Old advertisements
#1
Posted 12 October 2003 - 20:15
I'm sure there are endless entertaining ones out there
Advertisement
#2
Posted 12 October 2003 - 22:09
#3
Posted 13 October 2003 - 08:01
If only those prices had stayed in line with the RPI ! Lovely to see these old ads .
#4
Posted 13 October 2003 - 10:04
#5
Posted 13 October 2003 - 19:47
I believe such atrocities happened in Britain too..Originally posted by john medley
[B wielding what looked like a posthole digger while inflicting serious boring or honing on the poor little thing. [/B]
Now..from my dad's programme for the 11th GrandPrix d'Europe., Silverstone 1950....
The BRM didn't actually race that day.....and I have never heard of Vigzol. I don't have the right book to check what lubricant was used when the BRM actually got underway. :
#6
Posted 13 October 2003 - 20:53
Originally posted by David Beard
.....and I have never heard of Vigzol. I don't have the right book to check what lubricant was used when the BRM actually got underway. :
It doesn't answer your question, but check Lot 074 in this list:- http://www.classic-a...results/A52.htm
#7
Posted 13 October 2003 - 20:58
Originally posted by Geoff E
It doesn't answer your question, but check Lot 074 in this list:- http://www.classic-a...results/A52.htm
OOh yes. Well spotted!
#8
Posted 13 October 2003 - 22:17
Originally posted by David Beard
The BRM didn't actually race that day.....and I have never heard of Vigzol. I don't have the right book to check what lubricant was used when the BRM actually got underway. :
#9
Posted 13 October 2003 - 22:35
#10
Posted 13 October 2003 - 22:50
Originally posted by Ray Bell
So we're left wondering about what Vigsol is or was...
It was definitely oil ....
I found a couple more references to it: in the Pitman Morris Minor Manual and a note about them having some sort of works in an old school in Greenwich, thanks to the Greenwich Industrial History Society
#11
Posted 13 October 2003 - 23:02
So I wonder why BRM either had anything to do with them, or alternatively why they changed to BP?
I would imagine money was an issue...
#12
Posted 13 October 2003 - 23:06
smokes that were endorsed by the medical community.......... ......... I remember one
ad where it states, 7 out of 10 doctors recomend smoking "camels" over other brands.
#13
Posted 13 October 2003 - 23:26
Originally posted by Ray Bell
ISo I wonder why BRM either had anything to do with them, or alternatively why they changed to BP?
I would imagine money was an issue...
I'd guess Vigzol were just one of the many companies which responded to Mays' appeal for money, supplies and/or help: in return they were presumably allowed to use the image and badge of BRM in their advertising, to associate themselves with this fine and successful British product
#14
Posted 13 October 2003 - 23:34
I don't see how BRM could allow any two companies claim to supply a product they were supposedly using in the cars. Could it be that BP came in after that abortive 1950 showing (as if they would...)?
And when did BRM align itself with Shell?
And there were days, buddyt, when advertising didn't have to reflect any form of truth...
#15
Posted 14 October 2003 - 07:43
#16
Posted 14 October 2003 - 18:51
... and they were only exaggerating by a few dollars... $6054 vs. $3090.
from www.cosworthvega.com
#17
Posted 14 October 2003 - 19:08
"TRACTORS. Farm Tractors. The History of their Development with notes on their proper maintenance. The Vigzol Oil Refining Co., [1946] £25
Sm.4to., pp.64; c.60 half-tone illustrations of different tractors both veteran & contemporary and a further sequence of maintenance half-tone & line illustrations; a good copy in original cloth-backed boards. A promotional publication which provides a fascinating survey of the range of tractors available at the end of the war."
Perhaps Vigzol strayed up to Lincolnshire in search of tractors.
#18
Posted 14 October 2003 - 19:15
#19
Posted 14 October 2003 - 19:39
Advertisement
#20
Posted 14 October 2003 - 20:17
At the bottom it says: FinaOriginally posted by Roger Clark
[B]BRM weren't alone.
