[capt_bob]

American COSMO - I mean especially the cover - used to be the hottest thing on the newsstand , at least in the front of the newsstand, not hidden in the back - maybe even covered with brown paper! (Check out 35 years of COSMO covers here:
http://www.fashion-iconography.net/Covers-CosmoUS.htm
Just dig the clevage - especially in the 70's - incredible!!! (The photogs & models, mostly, are identified - just point to each cover - too bad they're only undownloadable thumbnails!)
Maybe it's because Scavullo is gone? A sign of the times, perhaps? Maybe they're afraid the magazine will not be sold in many places if the cover is toooo Hot? (Fashion magazines have been removed from the racks of big chain stores in certain red state locations due to covers that were deemed too lewd - or even due to lewd, offensive pictures inside!) Let's face it, at this stage of the game you can barely distinguish the COSMO cover from the LADIES' HOME JOURNAL or GOOD HOUSEKEEPING !!!
Any thoughts here?

[dfl-001]

With Helen Gurley Brown at the helm, Scavullo as primary photographer and Sean Bryans as the main stylist, Cosmopolitan did what no other magazine had before; the magazine became Iconic. "That Cosmo Girl" was immediately identifiable; sexy, gorgeous, smart and worldly. It seemed to be somewhat prestigious to be the cover model. When appearing on the cover, the models were made to look more beautiful than they ever had.
I agree with you, now the magazine has taken a sad nose-dive in the style department. Some of the loveliest woman appear on the cover today and look positively Horrid . If you compare the magazine, then (70's - 80's - 90's) and now, it seems they're aiming for broad unoffensive appeal. The earlier years are much more sophisticated in style and appeal. Now every cover looks like someone who doesn't care how she looks ( same clothes, same hair, same pose). Really Awful.

A few attachments from Better Days:

[tone]

oh how i miss the days of STYLE on the cover of magazines not GARBAGE like we have these days

[capt_bob]

I was hardly talking about COSMO as a bible of fashion - rather more as a cultural thing - and the immediately recognizable cover - (from a design point, one of the most successful covers ever conceived) - and how it's changed: how it was once completely in your face hot, over-the-top sexy, slutty, trampy, trashy, whatever, and how today the cover is just completely vapid, sexless, dull, insipid, booring. This is just one more example of how the thought police, the self-appointed guardians of public morals have intruded into other peoples' lives, essentially telling them what they can read, or look at - the same watchdogs who are now looking to regulate premium cable TV & radio. And so, whether it's COSMO or VOGUE, the magazines are going to clean things up rather than risk being removed from the news-stands. Just look at the old VOGUE, from the 70s and 80s: plenty of red hot models like Gia Carangi, Lisa Taylor, Kelly LeBrock, Kelly Emberg, Janice Dickinson (before she botoxed herself into Egyptian mummyhood) just letting it all hang out in completely transparent fabrics (nipples everywhere - even the occasional glimpse of the secret garden) - OMG - looking almost like COSMO girls ! You couldn't put any of this stuff out there in red state type places now. They'd have public fashion magazine bonfires!!

[arlekindearrabal]

^lol
sad but true
has cosmo always had national distribution in the us?
maybe it was only distributed in the so-called "blue" states before, and now that they've broadened their reach, they are obliged to do things of this sort

[Erin]

Cosmo is so celebrity-based, it makes me sick. Not to mention... all that's inside is info on how to please your man, or info on orgasms... fun when I was in high school (or college), but now... I just laugh at it.

[peacelover142002]

^i agree. all the teenage girls at my school love cosmo, because it probably makes them feel grownup, but it bores me to tears with all its sex and work talk. i'd take vogue over cosmo anyday.

[KissMiss]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfl-001 With Helen Gurley Brown at the helm, Scavullo as primary photographer and Sean Bryans as the main stylist, Cosmopolitan did what no other magazine had before; the magazine became Iconic. "That Cosmo Girl" was immediately identifiable; sexy, gorgeous, smart and worldly. It seemed to be somewhat prestigious to be the cover model. When appearing on the cover, the models were made to look more beautiful than they ever had. I agree with you, now the magazine has taken a sad nose-dive in the style department. Some of the loveliest woman appear on the cover today and look positively Horrid . If you compare the magazine, then (70's - 80's - 90's) and now, it seems they're aiming for broad unoffensive appeal. The earlier years are much more sophisticated in style and appeal. Now every cover looks like someone who doesn't care how she looks ( same clothes, same hair, same pose). Really Awful. A few attachments from Better Days:

Is the model on the first cover Rene Russo?

