Comic book-style ads for adults?

Comic book-style ads for adults--where would we find such things?  Answer: In this 1967 Sunset House catalog, for one place.  Here are seven comic book-style ads from that catalog, all but one featuring grown-up models, and five featuring products that actually appeared in the pages of comic books--the spy scope, mini-radio, pocket adding machine, bald wig, and the drawing projector thingie.  Not sure about the "John joke" or the quite cool "Dial a Monster/Horror-scope."  I want one!

Lee

Cartoons and strips from Delightful Days (D. Lothrop & Co., 1883)

Most of these are stand-alone cartoons, save for the fifth, "In Kite Time." The lone strip--"Wungbasah's Adventures with Mekwaseese"--illustrates a text titled "The Story of Maple Sugar."  I believe the source for all of these was the D. Lothrop children's periodical, Chit Chat.  (Update: At least two of these turn out to be from Wide Awake, also D. Lothrop.)

I had to remove the binding and the spine cloth, since the former was crumbling apart each time I opened the pages for a scan.  The book's interior consists of high-quality magazine paper--in fact, I'm guessing these are actual, bonda fide leftover Chit Chat (or Wide Awake?) issues from the previous year (1882).

Cool cartoon ad for Pearline laundry soap from March, 1890

From the March, 1890 Wide Awake magazine:

Lee

Highlights from "Who's Afraid" (1890-1900-ish)

Who's Afraid is a typical collection of its type--a children's book composed of reprints from any number of sources (typically, from various magazines).  These things came out in droves in the late 1800s and early 1900s, usually printed on cheap paper even more cheaply bound, and with few or no color illustrations on the inside.  They're fun and charming, and I've become addicted to them, but they do quickly acquire a seen-one-seem-'em-all character, due in no small part to the lack of care taken in the editing, as well as the lousy printing quality.  Clearly, these were low-rent efforts for low-income parents and/or parents with dough who didn't feel like spending much of it.  Whatever the 19th century equivalent of Woolworth's, drug store, and five and dime racks happened to be, that's where these things were stuck, I'm guessing.  The check-out-line, grab-it-on-the-way-out purchases of their day, with "Oh, wait, I forgot to buy something for the kids" written all over them.

More than anything else in the realm of cheapdom, the budget label record labels that dominated dime store, drug store, and grocery store racks in the 1950s and early 1960s are what these remind me of.  (I'm not sure about that last sentence, but we'll continue.)  Like the LPs and singles carelessly churned out by Royale, Waldorf, and Prom, these cheap kiddie books (put out by Lothrop Publ. Co., Charles E. Graham, M.A. Donohue, and others)  recycled titles, cover art, and you-name-it without a second thought.  Recently, I checked eBay in the hopes of replacing a rapidly crumbling cheap-volume gem of this type, and I found the right cover art and title--but the contents didn't match at all.  (Thank goodness for eBay ad scans.)  "How weird," I said to myself.  Out loud.  In my Media Room, so it was okay.  Were these late 1800s/early 1900s publishers tossing things together as haphazardly and illogically as the cheapo record labels of yore?  Looks like it.

So... two comic book-style pages, the front and back covers, the title page, and two Palmer Cox illustrations, including a Brownies panel (Cox is best-known for said cartoon characters).  I can't get over the horrifying baby-holding-a-firecracker illustration on the back cover, but there it is.  Just how genteel were the folks of Victorian and Edwardian days?  Do genteel sorts hand lit firecrackers to their babies?  Just saying.

Hint for viewing the larger pages: Keep this page view (as opposed to clicking each image) and enlarge the entire screen--for example, use the Zoom function of Google Chrome.  These are high resolution images, so no detail loss will occur.  Clicking on them will only get them as large as Google wants you to get them, at least on my browser.

Lee

Comic-style advertising booklet from 1892

This 1892 advertising booklet for The Arlington Company's Phospho-Caffein (sic) Compound (a brain and nerve sedative!) comes complete with 1892-style humor.  Otherwise, it's interesting and kind of fun.  The text, packed with pretend misspellings meant to amuse (1892, remember), is a chore to slough through, but the cartoon-style drawings are a lot of fun, and the interplay between text and image is like nothing I experienced in my Charlton-, Gold Key-, and Dell-reading youth.  (I can't believe I just typed "Charlton-, Gold Key-, and Dell-reading youth.")  An 1892 comic book(let)?  Works for me.

Woefully dated puns, humor the writers at Hee Haw would have rejected as too cornpone, and one long crank-medicine testimonial--what more could you ask for?  Don't thank me--just download without delay.  By the way, caffeine is the #1 worst thing in the world for headaches. Just sayin'.

Lee

Some highly cool comic-style material from the March, 1891 Our Little Men and Women

Great stuff from Our Little Men and Women (March, 1891).  I have no idea what's going on with "The Tale of a Rat."  It doesn't seem to relate to any of the texts in the issue, but it's certainly a cool comic page-style strip.

In addition to these, there's this great, comic-style ad:

And two interesting ads in a more conventional (by 1891 standards) style:

Lee

More entries in the "Comics/Not Comics" sweepstakes.

Two "comics?/not comics?"gems from the marvelous children's periodical, Wide Awake, Jan., 1890.  The montage, "Winter Morning," seems (to my eyes) to have more of a modern comic-book look than the Sunday strips I've seen from ten years later.  The other, though meant simply for drawing instruction, looks incredibly like a strip and/or a very active single-panel cartoon.

When dealing with examples that elude conventional categorizing, we can only describe them in the abstract--or not at all.  Like Thierry Smoderen, I consider the "not at all" option not at all acceptable!

Lee