Again, I do not know how this got past the editors, but you would think that the mother, at least, would have seen to it that her children were wearing cotton briefs that were not worn down to the point of being as flimsy as nylon; especially in the area of the front panel of the boys' briefs which is usually double thickness. That's either really cheap underwear or stuff that has seen a lot of bleaching. The boy holding the dog might be wearing Munsingwear Kangaroo briefs from that horizontal band where Jockeys would have the vertical bands. I am still amazed that I did not notice this in the ad when I first saw it as a teen. Are we sure that some Photo Shop (dare I say the word) software was not used to enhance this?
POD 6/25/06
- Thread starter tomturbomatic
- Start date
Help Support :
The dog must have shifted.
Funny how elements of this pic keeps coming "up" for review.
Funny how elements of this pic keeps coming "up" for review.
jasonl
New member
Looks more like 9 loads to me, not one.
Nine baths?
Ha! Back in my day (which was approximately when that ad ran) they would have thrown all the little kids in the same bath tub and all the bigger kids in the pond. But I'm from farm country ;-)
Ha! Back in my day (which was approximately when that ad ran) they would have thrown all the little kids in the same bath tub and all the bigger kids in the pond. But I'm from farm country ;-)
rinso
Well-known member
The thin, flimsy briefs probably got that way from the notorious aggressive agitation of the Norge. Those machines were perfect for stiff overalls, coveralls, jeans and other work clothes that got very dirty.
