages teaching kids not to stuff their faces full of shit, but somewhere something is going wrong.

blaming HFCS for obesity is like blaming the cordite in bullets for killing people.

[Anonymous No.6664920]

>>6664896
A lot of the "health-centric" teaching turns out to be mistaken, though. The food pyramid? Nope.

Read Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes.

>>6664838
Someone else do this up better.

[Anonymous No.6664936]

>>6664896
And you get more teaching, of a different sort, coming through the TV and most families ("finish your plate!" "if you're good, we'll get McDonalds!" Parents eating shit themselves, etc.) that works in the other direction.

Look at this graph. Say ~10% of it is stuff that might possibly be healthy to eat, and the newspaper only sees fit to wig that a third of it is candy.

[Anonymous No.6664945]

>>6664920
legitimate IRL kek

Also, I just picked up "Salt, Sugar, Fat" by Michael Moss, but haven't read anything past the intro. It's some scary shit.

[Anonymous No.6664977]

>>6664945
>"Salt, Sugar, Fat"
I'll have to look into it.

It's crazy how just staying fit and not getting diabetes means you have to actively resist your environment and social pressure. I can't get the idea - not in a conspiratorial way or anything, but the way history actually happens - of mass obesity as a form of social control out of my head. Not even that someone with 200 pounds of fat hanging off their body can't even go on a protest march, although that, too, but how ill health grinds people down and limits them on a daily basis and makes them dependent.

[Anonymous No.6664998]

>>6664920
your zealotry intrigued me enough to make me do some actual reading

I stayed away from the hypnotise-yourself-thin books and went for the science, though.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1716S.long#sec-11

>The hypothesis that HFCS is a unique cause of obesity is not supportable in the United States or elsewhere, and the reasons are clear:

>HFCS has the same sugars composition as other “benign” fructose-glucose sweeteners such as sucrose, honey, and fruit juice concentrates and dietary sources such as fruits and juices;

>Increased caloric intake since 1970 was not due to added sugars (including HFCS) but rather was due to increased consumption of all caloric nutrients, especially fats and flour and cereals;

>HFCS is consumed in equal amounts with sucrose in the United States, but at <10% of the amount of sucrose worldwide;

>Fructose-glucose sweeteners are metabolized through the same pathways regardless of dietary source;

>Although pure fructose can cause metabolic upsets at high concentrations and in the absence of glucose, such experiments are irrelevant for HFCS, which is not consumed at extreme high levels and contains both fructose and glucose;

>There is no longer an association between HFCS and obesity in the United States: per capita consumption of HFCS has declined in recent years, whereas obesity rates continue to rise; and

>There is absolutely no association between HFCS use and worldwide obesity; HFCS is really a minor sweetener in the global perspective.

[Anonymous No.6665019]

>>6664998
I know. I simply don't trust it.
I've heard arguments from both sides of the fence but I really think HFCS and salt are abused in the food industry. I'm tired, man. I don't know what else to say and I don't have the gusto to fire up google and show you the mice fed on HFCS vs. the sugar water mice.
I think aggressive marketing is also a big player. School subsidies from cola companies. There's so much, and you're right, HFCS is only a piece of the puzzle, but I'll always maintain it's a shitty sweetener that I don't want in my life.

[Anonymous No.6665023]

>>6664998
>such experiments are irrelevant for HFCS, which is not consumed at extreme high levels

Seriously?

"GULP 25% MORE FOR FREE!"

[Anonymous No.6665148]

>>6665023
you can drink twelve of those and you're probably still not consuming HFCS at 'extreme high levels'

>>6665019
I am trying to explain to you that you are getting worked up over a single chemical for no reason. HFCS is not evil and it does not cause obesity. Excess calorie intake causes obesity.

You're veering dangerously close to becoming one of those people who doesn't drink tap water because of the trace amounts of totally harmless fluoride in it.

It might feel good to pretend that you've discovered the cause of one of the western world's greatest ills (and that the sheeple in the street aren't clever enough to figure it out) but you are only lying to yourself.

[Anonymous No.6665294]

>>6664479
>tunnel snakes rule!

[Anonymous No.6666223]

Shorpy.com is a good source for this kind of stuff, too.

[Anonymous No.6666294]

poet you are one of my favourite posters

[lovetap !!p7Gk4/1dg48 No.6666337]

1985 or 1983 I think, really digging the shorts.

[Anonymous No.6666344]

'83 or '85, I think, really digging the shorts.

[Anonymous No.6667165]

>>6664998
Oh, look, a multi-billion dollar industry can hire scientists to say whatever it wants about the super-cheap sweetener that ensures its bottom line

I hate to be a dick or a tinfoil hatter, but wake the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.6669599]

>>6664486
When I think of Brits, this is what I imagine.

[Anonymous No.6669617]

>>6667165
>damage control

[Anonymous No.6669621]

The 70's were truly the darkest of times for all types of design other than automobiles.

[Anonymous No.6669722]

>>6669599
me too.
They exemplify "Lads" to me.

[twerk it No.6669747]

>>6669621
say that to my face not online

[Anonymous No.6669763]

>>6666294
Hey, thanks.

[twerk it No.6669767]

>>6664624
>>6664834
>>6664855
>>6664896
>>6664998

hfcs is just another form a sugar and sugar is demonstrably addictive and awful for you in large quantities, regardless of where you get it from. even honey and fruit sugars should be consumed in extreme moderation.

that said, hfcs is a... syrup... which makes it totally different from dry sugar for making things like baked goods and that's why, say, bread made with sugar and bread made with hfcs will taste differently.