No mention of Vigzol here though...
http://www.kes.hants...&lubricant=Fina
#21
Posted 14 October 2003 - 21:20
#22
Posted 14 October 2003 - 21:55
#23
Posted 14 October 2003 - 22:03
Originally posted by Will Estill
For those who just can't seem to get enough Vigzol...
http://cgi.ebay.com/...87&category=418
Now don't any of you even THINK of bidding against me...
#24
Posted 14 October 2003 - 22:28
When did BP come in, and when did they start with Shell?
#25
Posted 14 October 2003 - 22:31
Originally posted by Ray Bell
These say 'BRM wins'... Vizgol must have been with them for a while then?
When did BP come in, and when did they start with Shell?
Presumably BRM Vol 1 by - what's 'is name? - will tell us.
#26
Posted 15 October 2003 - 17:33
#27
Posted 15 October 2003 - 22:45
#28
Posted 15 October 2003 - 23:00
What do they mean by 'virtually the entire race'? Did they miss some of it out? Were there advert breaks? 'Over two hours' seems too short. Nowadays it lasts for over 3 hours, and it must have been longer than that in the 60s.
#29
Posted 15 October 2003 - 23:36
#30
Posted 16 October 2003 - 00:48
When I was at the IMRRC a couple of weeks ago, I remember the amusement as I searched for various articles in the magazines - the ads for various racing venues and services were very cool.
#31
Posted 16 October 2003 - 16:34
Originally posted by Mike Argetsinger
My recollection is that we saw the whole thing. I don't remember it being edited or otherwise shortened. But it has been a while and I can't say for certain. I remember being in that theater for a very long time that day though - in part because there was a very long delay in restarting the race after the huge crash on the first lap right at the start/finish line. Salt Walther got hurt pretty badly in that one and a number of cars were eliminated.
The accident involving Salt Walther was in the 1973 race wasn't it, not 1966?
#32
Posted 16 October 2003 - 16:40
Mike, just for the record: Salt Walther was injured in the 1973 start crash, not in 1966...;)Originally posted by Mike Argetsinger
My recollection is that we saw the whole thing. I don't remember it being edited or otherwise shortened. But it has been a while and I can't say for certain. I remember being in that theater for a very long time that day though - in part because there was a very long delay in restarting the race after the huge crash on the first lap right at the start/finish line. Salt Walther got hurt pretty badly in that one and a number of cars were eliminated.
#33
Posted 17 October 2003 - 01:41
Now that I have taken the time to actually look it up, I am reminded that while the two crashes were similar in both being at the start - and both eliminating a large number of cars - 1973 was actually far more horrendous.
The '66 crash involved 16 cars and 11 were eliminated including A.J. Foyt, Dan Gurney, Don Branson and Cale Yarborough (Don Capps's cousin!). The accident started when Billy Foster hit Gordon Johncock. Interestingly, Johncock was not one of the cars knocked out - he went on to finish 4th. The only injury was to A.J. who suffered a cut finger and bruised knee when he scaled the fence to get away from the melee. There was a fatality earlier in the month when Chuck Rodee hit the southwest wall on a qualifying warmup lap. That was also the year that Jackie Stewart seemed to be heading home with a comfortable win when his car's oil pressure failed with just 25 miles to go. And it was also the year of the disputed finish when Chapman and Granatelli claimed Jim Clark had won and not Graham Hill. Leading to the famous Graham Hill statement that he must have won because "I drank the milk!"
