Whenever the magazine gets too stuffy for words, I need to remind myself of its readership. And sometimes the disconnect is spelled out so beautifully that it's worth mentioning.
Here's a Rolls-Royce advertisement in the April 6, 1929 issue. While I'm sure that Rolls-Royce was advertised in less exclusive magazines at the time, I somehow doubt that the other magazines got THIS version:
Yes, you can get along without a Rolls-Royce. You can get along without trips to Europe, or a fine piano in your home, or sterling silver on the table. But you don't.Judging by all the tittery articles about steamship trips abroad, you can be reasonably sure that the average New Yorker reader DIDN'T get along without all those things...or at the very least they WANTED to be the sort of person who didn't.
I also get a kick out of this sentence:
America's foremost bankers -- 163 of them -- endorse Rolls-Royce as an investment by owning Rolls-Royces themselves!Was this line REALLY intended to show the "investment" value of the car...or was it simply there to remind you that rich and prominent people drove Rolls-Royces, so you should too?