Roustan wrote:

I wonder if she's responsible for you doing what you do

LoL, it was the 60's and she used to wear a tiny pair of cutoff blue jeans that were all ripped up.  I still tell every model I shoot with to bring a pair of ripped faded jeans! 

Chris Keeling wrote:

They really had that girl next door look for me......Linda Beatty from 1976 was my next door neighbor and my babysitter when I was 6 years old and she was 14.

Linda Beatty

Her centerfold was shot by MM's own Ken Marcus!

From the Ville!

tereyn wrote:
i think i would have wanted to be in playboy in the 70's... it seemed super classy and daring. lol.

Hey Tereyn, you could still do a "vintage" shoot in the 70's Playboy style, and you'd totally ROCK it!

Vintagevista wrote:
Negatives - in about 72, the barrier went down for showing pubic hair - and by 74 - you couldn't see the trees because of the jungle.  That was not good.

In January 1970, I think it was, pubic hair was fully shown. Before that, there had been hints and peeks. The barrier continued to crash after that. A few years later, Penthouse turned the world pink, and Playboy had to play follow the leader to them.

Justin wrote:
In January 1970, I think it was, pubic hair was fully shown. Before that, there had been hints and peeks. The barrier continued to crash after that. A few years later, Penthouse turned the world pink, and Playboy had to play follow the leader to them.

We may both be right - There were hints etc. before 1972 - I went and checked - and the first images of full frontal nudes were of Paula Kelly in Aug of 1969. (She also played one of the public defenders on the sitcom "night Court")

The first centerfold so posed was in 1972 -

VintageVista

B R E E D L O V E wrote:
I was going through some old Playboy photos via a google image search and I really like the 1970's work the best. Sometimes the misty soft focus was a little much but the models were gorgeous and real. In my humble opinion they really had that girl next door look much more than the later gals.

I should go through my photos of models that I shot in the 70s and scan them. 

Kera Maskera wrote:
"It's like masturbating in a time machine." -Step Brothers

Ah, memories of my youth!

Lucine wrote:

From the Ville!

She lived in Paducah, Kentucky when she was my babysitter. 

Lawrence Guy wrote:
Here's a nice link: (18+)  http://www.lolafox.org/Anni70/VM18/VM18 … aymate.htm

I found Miss march 1964 the month and year of my birth.   Here she is.

Nancy Scott  http://www.lolafox.org/Anni70/VM18/VM18 … _Scott.jpg

Patrick Walberg wrote:

You still subscribing?     I gave up on Playboy years ago!  Now I just pick up old copies for cheap or even free at garage sales and such!

It was a gift from my niece  .  .  .  how's that for thoughtful  .  .  . 

SOS

Merrie Ninja Swain wrote:
I'm in love with this girl's face!

(m) http://www.lolafox.org/Anni70/VM18/VM18 … Rennie.jpg

she is beautifull!!!! My husband actullay has that issuse he got lucky and his grandpa gave him his old playboys he has atleast 40

Lawrence Guy wrote:
Here's a nice link: (18+)  http://www.lolafox.org/Anni70/VM18/VM18 … aymate.htm

EDIT: and my all-time favorite, Fran Gerard: (18+) http://www.lolafox.org/Anni70/VM18/VM18 … Gerard.jpg  (Damn the torpedoes!)

EDIT EDIT: and also an eye-grabber, Janet Lupo: (18+) http://www.lolafox.org/Anni70/VM18/VM18 … t_Lupo.jpg

janet lupo is the best Playmate of all time....

B R E E D L O V E wrote:
I was going through some old Playboy photos via a google image search and I really like the 1970's work the best. Sometimes the misty soft focus was a little much but the models were gorgeous and real. In my humble opinion they really had that girl next door look much more than the later gals.

B R E E D L O V E wrote:
I was going through some old Playboy photos via a google image search and I really like the 1970's work the best. Sometimes the misty soft focus was a little much but the models were gorgeous and real. In my humble opinion they really had that girl next door look much more than the later gals.

Ya know, I was watching some old Christy Canyon and Barbara Dare flicks and thinking the same thing!!

B R E E D L O V E wrote:
I was going through some old Playboy photos via a google image search and I really like the 1970's work the best. Sometimes the misty soft focus was a little much but the models were gorgeous and real. In my humble opinion they really had that girl next door look much more than the later gals.

Yeah, I agree.  Only thing that's weird about them is they have like more hair down thurrr than I do on my other and and therefore that makes me insecure about my lower head because I've never had that much hair down thurrr in my life and it makes me question my womanhood since my thingy looks like a first grader compared to 70's ladies lol.  But they do look much more natural than 2000's Playboy models.

Ariana Diabla wrote:

Actually, according to Playboy Forum members, they actually cant stand the way the newer photos look so over done.

Especially cyber girl photos, they are blasted out, and over contrasted and they are an orangey colour.

