Quote:
Originally Posted by beutelwolf
Girl illustrated: most models are given full (and accurate) names, though the same caveat about multiply-named models applies here too. When models are given only a single name it means very little though (this pre-dates page-3). Naming errors are quite rare. There is visibly a change in style from volume 5 onwards and that also aversely affected the reliablity of its namings. A visual clue is the amount of text accompanying a pictorial: perversely, a lot of text means it's mostly bogus.
|
Just to put some figures to back up this impression, I looked at three issues of this mag, from different phases.
| volume | #models | anonymous | single name | full name | verifiable | wrong |
| 3 | 20 | 0 | 1 | 19 | 13 | 0 |
| 5 | 28 | 2 | 8 | 18 | 11 | 0 |
| 9 | 12 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
So, with the issue from volume 3 (issue 33), 65% of the given names were verifiable, 95% of models had full names, and none of the names were verifiably wrong.
In volume 5 (issue 7), verifiability dropped to 42%, and proportion of full names to 64%.
In volume 9 (issue 1) verifiability evaporised (0%), only 8% had full names, with one (single) name even being verifiably wrong.
The volume 5 figures are still looking good enough to base identifications on, but one can tell that the mag's on a slippery slope.
One can tell even from these figures alone that the mag moved on from well-established models to girl-next-door type, and any care about the identity of the models declined proportional to this trend.