While it's true that a plumper figure than today was desired, most erotic art of the period shows girls more like the thinner one, and $1 a bottle would have been VERY expensive stuff at that time...do you have a source for this? I have a feeling it might be a parody.
I agree about the font and the justification looks a bit too clean for ad copy from that time, but they could have had an ace typesetter. The Lorings ad (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.05583/) you mention is real. (You hope the Library of Congress would be able to spot a fake.) As for the product name, I don't know. Maybe Lorings bought out Ritter and Co. or vice versa? Or one company stole the other company's product name. That happens, too.
I want this ad to be for real, but I don't know if it is or not. I would like to know more about it.
There's a color version of this that was once on Etsy (http://www.etsy.com/listing/73488046/fat-ten-u-foods-advertisement/favoriters).
While there were certainly products of this sort in this era (as we see with the Lorings ad with a product by the same name) this made me pretty suspicious because it seems almost expressly designed to push our buttons as modern viewers in a society with an obsession with thinness. It's a little too perfect.
Also, the style doesn't seem right..no corset, the patterned underwear? And the loose and flowing hair strikes me as unusual for the era...I'm not an expert, but I'd expect more of a Gibson Girl look.
I knew there was something about that font that was ringing a warning bell, too! Also, "taken up Grecian Dancing and have leading roles in local productions"? Not, IIRC, something that respectable women would admit to in that era. Actresses were considered quite scandalous in general.
The patrons. Fenway underwent renovations in the last ten years with the new ownership so they kept it pretty old-fashioned while updating the park. The seats didn't change, though, at least in size. ;)
It seems that people find attractive what's hard to achieve.
Food wasn't as plentiful and available in the 1890s as it is today, so most people were skinny, and only those who were well-off could eat enough to get plump. Therefore, being plump was seen as healthy and desireable; it was very difficult to be plump.
Today, fattening foods are so plentiful that it's easy to gain weight! This means being slim becomes attractive in peoples' eyes, simply because it takes work to achieve.
I think it should be neither. Everyone should be happy with their appearance and not go out of their way to fit a societal "ideal".
no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 03:48 am (UTC)It's like they know me.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 03:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 04:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 04:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 04:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 04:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 08:40 am (UTC)Also, there was a product called Fat-ten-u, but it was made by a company called Lorings, not Ritter and Co. Their ads look very different.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 12:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 02:10 pm (UTC)I want this ad to be for real, but I don't know if it is or not. I would like to know more about it.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 05:38 pm (UTC)While there were certainly products of this sort in this era (as we see with the Lorings ad with a product by the same name) this made me pretty suspicious because it seems almost expressly designed to push our buttons as modern viewers in a society with an obsession with thinness. It's a little too perfect.
Also, the style doesn't seem right..no corset, the patterned underwear? And the loose and flowing hair strikes me as unusual for the era...I'm not an expert, but I'd expect more of a Gibson Girl look.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 06:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 05:11 pm (UTC)http://ask.metafilter.com/151532/Slim-Chance-that-this-poster-is-a-Big-Fat-Fake
Assessments of clues, elements and period context for something like this are always interesting.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 07:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 10:56 pm (UTC)http://www.tuscanfoodie.com/2010/11/get-fat-and-look-beautiful.html
no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 04:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 05:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 03:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 06:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 06:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 10:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 10:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 09:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 11:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 02:51 pm (UTC)Food wasn't as plentiful and available in the 1890s as it is today, so most people were skinny, and only those who were well-off could eat enough to get plump. Therefore, being plump was seen as healthy and desireable; it was very difficult to be plump.
Today, fattening foods are so plentiful that it's easy to gain weight! This means being slim becomes attractive in peoples' eyes, simply because it takes work to achieve.
I think it should be neither. Everyone should be happy with their appearance and not go out of their way to fit a societal "ideal".
no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 03:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 06:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-04 03:21 pm (UTC)OP: faux or not, this was a great find. not sure if it made me happy or sad, but it did make me think.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-03 02:56 pm (UTC)