Help date these NOS Panties with original packaging...

[elsewhere]

I've never heard of this company before.
I'm guessing 60's.. does that sound about right?

Thanks!

 

[Patentleathershoes]

I never heard of it either...not in the lingerie resource..i checked. the only thing that came up on Froogle was items where people mispelled the word "smiley". ......

 

[elsewhere]

LOL about the smiley!

I just did a trademark search of the name and found that the name was trademarked in 1961.. and that the trademark is dead. I sure wish they'd tell you when the LAST trademark was secured!

But.. I know that they're not EARLIER than 61, I guess!

kristine

 

[Patentleathershoes]

I would go by the hairdo than. I remember of a photo of my mother from 1970 with a shorter version of that bobbed 'do...curled forward at the ends like that but who knew if she was in style or out of date then. i think you would be safe to say 60s though. maybe the nylon will be the greater appeal than the exact year.

 

[elsewhere]

very true, Chris--
although these aren't your typical nylon panties... they feel more like thick nylon stockings than the traditional silky lingerie-grade nylon.

I'm hoping the NOS will factor in well. They are somewhat unusual, too.. with little perforated holes along the legs and side seams.

here:
http://www.elsewherevintage.com/simley

kristine

 

[Patentleathershoes]

i am reading...

"Full Fashion"

I remember seeing this was desirable? am i wrong?

i don't know about the panty collecting crowd but i knew a lady a long time ago that always bought the older ones because the newer nylons don't breath or behave like it used to be made.

 

[premierludwig]

The packaging is typical mid-sixties. 1965 would be a very safe bet.

love, moons and starrs,
Senti.*

 

[vintageclothes-line]

Yes, be sure to put stretch nylon and full cut. I agree with the 60s!!

 

[elsewhere]

Thanks, all

Kristine

 

[dancingdresses]

Kristine -

I'm with Senti -
The hairstyle and typestyle are all mid-60's . . . but the real reason I'm posting is to suggest you rethink the "unworn" in your listing blurb.

Was reading a few weeks ago - possibly on the VCA board? Don't really remember where - about eBay going through one of their periodic crack-downs on the vintage panty market.
Put me off listing again, as I have a nice tap pair to unload.

People said they were getting pulled for even the term "unworn." (Evidently the eBay panty cops were putting in terms like "worn" and "used" - thus coming up with "unworn" and "never used" as violations, as well????)

You might ask around and see if they've backed off again . . or they're still being silly about this.
You can always try getting around it with some flowery phrase that doesn't use either term . . . or just say they're "mint in package."

C

 

[elsewhere]

Hmmm that's an excellent point.
When I listed them, I was getting a little warning from ebay regarding the word "worn"... but since I was specifically saying that they were UNworn, I really didn't pay it much mind and submitted the auction as-is.
I had a couple auctions pulled a few weeks ago for TOTALLY bogus reasons.. so I know some bitter someone out there is paying attention to this sort of inane phrasing.
THanks for the advice.
kristine

 

[Patentleathershoes]

I forgot about that Carolyne. I seem to remember something about "undergarments are New with tags or new without tags" that's it (they say)...

I checked your auctions and see you listed it...the listing looks great!

..so if anyone has an interest...dive in!