Baby Doll cosmetics ad, 1967

You might remember I became obsessed with finding information on the Baby Doll makeup range back in the spring of 2017, when I came across their fabulously psychedelic and colorful ads from the late ’60s. While I managed to acquire several of the original ads, I still couldn’t find much on brand itself, other than it was exclusive to Woolworth’s in the UK and obviously geared towards younger women/teenagers. Fortunately, UK-based Makeup Museum volunteer Emma Berger stepped in to do some research! In addition to what she uncovered on her own, she also had the brilliant idea to email the curator of the Woolworth’s Museum, Paul Seaton, who provided additional information. Here’s what Emma and Paul had to say about the brand. (Images in this post are the Museum’s unless otherwise noted.)

Baby Doll was launched in May of 1967 at all 1,100 Woolworth’s locations in the UK. The supplier of the line was a company named E.R. Holloway, a family-owned business. Based in Lavenham, Suffolk, Holloway was a principle supplier of affordable cosmetics following WWII. The ‘Evette’ brand was one of the market leaders in the 1950s, coinciding with shoppers having more spending money and cosmetics becoming more socially acceptable. Later, the company realized there was a vast, largely untapped teenage market that wanted to emulate actresses and models like Twiggy. Holloway conducted some market research by assembling a panel of teenage girls, who indicated that they would like inexpensive, fun makeup with bright colors, especially for nail polish and lip gloss. They found the Woolworth’s current makeup offerings to be boring and old-fashioned, and they also didn’t want to be “stuck waiting behind older ladies” so they also wanted their own counters.

Baby Doll cosmetics ad

Judging by the ads, E.R. Holloway delivered. I don’t know about the quality of the makeup, but the prices appeared to be a pittance for the incredibly colorful and fun product line. According to the Sharon Kane, author of the Sweet Jane blog, the eye-catching ads appeared in UK magazines like Jackie, RAVE and Photoplay magazines. It’s unclear as to what prompted the choice to use illustrated girls vs. photographs of models, but I think the decision was appropriate, as it aligned with the Baby Doll brand vision – supplying plenty of colors to choose from and encouraging “playtime” with makeup – and also helped them stand out from their competitors.

Baby Doll cosmetics ad playtime

The use of illustration was fairly unique for the time as by the late 1960s illustrations had become scarce in cosmetic ads. By that point, most companies had shifted towards using photos for the bulk of their marketing – gone were the days of hiring artists and fashion illustrators who ruled advertising from the 1920s through the ’40s. The ads can also be considered a precursor of sorts to the Stila girl illustrations some 30 years later.

Baby Doll cosmetics ad

The ads are also representative of their time in their mentions of sun, moon and stars as in the ad below, or numerology as in their Lucky Numbers ad. Remember that flower children were pretty fascinated with astrology and other pseudo-science, so it makes sense to incorporate these aspects as they appealed to the hippie demographic.

Baby Doll cosmetics adObviously I’m smitten with the print ads, but the radio commercials were a hoot.  The spots aired on Radio Luxenbourg and used Woolworth’s Embassy Records commercials as a template, given their success with a younger crowd. I tried to put together a little video using the clip that Paul so kindly shared. I couldn’t get Typepad to upload it so I had to (shudder) put it on YouTube and link to it. Ugh.

Paul mentioned that Holloway took a “shared risk” approach with Baby Doll by financing the counters and product development in exchange for Woolworth selling the products in all their stores for at least two years and for continuing to carry the Evette line. Consumers were pleased with Baby Doll, at least according to one anecdote shared by Brenda Hendley for Yours magazine. “When working as a Saturday Girl in Woolworths in the late 1960s I was lucky enough to be on the make-up counter when they launched Baby Doll Cosmetics. As a 15-year-old girl, this range was so exciting. It had lilac, green and blue nail varnish, brown eyeshadow and pale pink, lilac and peach lipsticks, instead of the usual red and orange nail colours worn by our mothers. Even the posters were exciting with illustrated dolly girls in the arms of handsome men. To my mother’s horror, I went out that weekend sporting lilac nail polish and lilac lipstick to match my lilac mini dress. I can still remember how excited and glamorous I felt.”

Baby Doll cosmetics ad

Paul confirmed Baby Doll was a successful line, but Holloway may have ended up competing against it by launching Tu, another youth-oriented range, in the 1970s. Tu was popular in both the UK and Canada and was “less fashionable” meaning that perhaps Baby Doll’s only flaw was that it was too niche. Rainbow colors are great but if that’s all a makeup line offers, only a certain demographic – mostly teenagers, and adventurous ones at that – would have purchased it back then. From the look and sound of it, Tu was an affordable line for younger clientele, but sold more versatile (read: safe) color and products that would be suitable for daily use. Baby Doll, by contrast, had very few neutral shades and textures; unfortunately I don’t think yellow lipstick and pink mascara would be considered everyday wear even among younger women. In any case, you can see displays from both the Tu and Evette lines over at Karen Waddy’s blog, Made in Lavenham.