They much prefer the classic style.

I'd wager that that is because most of the models are an orangey color.

Ariana Diabla wrote:
I do agree.

Im actually a member of the cyberclub and the message boards, and I am able to go through hundreds of photos in the threads, and its amazing to see the difference in the photos/imagery.

Now allthe photos are blasted out in exposure, and PSed to hell and back. The older photos from the 70's, 80's and even early 90's there was such a "realness" about it, which made it very appealing.

Yeah it's kinda funny how with technology we've pushed photography to inspire perfection to the point of fantasy in our eyes and now it's like people are so used to that and getting so sick of it that it's the simple images that really interest them now.

La Seine by the Hudson wrote:
Reality just flies in the face of most people's expectations or desires when it comes to glamour. The same is unfortunately true with fashion, although thankfully fashion occasionally remembers that fantasy is rooted and gathers power from truth and reality. Glamour (which is in large part an extension and consequence of celebrity-worship) has pretty much forgotten that entirely, and I won't ever be interested until it begins to remember that again. But nobody making it really seems interested, and their public isn't interested, either. They just want to worship and trash, worship and trash. (We're a TV and internet culture, and... ugh...)

In other words, it's not just the fault of "Playboy" or "the industry" alone. The audience is equally at fault for this.

^^^Well said!

La Seine by the Hudson wrote:
Best thing I think I've ever seen in Playboy? A Helmut Newton pictorial of I think Joan Severance. Head-and-shoulders above anything I've ever seen them publish in any edition, of any vintage. And totally apart from the rest of their schlock, of a model who was far more beautiful (and captivating!) than any Playmate I've ever seen.

What about ??

Steve Mills wrote:
I certainly admired the styles of Arnie Freytag and Mario Casilli. When the magazine started chasing Penthouse, instead of leading the pack, I stopped reading it.

What's the difference btwn the two magazines?

BigA-LTL-The FAB Page wrote:
What's the difference btwn the two magazines?

The original difference was Penthouse showed pubic hair when Playboy was still too timid. After a short period of years, there was virtually no difference remaining regarding what they would show, except that Penthouse still over-used soft focus on just about all it's shots.

Google pubic hair... there is little of it left in the world.

Steve Mills wrote:

The original difference was Penthouse showed pubic hair when Playboy was still too timid. After a short period of years, there was virtually no difference remaining regarding what they would show, except that Penthouse still over-used soft focus on just about all it's shots.

Ah.  I always thought it was the 'openness' btwn them like that Playboy did more implied type stuff and Penthouse did more spread eagle coming out of a cake Larry Flynt type stuff lol.

Steve Mills wrote:

The original difference was Penthouse showed pubic hair when Playboy was still too timid. After a short period of years, there was virtually no difference remaining regarding what they would show, except that Penthouse still over-used soft focus on just about all it's shots.

Google pubic hair... there is little of it left in the world.

I think I'm gonna do like Cartman and go buy me some pubes cuz mine suck at growing. 

La Seine by the Hudson wrote:
Best thing I think I've ever seen in Playboy? A Helmut Newton pictorial of I think Joan Severance. Head-and-shoulders above anything I've ever seen them publish in any edition, of any vintage. And totally apart from the rest of their schlock, of a model who was far more beautiful (and captivating!) than any Playmate I've ever seen.

I don't remember that one but I do have the Newton/Natasha Kinski issue.

18+
http://www.staleywise.com/collection/ne … nski_b.jpg

Christi I wrote:
I love old Playboy. Each girl had her own unique look and appeal. Nowadays, all the girls look like a bunch of clones. Playboy nowadays is so damned boring I won't even pick up an issue if I see one laying around. I mean, to each their own but doesn't the same 5'2" blonde, long layered hair, standard boob job and spray tan washed, rinsed and repeated get boring???? I sometimes wonder about a secret clone factory or test tube lab at the Playboy mansion.......

I guess the magazine, like alot of things, has grown and evolved to appeal to the sheep-minded modern consumer.

The 50th and 55th anniversary issues were great....they did a Playmate review in each one of some of the greats from the 50's-90's.

I read an article about how Hugh Hefner's sons plan to take over Playboy when he passes away. They say they want to bring bak the uniqueness and variety of the 50's-70's. Well see how it all transpires.

That's why you should get the issue with Gabbs in it.  No 5 foot midgets, just a 6'3" goddess. 

B R E E D L O V E wrote:
I was going through some old Playboy photos via a google image search and I really like the 1970's work the best. Sometimes the misty soft focus was a little much but the models were gorgeous and real. In my humble opinion they really had that girl next door look much more than the later gals.

I found a website with all the archived centerfolds, and the boys and I looked through them. I agree.

Big A-Larger Than Life wrote:

That's why you should get the issue with Gabbs in it.  No 5 foot midgets, just a 6'3" goddess. 

You sound as though you may be a tad biased  .  .  . 

SOS