Rodney Reason <ogri.rules.ok@gmail.com> wrote in
news:uaa95clutggbbr7ul4ejfu1beogmt74g19@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:36:54 -0700, retrowavelength
> <retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Looking back on the contents page posted here recently, by RR I
believe.
>> While filing it away I was looking for where to place the names and
>>made a curious discovery. Recall that we were talking about there
>>perhaps being a black Lenora Wright & a white one? Well, it's more
than
>>that. Every one of the names on that contents page is the name of a
>>white model as well.
>
> I only ever looked at one name at a time so I never noticed that.
> Good observation!
>
>>Additionally, I have another page or two reportedly from inside that
>>issue with a black model named Jean MacDonald (but why is she not on
the
>>Contents page?). That name also is the same as a white model!
>
> It gets curiouser. Here are some pages from a different posting
> of that issue. The first contents page has another name at the
> bottom, and there's a second contents page that lists a different
> name for the cover model but also includes Jean MacDonald.
>
>>So, was this issue some kind of an editor's joke or a big pasteup
>>mistake when putting the issue together? If my inside page with Jean
is
>>really from the same issue, then the names seem to be deliberately
>>applied instead of by mistake.
>
> I like your joke theory.
>
>>Second question: Is it possible that contents page (a) isn't the whole
>>contents (there was another sheet) or (b) isn't actually the same issue
>>"vol1 no3"??? Because why would a contents page not show the issue
>>features the girl on the front page?
>
> Possible, yes. But so many of the other names are also there.
>
>>Third question: Since these contents page girls are called these names
>>"in print" and (so far as I know) we haven't any other name sources for
>>them, do we accept these as working names or ignore them as mistakes???
>
> I think they're good working names. Even if they were someone's
> idea of a joke, there they are.
>
> RR
>
> begin 644 Tan N' Terrific Vol.1 No.3 (tt03).jpg
>
> Attachment decoded: Tan N' Terrific Vol.1 No.3 (tt03).jpg
> `
> end
>
> begin 644 Tan N' Terrific Vol.1 No.3 (tt12).jpg
>
> Attachment decoded: Tan N' Terrific Vol.1 No.3 (tt12).jpg
> `
> end
I'm inclined to a slightly more cynical opinion. Not changing the print
was probably the easiest way to get the mag to the newstand so that they
could make their two bits. How many people looking at that magazine back
then would ever twig on to the duplication? (And would they care if
anyone did?) In fact, I must say I am impressed that rwl discovered
this. (Great work!)
I feel that the publishers' back then had the view: "Hey, there's nekkid
wimmen! What else d'ya want?" I don't think they ever expected anybody
to spend a lot of time reading the print.
Don't condemn me for this opinion. I really am a nice enough fellow. (I
never kick my dog.)
|
|