'73 is considered one of the darkest of all Indy 500's with three fatalities during the month - two drivers and a crewman - and 13 spectators injured. On May 12 Art Pollard was killed when he hit the turn one wall and flipped down the south chute coming to rest upside down in turn two. It took three days to get the race in. Race day was Monday (Memorial day) May 28. After lengthy rain delays the start was finally made in mid-afternoon. Salt Walther and Jerrry Grant tangled percipitating a 12-car chain reaction accident. Flaming fuel and debris from Walther's car caused the 13 spectator injuries. His car hit the outside wall and slid 640 feet. Walther's injuries were severe but he eventually raced again. The rain returned and the race was postponed. On Tuesday they tried to start the race at 10:15 A.M. but rain came again with the cars on the pace lap. The race was finally run on Wednesday May 30. Swede Savage suffered fatal burns when his car hit the turn four wall and split in two (he lingered with his burns until succumbing on July 2). The track was covered in flames. In the pitlane a crew man (I can't find his name - does anyone know?) from Graham McRae's team was looking up the track in the direction of the accident when he was struck and killed by an emergency truck going the wrong way (northbound) in the pit lane. The race was stopped after 133 laps when the rain returned yet again and Gordon Johncock was declared the winner sitting in the pits when the race was called.
#34
Posted 27 October 2003 - 21:46
I wonder if his Daily Dispatch column took a similar approach? Anyone remember?
#35
Posted 27 October 2003 - 21:55
Originally posted by David Beard
.....I wonder if his Daily Dispatch column took a similar approach? Anyone remember?
I'd suggest that if this was the power unit taking you places, then 'flat out all the way' wouldn't be all that terribly illegal. In fact, it might be essential...
#36
Posted 27 October 2003 - 22:03
Originally posted by Ray Bell
I'd suggest that if this was the power unit taking you places, then 'flat out all the way' wouldn't be all that terribly illegal. In fact, it might be essential...
True...but I think he'd moved on from side valve Fords by then...
#37
Posted 27 October 2003 - 23:27
I cannot imagine why the 1172 and 750 people kept going for so long...
#38
Posted 17 January 2005 - 05:33
such a good thread.....here's some more...
Auto Motor und Sport 1/66
if you think the picture is funny you have to read the text....
"If you like manual and firm suspension you should smoke cigars.
Why? Because smoking cigars suits sporting men.
There are young,slim sizes of cigars that you certainly like.
Cigars taste good.
And smoking cigar is sensible.
Reason (vernunft) suits fast men.
Well...enough reasons for cigars and cigarillos
....because men smoke cigars
i picture Michael Schumacher lighting up Montoyas cigar
#39
Posted 17 January 2005 - 06:06
Motor und Sport ,1942
"You will enjoy motorsport alot more when you wear a Gentila-Belt.Your body will be protected against vibration..blablabla....."
Advertisement
#40
Posted 17 January 2005 - 20:55
#41
Posted 17 January 2005 - 23:18
Henry
#42
Posted 18 January 2005 - 13:14
i want one
cheers Marty
#43
Posted 18 January 2005 - 20:17
Geoff
#45
Posted 18 January 2005 - 23:36
Originally posted by David Beard
Did any of you go to see this....
I was another to see this, in Birmingham in my case. I think I went with Andy Dawson and PMC Head. And I seem to remember that they showed "Tribute to Fangio" as a curtain-raiser!
Fabulous!
#46
Posted 19 January 2005 - 10:15
________________________________________________________________________Originally posted by Ray Bell
These say 'BRM wins'... Vizgol must have been with them for a while then?
When did BP come in, and when did they start with Shell?
Hi Ray . The Shell Add says 1963 64 65 but it is unsure that they had Shell in through all those wins.
And Wee Jackie used it out here in 1966.
#47
Posted 19 January 2005 - 10:29
Did anybody realise tho huge hole in his socks?
great ads....i like this thread....
what about something a bit older......enjoy
#49
Posted 19 January 2005 - 12:51
This almost matches the Chrysler advert where the Valiants won the Monte Carlo Rally and went on to win the Monaco GP. What they had actually done was competed in the Monte and possibly finished or maybe even won their class. (On second thoughts it may have been Ford Falcons or Galaxies)
#50
Posted 19 January 2005 - 13:17