Baby Doll cosmetics ad from the February 15, 1969 issue of Jackie magazineSome brief additional thoughts: first, I would give my eye teeth to know who illustrated these ads! I’ve pored over the ads to see if there was any artist signatures but no luck. Sharon Kane suggested that Caroline Smith may have been responsible for at least some of the ads and I think that’s as a good a guess as any. (You can see more of her work here.) I actually contacted Smith through her website and am hoping for a reply. Update: I heard back from the artist and she confirmed the Baby Doll ads are her work! How very exciting to finally have this makeup mystery solved!

I also wish I could locate some of the makeup itself, but I’ve literally never seen any actual photos of it except for this one.

Baby Doll cosmetics at Woolworth's
(image from woolworthsmuseum.co.uk)

You can sort of see them in this ad which dates to 1969 and does not use the amazing illustrations, instead opting for the typical close-up photo. I think the line definitely loses a bit of its appeal. As noted earlier, without the unique ads, Baby Doll resembles a pretty run-of-the-mill makeup line that doesn’t really stand out from other youth-oriented UK brands (although “she didn’t tell her ugly sisters either” cracks me up.)

Baby Doll cosmetics ad, 1969

This brings me to my last point: it’s strange that you can still buy objects from what I believe were Baby Doll’s UK-based competitors at the time, Yardley, Mary Quant, Boots 17, Miner’s and Rimmel, but not a single relic from Baby Doll besides the ads still exists that I’ve seen. I’m very curious about Baby Doll’s sales compared to other brands, as they had a very similar outlook in terms of a more playful approach to makeup and were primarily intended for the youth market. Why these brands had longevity while Baby Doll, despite its distinctive ads, did not is interesting. Perhaps the facts that Mary Quant already had significant name recognition as a modern fashion brand and that Yardley hired some of the biggest models of the time for their makeup campaigns had something to do with it. Additionally, while Holloway was an established company, it didn’t have quite the pedigree of Rimmel (established in 1834) or the reach of Miner’s and Boots 17.  It’s a shame, honestly, as I believe Baby Doll was the most creative and fun line out of all of these. Okay, I have a weakness for Quant’s crayons and basically all of Yardley’s packaging (especially their paint boxes and novelty items), but I think Baby Doll is my favorite for the ads, colors and overall vibe. If I had been around back then I would have bought the whole line.

HUGE thanks to Emma and Paul for researching and gathering this history and permitting me to post it here! And if anyone has additional information or memories they’d like to share about Baby Doll I’m all ears.

I am forever grateful for those who approach me with makeup they no longer want or that they feel belongs in the Museum.  While 2020 was another hellish year for me personally and the Museum, as well as basically the whole world, I believe a record number of donations were received.  Here’s a brief overview of what was graciously bestowed upon the Museum this year. 

First up is a mint condition Max Factor gift set.  A very nice woman in Canada donated it, noting that it was a birthday present from her father to her mother one year.  According to newspaper ads it dates to about 1948. I love the suggested use for the box lids as “party trays”!

Vintage Max Factor gift set

December 1948 ad for Max Factor gift sets

Next up is a slew of awesome ads and postcards from the ’80s and ’90s, donated by an Instagram buddy from Argentina.  Such a sweet note too!

MM donation note

Revlon Rich and Famous and LA postcard, 1986-1987

Revlon Wall Street and Tea Silks postcards

Revlon Counterpoint postcard

Lancome postcards, 1986-1987

Lancome postcards, 1987-1988

Lancome L'Art Nature postcard, 1992

Helena Rubinstein postcards, 1988

This next one is super interesting.  Normally the Museum does not include hair products, but the donor is a fellow collector and very knowledgeable about Russian culture, having lived in Moscow for several years.  This vintage hair dye was made in East Germany and exported to the USSR.

Florena hair dye

Next up are some lovely Elizabeth Arden objects. These were donated by a woman in California whose mother worked at the Elizabeth Arden counter at a department store.  Here we have the Napoleonic compact which was introduced around 1953, Faint Blush, the famous Ardena patter, and some Color Veil (powder blush) refills.

Makeup Museum donation - Elizabeth Arden

Near as I can figure, the Faint Blush was a sort of foundation primer, but it seems like it could also be worn alone.  I love the plastic pink rose packaging, as it’s very much of its era (ca. 1963-1973). I think the patter and the Faint Blush are my favorites from this bunch.

Makeup Museum - Elizabeth Arden donation

Then, another very kind Instagram friend and fellow collector sent a huge lot of vintage powder boxes and compacts.  The Museum did not have any of these…some I hadn’t even heard of and some I had only admired them from afar.  I just about died when I opened the package!  Clockwise from top left: a 1930s eyeshadow by a company called Quinlan, a 1920s Harriet Hubbard Ayer Luxuria face powder, a powder dispenser by Cameo (probably from around the ’30s), a ’20s Marcelle compact tin, an extremely rare Red Feather Rouge tin (ca. 1919), an unmarked lipstick and floral powder tin, a Princess Pat compact from about 1925, a Yardley English Lavender tin (ca. 1930s) and a Fleur de Glorie face powder compact (ca. 1923-1926).  In the middle is an amazing pink plastic 1940s Mountain Heather face powder case, a line manufactured by Daggett and Ramsdell.

