Here is my recreation of the Camp Inch summer camp uniform insignia featured in the 1961 magnum effing opus The Parent Trap starring Hayley Effing Mills. The closest leaf I could find that represented the camp logo was the Red Maple. Close but not exact. I may re-do it later to make it more faithful to the film like a high quality Star Wars prop. As it stands it is as faithful as the off-model Space Enforcer Wars prop you find for sale in a dollar store. Don’t be surprised if it gets updated.
The camp insignia was presumably created by or under legendary costume designer Bill Thomas. I’d kill for a peek at some original sketches from the Disney vault. I would. I really would. The transformation of the twin’s mother Margaret via fashion throughout the movie is often a point of discussion about The Parent Trap (though why you’d not discuss only Hayley is anyone’s guess). You’d think with all the Parent Trap-mania over the last 5 decades someone else would have made this insignia by now.
Many shirts, hats, underwears will soon have this embroidered onto my wardrobe.
A bit more on the real world Camp Inch. One of the places that was the basis for Camp Inch is the religious stronghold Camp Crestridge for Girls. Wikipedia deleted the page about the camp for being “not notable” which is stupid because of the very notable eternal connection to Parent Trap. I blame the diseased abomination which is the remake poisoning the Parent Trap legacy.
Yes, I do own this and by extension, you.
A sign warning long-haired customers they will be sent to the back of the line. Reportedly from a Singapore post office, late 1960s.
From the anti-establishment humor magazine Apple Pie (1975).
I am in love with this photo and the dress worn by actress Hayley Mills. The setting, the pose, the entire scene is beautiful. I’m glad I can share it with any Hayley Mills fans who wander by.
About the Poster:
I am pretty sure that this over-sized fold out poster of actress Hayley Mills is from the Japanese celebrity magazine Eiga Joho (April 1966). The publication notes state this poster is included in the issue but my copy does not contain it. It was probably stripped out long ago for resale. Cutting out and removing unique ads, articles and photos is a common practice among those who resell ephemera, something I personally am conflicted about. One one hand items are being preserved that would otherwise vanish from age and neglect but on the other books and magazines are rendered almost useless for collection even as they are sold as complete. In some instances this may not be on purpose.
I have a number of vintage books where the best part was cut out and those sellers, I believe, were not aware that someone had removed pages before they received it. Once a magazine or book is stripped of a few interesting pages what is left is probably sold or donated. These will typically eventually end up at thrift stores or sold cheaply elsewhere. Much of the time luck and detective work is required to determine if old publications have been stripped. Sometimes it is obvious, like careless cuts and tears. Find an old copy of LIFE with no ads remaining in it and you know something is wrong. Sometimes it is harder to suss out as the vandal will only selectively remove pages that do not interfere with the flow of content and would otherwise be detected. A lot of times this is done to ensure multiple sales from one item.
On occasion the only way to know if some publications have been stripped of content is from comparison of copies of other vintage periodicals. Comparing copies to the other is a way to discover that pages might be missing or an issue is otherwise damaged. The best resource for this is badly aged or degraded copies. Many times the contents will remain intact because there is no resale value of a page because it is unattractive. Unfortunately some older magazines do not have page numbers, content pages or publication listings anywhere. It is up to the individual collector to create a record of the content and all too often information is repeatedly transcribed in error. This is common particularly when the references are from amateur crowd-sourced information posted to the internet. My personal copy of Eiga Joho has been through the hands of many sellers before I obtained it and each listing reported it was undamaged and complete.
I had seen the poster on the internet long ago but it existed only as a tiny thumbnail in the cache of a seller’s defunct website. It was enough to know it existed so I made repeated efforts to locate it. I thought I found one at last several years ago in a magazine but when it arrived the poster was not included. Crushing, but I did not blame the seller. The magazine itself is a delight otherwise and contains a short but cute Hayley Mills article. After some searching and patience I found the Hayley Mills poster early last year, sold separate from any magazine. I scanned and filed it until now.
I don’t read Japanese so this could be a poster originally sold on it’s own, part of some other periodical or fan club collection. The pristine condition has me speculate it spent several decades safe in the pages of a magazine that was properly stored. Hayley is wearing the same dress as on the cover of Eiga Joho and both the magazine and poster are listed as from April 1966. So barring a translation of the Japanese on the poster that would prove otherwise, I believe this is the “bonus” fold out poster of Hayley Mills the issue of Eiga Joho references in the publication notes.
|Hayley Mills on the cover of Eiga Joho (April 1966)
Further browsing:Everything Hayley Mills at LTMS
Tumblr search Hayley Mills
The over-sized scarf prevents leering at the chest, the low-hanging bag prevents ogling of the backside.
What came first, the need by women to protect and conceal or esthetics? Was the end-result of the impractical scarf worn in even the warmest weather conditions and the bag a happy accident or intentional? Some combination of all, perhaps.
Women: 1 / Perverts: 0
I really want an on-model Parade Hater Horace sweater for Christmas. Sadly, I can’t trust anyone in my family to have one made and to do it right. Invariably they would get something wrong. Something about the sweater, probably more than one element, would be off and ruin everything. The color, style, size, material or the all important typography of the garment would be “close enough” or sub-par. I want to squeal with joy and pump my fist in the air, not look disappointingly at my clan, lip curling with barely concealed distaste, and mutter a halfhearted thanks. Since my stated gift-giving goal every Christmas is to absolutely crush the giving abilities of others it is obvious I’ll have to do it myself if I want it done right.
Operation Awesome Christmas has begun!
In what will surely be a boon to fashion houses and the international economy, Saudi women with attractive or tempting eyes may soon be forced to wear concealing sunglasses. I have no doubt that right this moment there are executives from eye wear manufacturing companies everywhere dancing on their chairs, high fiving each other and scrambling to get prototypes approved for export.
If the resolution passes and concealing eye wear is a mandatory attire for Islamic women how long until some wingnut pundit declares that wearing sunglasses is un-American?
Well, at least if America sells spectacles to the middle east the most we have to worry about is getting re-gifted a scratched pair of Oakleys. That’s an improvement over the the guns and bombs we export that later get used against us.