tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8908461644259659419.post629064534370569229..comments2024-03-18T08:00:58.425-07:00Comments on Midlife Cycling: Why Else Would We Ride?Justine Valinottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10852069587181432102noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8908461644259659419.post-86908365693081605252017-03-10T22:54:00.199-08:002017-03-10T22:54:00.199-08:00Leo--You certainly are right about the differences...Leo--You certainly are right about the differences between 1895 and 1917 vs. 1995 and 2017. You're probably right about the dates and locales of the photos. I just happened to find them on the web without any identifying information.<br /><br />You are forgiven for being late! ;-)Justine Valinottihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10852069587181432102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8908461644259659419.post-36821884391133624192017-03-10T09:42:49.762-08:002017-03-10T09:42:49.762-08:00I do believe that the young women in your first ph...I do believe that the young women in your first photo are wearing bathing suits from around 1900 or 1905. Things really loosened up with regard to women's clothes after around 1895. The proper lady no longer had to have 20 pounds of petty coats and whatever under a floor length dress. And in only 15-20 years skirts were above the knee and it was the age of the flapper. The distance between 1895 and 1917 was vastly greater culturally then the distance between 1995 and 2017.<br /><br />I would hazard a guess that the photo was taken on the beach at Blackpool in NW England, based on the shadowy tower form in the middle of the horizon.<br /><br />The date of the second photo is very difficult to estimate. It could be as late as 1935. I am not sure if what they are wearing could be called bloomers. <br /><br />Happy Women's Day. Sorry I am late.<br /><br />Leo<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com