Random Weirdness Part 1 - Giant Watches

This is the first post of what I hope will be a recurring theme from time to time: Random Weirdness.  These are photos from Kathy's modeling career that have some kind of bizarre and utterly random - as only 70s fashion can be bizarre and random - feature about them.  And what better way to start than with a very brief, but very intense fashion item from the early 70s called "Giant Watches".

What? you say. What do watches have to do with fashion?  Well these are not just any watches, oh no no no.  These are giant over sized pocket watches meant to be worn outside in full view - obviously to make some kind of statement.  What kind of statement, you ask?  I have no idea.  That's what makes these both random and weird and quite 70s.  Let's start with an example, shall we....

Yea, now you see what I'm talking about.  Kay's weirdly over sized watch (facing the viewer no less) lets us know it's always the right time for fun, funky fashion!  Perhaps, she wore it to draw attention away form how cute Kathy looks in her strawberry accented short shorts (didn't work!).   Perhaps Kathy's massive smile is from NOT having to wear the watch.  Also we are told "to join forces with coordinated pullovers".  Coordinated with what? the giant watch?  And I'm not sure I want to join forces with ANYTHING made of Acrilian Acrylic (whatever that is, sounds like a varnish or something).   Lest you think this pic was just one odd blip in Sears catalog history, let's move on.....

Two photos do make a trend, don't they!  Here Colleen's "panne velvet" shirtdress is perfectly set off with another goofy giant watch.  Huh?  What the heck?  Once again Kathy is kicking up her heels in joy at NOT being selected to wear the watch.  Oh surely there can't be more.  Oh yes there can!

Okay, okay, this pic doesn't have Kathy in it, but it fits the theme.  Here we have TWO giant watches in the same pic to accessorize the corduroy jeans!  One worn by Colleen and another by an unknown model.  And the one worn by Colleen is on a, a, a, what is that?   It isn't a necklace exactly - more like a chain worn by a pimp or something.  Double random and double weird.   I love the chorus girl style lineup of the models.  It is sooooooo natural, especially the middle model staring randomly off into space. 

And then as quickly as the era of the giant watches blossomed, it met its demise.  Perhaps like the dinosaurs, they grew too big and wieldly eventually succumbing to excess of the very thing that made them unique.  Or perhaps they just didn't sell so Sears quickly moved on to something else.
 
Of course this brings up the BIG, unanswered question: were they functioning watches or just decorative pieces?  I haven't been able to find a pic with a description of these watches so this is an open question.  Anyone out there have any ideas on this?

Ironically, this fashion accessory would make no sense to kids today because many of them can't even tell time using a dial watch or clock (you can thank cell phones and digital clocks for that).  So wearing a giant watch would make about as much sense to them as wearing an abacus.  I know, I know, makes you kind of pine for the silliness of the 70s.  Of course, MY kids can tell time using a dial timepiece.  They can also use a slide rule, write in cursive, and start a fire using flint (no kidding, except for the slide rule, but they have at least SEEN a slide rule and how it is used).

So perhaps we should all channel our inner 70s and don our giant, goofy, pocket watches to freak out the kids, or maybe not.  They just won't see how cool and groovy fashion statements like that can be!

Denimy Daze at JCPenneys

Last week's post on Glad Rags got me curious about what else was out there in the early 70s world of denim fashion and oh boy did get I blindsided.  It seems that Glad Rags wasn't the outlier but instead it was right in step with the times!  Of course, I shouldn't have been too surprised.  After all denim is about the most American of fashion statements there is.  Naturally JCPenneys was all over this as these pics demonstrate.

The first pic is titled "Bold Tartan Plaid and Deminy Blue".  Isn't all tartan both bold and plaid?  I can't say I've ever seen "subtle" tartan.  Also, what does the adjective "denimy" mean?  It's either denim or its not.  Oh I get it.  It's the mood the outfits set - like dreamy only, in this case, denimy.

Kathy is a fine lookin' young filly in a overall style dress seems to say "Yee haw ya'll.  Meet me down at the JCP corral for a boot-scootin' night of two steppin, line dancin', and if it really gets wild - square dancin'!".   Her expression seems to say "Yea, I'm sexy and I know it".  Otherwise it looks like Hee Haw collided with Braveheart.   Note that the boots are 14.5 inches and made of leather! No pleather here in this pre-peta age!   Not sure why one would wear work boots to a square dance, but they definitely give the outfit a casual, working-on-the-farm feel.

Meanwhile Karen's outfit looks like Braveheart goes corporate with a combination tartan vest, pants, and a three button denim jacket (with tartan trim) and a red scarf.  Hmmm, let's see, she is wearing a shirt, a vest, AND a jacket - seems a bit much.  Also this ensemble seems to violate the denim-on-denim rule (1).   And both ensembles seem to violate the tartan-on-tartan rule (2).  You know a little tartan goes a long way, no need to overdo it.

As a bonus, there is something about both photos in this post that is unusal for catalog shots in this era.  Can you spot it?  The answer appears at the end (no peaking!).

Next up is another pic of Kathy and Karen wearing more denim, this time tartan-less.

Karen's sweater seems to scream "Hey over here, notice me!" with the 60s rainbow colors on the sweater AND the sleeves.  You see this kind of reach back to the 60s every once in a while in these pics.  Meanwhile, Kathy's outfit definitely looks like it came out a modern Cabela's catalog with the western style look, except for the massive gaucho pants!  Good thing she is sitting down in these because those things are not kind to any girl's figure (sorry, ladies but guys don't find these at all attractive on girls).  Maybe she DEMANDED to sit down for the shot "No, if you're going to make me wear these gawd awful things, I'm going to pose where they don't make me look fat.  And we'll be talking to my agent later!"  And again Kathy spotlights knee high leather boots, but in this case they look a bit more dressy and come in high heels!

Once again can you spot what is unusual about these two pics?

Footnotes: (Second post with footnotes!)

(1) The denim-on-denim rule is that you are not allowed to wear more than one piece of denim apparel at a time.  The only exceptions are: you are a real cowboy doing actual cowboy work (such as roping a calf), a member of a motorcycle gang (who is going to tell them no?), or John Wayne. 

(2) I just made up the tartan-on-tartan rule for this post, but it is like the denim-on-denim rule except there is only one acceptable exception: you are playing bagpipes and wearing a kilt.

Answer to the quiz. 

When I first pulled these pics I got the strangest feeling that something was different about them compared to the usual catalog pics of the era.  Then it hit me.  Look at the eyes.  That's right!  Both models in both shots are looking directly at the camera instead of staring blankly off at some odd, unexplainable angle like a human mannequin on narcotics.  They are posing for the pics like, well, a normal person would.  Both of these photos are from 1976, so perhaps the style of modeling was changing.