How strange that they appear to have had access to at least 3 colours for this piece... but chose to have a b&w illustration, reserving the colour for the type....Beautiful illustration... but odd design.Bill Angus
Bill, it seems to me that Virgil got off easy compared to some of his peers. I am already on the record with Leif as asserting that Good Housekeeping had poor art direction during this period. They would take conventional illustrations by great illustrators such as Fawcett and Parker and Briggs and Gannam and superimpose bouncy captions in frilly type face on top of them, usually in fluorescent pink or Day-glo yellow. The style of the type or the little starbursts or heart shapes or other little gimmicks was often dischordant with the style of the illustration. It was almost as if the illustration was assigned by one art director and the spread was designed by another, one who had received instruction to make the magazine more modern and feminine (1950's style). Very peculiar.Once when Robert Fawcett used colors that were too solemn, they shrank his double page spread illustration down to a third of one page and covered the rest of the spread with a solid pink background! Of course, Leif has far more milk of human kindness than I do, so he has a more forgiving reaction to this practice.
I genuinely like those dopey type treatments! They epitomize the time to me... there is a funky foolishness to them that hints at three martini lunches - then back to the office for a little gin-soaked creativity. ;-)