[lucy92]

i am also tried of the "girl next door" models/celebs on the cover of Cosmo.

bring on the vamp i say!

[KissMiss]

it been a long time ago when model in bikini appeared on the cover of Cosmo...

[Miss Dalloway]

Well i think those covers were horrible,beyond tacky.Where do you people see style there?Sleazy,revealing,trampish bathingsuits?

Its logical that Cosmos covers are different,we are living in different times,the exuberence and decadence of the 70s,80s&90s when models and therefore all women were expected to look like that;in one word:F***able are gone(such blatant sexit,covers ) !And as a woman i thank god for that.

And its very interesting that "homme" created this thread,(no offense to the person in question;i am just saying).

[KissMiss]

well yes to some extend u are right... but here it is more about creativeness that Cosmopolitan was always lacking... and as to present times... I think silicon boob exposed girls are not part of stylishness as well... but look at Vogue covers mostly they are deadly pale... I would not like to have anorexic babes in fashion and if we speak about men world you know they all prefer something touchable ;-)

[Miss Dalloway]

^^Hahahah ya,i am all up for sexy models with curves but those Cosmo covers,never gave me the vibe that its was about celebration of models amazing bodies,more like a cheap shoot at sexiness.

BUT many of them are Iconic and i cant deny that.

[capt_bob]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emil Well i think those covers were horrible,beyond tacky.Where do you people see style there?Sleazy,revealing,trampish bathingsuits? Its logical that Cosmos covers are different,we are living in different times,the exuberence and decadence of the 70s,80s&90s when models and therefore all women were expected to look like that;in one word:F***able are gone(such blatant sexit,covers ) !And as a woman i thank god for that. And its very interesting that "homme" created this thread,(no offense to the person in question;i am just saying).

OK, Emil. I'm l'homme in question. The point I was making, (and it was a point made in the NY Times recently, apropos of a Scavullo retrospective in some gallery or other), was about the iconic nature of the COSMO cover: immediately recognizable, and one of the single most successful magazine cover designs ever: because it did, fabulously well, what any magazine cover is designed to do: IT SOLD THE MAGAZINE - AND A LOT OF THEM. And I think that's the whole point. The Times also wrote that Scavullo, in his old age, worried that he would only be remembered for his COSMO covers, and not for his more serious work. Well, it could be worse Francesco: you could remembered not at all - for anything! Besides there's something to be said for trashy. The current editrix of American VOGUE might check it out. I flip through the editorials of US VOGUE these days and I can't remember when fashion, at least fashion as seen by Ms Wintour, was more completely and utterly vapid, dull and completely devoid of - OMG - sex appeal. Check out VOGUE from the 70's & 80s into the 90s. It was red hot at times, and even a little trashy!

I'm glad to see that, after over a year, this thread got some peoples' motors running. I'm flattered.
Check out this link: it's a archive of fashion magazine covers, from around 1960 to the present. Unfortunately there thumbnails only.
http://www.fashion-iconography.net/index.htm
It's interesting to see how the covers have changed over the years. And yes - bring back sex, and, please loose the actress and singers and bring back the models!

Oh, and P.S.: I think the point of women's Fashion, the whole point, hands down, is to make women more beautiful, hence more desireable, and, ultimately, more f--kable. And you can go to Darwin on this one. There simply is nothing else: the bottom line: the continuation of the human race.

[capt_bob]

Some more sleazy, trashy, sexist COSMO covers from the old days, as scanned by me (several versions of some scans). Click on thumbnails for BIG pictures. All covers are by Scavullo, unless otherwise noted. Enjoy!
May 1975: model Carol Francis

September 1975: Margaux Hemingway

November 1976: Clothilde

April 1977: Kathy Speirs:

April 1978: Janice Dickinson (she was super hot! at least before she botoxed, breast enhanced and face-lifted herself into Egyptian mummydom!)

July 1980: Gia Carangi
Talk about a figure iconic of all the excesses of those bad old days. Gia's the poster girl for that era, for sure.

November 1980: Lisa Vale

October 1981: Vanessa Angel

May 1982: Jackie Adams (incuding her bio page)

While maybe forgotten today, models like Clothilde, Jackie Adams & Lisa Vale, (and, of course, Janice & Gia) were everywhere back then: editorials in all the big magazines as well as high end ad campaigns.