Big time!
Her hair grew awfully fast...
There isn’t a single image of her that doesn’t just raise more questions. If you are just starting to look at images, you are in for a bumpy ride...and the very first thing to keep in mind is:
Take no notice of the dates on captions!
Her hair grows a lot faster than mine.
The purported HS photo looks as though it’s from the early 50s in style. The color photo is so different, hard to believe from the same year.
(or same person??)
You have some very interesting posts!
In regard to this one, just commenting from a woman’s perspective, top picture she looks much thinner than bottom picture. Her face is much fuller in the bottom pic. Top pick could be a hair in bun picture. Usually with short hair cuts, there is a clear “side burns” type thing happening. And on the left side, in the top picture, you can’t see the layers you would see with a short hair cut. Bangs are cut short in top, but appear to be in a head band of sorts in bottom pic. Clothes in the second picture are made quite large through the mid-section. Ill-fitting garments at best. But they do look maternity in nature for that era. Women did not want to look pregnant back then. They did everything they could to HIDE their tummies! She could be as much as 4-5 months pregnant. On the other hand, the size of her arm, near her elbow is a bit large. It could be that she had put on weight. Although her neck and wrists still look thin. The top pic may have been taken in the early spring and the bottom in the late summer.
Yearbook pics usually are taken in the fall of the school year they are to appear. Now anyway. I don’t know how it was done in 1960.
Her hand bag and bracelet match. She looks very happy and a tad shy. I would say, whoever took the picture was documenting her presence wherever she was at, and wherever that is, is was somewhere that matching accessories was called for. Travel fits the bill. Only recently have people begun traveling in casual clothes. Travel in the 60’s meant looking “put together.” Her outfit has that “sailor suit” look, but that type of style comes and goes, time and again, so that isn’t much of a statement. Looks like linen material or perhaps silk. I’m guessing silk since the wrinkles aren’t real deep and the sheen is quite bright.
Anyway, maybe some thoughts from a woman’s vantage might help?
The color picture of Stanley is THE only picyure of her pregnant and on her way to Mombasa on the Queen ship on her way to convince Senior Barry’s family to except her.
AMIRIGHT? :0)
Those pictures are way out of whack for your dates.
Looking closer at your 2nd pic, she seems to be on a ship. Or at least in a shipyard.
The lower left shows what looks like might be a ray of sensors (sorry, don’t know correct naval terms). Crow’s nest maybe?
There could be guy wires running over her head, and a float with an American flag on her side.
I’ve been thinking more about that blue outfit and thought I’d search out fashion of the 60’s. At the below link, notice 4th pic down and collar on far right outfit. Tunic tops could button or not, but length is what makes it a tunic. Comes to hip line. SAD’s collar matches the time, but the length of the top is short for a tunic by about 2-3 inches. It does look very early 60’s!
http://coutureallure.blogspot.com/2010/01/vintage-maternity-fashions-1960.html
This, for what it is worth, from Wikepedia about maternity. Notably, maternity wear usually consisted of loose top and skirt:
“In the 1950s, Lucille Ball was the first woman to show her pregnancy on TV.[20] [21] The television show I Love Lucy brought new attention to maternity wear. Most of the maternity dresses were two pieces with loose tops and narrow skirts. Stretch panels accommodated for the woman’s growing figure. The baby boom of the 1940s to the 1950s also caused focus on maternity wear. Even international designers such as Givenchy and Norman Hartnell created maternity wear clothing lines. Despite the new emphasis on maternity wear in the 1950s maternity wear fashions were still being photographed on non-pregnant women for advertisements.[22]
On September 29, 1959, the maternity panty [1] was patented which provided expansion in the vertical direction of the abdomen. The front panel of this maternity undergarment was composed of a high degree of elasticity so in extreme stretched conditions, the woman could still feel comfortable.[23]”
Here is a vintage maternity pattern that fits that bill:
Also, at this link see fashion of the 60-63 period, influenced by J. Kennedy. Even plump ladies would have emulated these designs.
http://www.fashion-era.com/1960s/1960s_1_fashion_pictures_1960_1963.htm
I read at the next link that by the mid 60’s, shortly shorn hair similar to the flapper hair had become stylish. More details at this excerpt:
” In midsummer, after the Presidential candidates had been nominated, a great deal of heat was generated over their wives’ clothes and personal style. Pat Nixon, 48, true to her party, was a conservatively dressed, nice-looking woman. Jacqueline Kennedy was another matter entirely—just turned 31, she had dash and possessed a model figure plus a genuine instinct for fashion. Mrs. Kennedy was criticized for buying some of her clothes in Paris and for her free-wheeling hairdo, Mrs. Nixon for buying ultra-expensive clothes at Elizabeth Arden. The issues were finally resolved; Pat Nixon’s ward-robe expenses were explained, and Jacqueline Kennedy tamed her hairdo slightly and revealed that she usually wore American-designed clothes (one of her favorite designers was Norman Norell). With the Kennedy election victory, elated American designers and dress manufacturers prophesied that Mrs. Kennedy would set new fashion trends that were sure to be widely copied. For her Inaugural Ball gown, Mrs. Kennedy commissioned Bergdorf Goodman, New York City, to make up a design based on her own original sketches.
By fall, everyone hungered for news of what was to be. From Paris and New York came remarkably unanimous agreement about the look—very Twenties, with short, almost shingled hair (in Paris, it actually was shingled); cloches or big-domed hats without brims; sheathy, almost waistless dresses cut off at the knees; and lower-heeled, more man-tailored shoes.
Norman Norell had forecast the trend with the showing of his fall collection, in which the models shingled their hair, wore clown-white make-up and charcoal-shaded lids, and slithered about in his distinctly flapper dresses—beaded tubes for night, wool or jersey shifts for day. The hottest news in the fall fashion picture was made by Norell’s culotted suits. The culottes were cut so shrewdly that their nature became apparent only in motion; they were slim rather than full and fell straight from the hips. Many of America’s most distinctive fashion personalities took to them as being more suitable (and ladylike) for hopping in and out of cars, buses, and pedestrian traffic than the tight, slim skirts of yore, and lesser designers copied them, often not quite as successfully as the master. In fact, Norell felt so strongly about the proper cut and hang that he offered to lend his pattern free to any designers who wished to make use of it, an unprecedented action in the fashion world.”
Link:
http://retro-fashion-history.com/html/1960_fashion_and_vintage_cloth.html
_______________________________________________________
On a separate note...did you know Hawaii had a tsunami in 1960? Pictures here:
http://www.examiner.com/american-history-in-national/hawaii-tsunamis-of-1946-and-1960-picture
___________________________________________________________
Not sure any of this is remotely helpful. But for most women, hair styles and clothing styles are very telling of personality.