Makeup Museum donation

I love each and every piece, but my favorites are the eyeshadow compact, and an adorable Mondaine book compact (with the original box!) that was also included. Bookworm that I am, I want a whole “library” of these designs.

Vintage Mondaine book compact

Not all of the donations were vintage.  I was so happy to have received these two nail polishes from another IG friend. They were the result of a 2016 collaboration between Cirque Colors and the Met in honor of the latter’s Manus x Machina exhibition.

Cirque Colors Raven and Moon Dust

I’m sure you remember the kindness of makeup artist Amelia Durazzo-Cintron, who shared her memories of working for Kevyn Aucoin back in July.  For some reason she felt the need to thank ME instead, and did so by donating a really cool Black Swan makeup kit.  How nice is her note?!

Black Swan makeup kit

Black Swan makeup kit

Another Instagram friend and lipstick fanatic has been making lipstick swatch books.  These are kind of a new trend and in my opinion, far easier than taking photos of your lipsticks.  Once again a sweet note was enclosed.

Lipstick swatch book by Satin Matte Sheer

This lipstick swatch book is particularly lovely for its sprinkling of cosmetics trivia and important dates.  (It also reminds me that I never started working on my daily makeup history calendar, sigh.) If you want one of your own you can purchase it here.

Lipstick swatch book by Satin Matte Sheer

And that wraps up MM donations in 2020! I’m so incredibly grateful for these kind souls generously helping to build the collection.  And while physical objects are amazing, it’s the notes and messages that come with them that mean the most.  🙂  Also, if you have a makeup object you think is historically significant, an object from the Curator’s wishlist, or anything else you’d like to give, please check out the Museum’s support page.  I’m always looking for old fashion/women’s magazines too, along with ads and brochures and such…I can never have too much paper memorabilia!

Which one of these is your favorite?  What’s the best gift you’ve ever received?

I love when I get an inquiry to which I can actually give a solid response.  A gentleman sent in this picture he had of an old lipstick and asked if I could identify it and provide any sense of its monetary value.

MM-inquiry-lipstick

I recognized it immediately as one of the Revlon Couturines doll lipsticks released between 1961 and 1963.  But which one?  The only one I recognize off the top of my head is Liz Taylor as Cleopatra, since it's pretty obvious. 

Revlon-Liz-Taylor-Cleopatra

Fortunately the Revlon Couturines appear in Lips of Luxury (which I highly recommend for any beauty aficionado – check out my review here and in-person pics here.)  According to the photos in the book it's not Marilyn Monroe.

Revlon-Marilyn-Monroe

Or Ava Gardner.

Revlon-Ava-Gardner

So it must be one of these ladies.

Revlon-couturines-lipsticks

Aha!  Looks like it's Jackie Kennedy (last one on the right.)

Revlon-couturine-lipsticks

What's fascinating to me about the submitter's photo is that his doll appears to be wearing a little fur stole around her neck, whereas in the photo from the book she doesn't have one.  As for the value, Revlon Couturines can fetch a pretty hefty price.  Even though the photo is blurry, the one submitted to me looks to be in excellent condition.  And given that she has a stole, which I'm assuming is original (the original Marilyn Monroe figurine has neckwear as well, which isn't shown in the picture in Lips of Luxury), that would probably increase the value.  I think a fair asking price would be $150-$250.  At the moment I don't even see any Jackie figurines for sale. 

What do you think of these?  This post reminds me that I really need to track down at least one for the Museum – I can't believe I don't own any.  Another one (or 8) to add to the old wishlist.

Update, 2/6/2020:  It only took 5.5 years, but I finally procured a few of these lovely ladies for the Museum! 

Revlon Couturine lipstick cases, 1962

I am sorry to say that I can confirm these are not cruelty-free.  As a matter of fact, Revlon made it a point to highlight the "genuine" mink, fox and chinchilla used.  How times have changed.  I'm also wondering whether all the ones listed for sale over the years as having brown mink are actually fox fur, as indicated in the ad below.  Then again, this was the only ad I saw that referenced fox fur, so maybe the brown ones are mink as well.

Ad for Revlon Couturine lipsticks, December 1962

The white mink one is not in the best shape – there's a little bit of wear on the paint on her lips and discoloration around her "waist" – but she does have the original box.  I'm suspecting the black mark is remnants of a belt, as shown here.  (Apologies for changing the background in these photos but I was shooting across several days and was too lazy to retrieve the paper I had used originally.)

Revlon Couturine doll lipstick with white mink, ca. 1962

The chinchilla-clad lady, however, is basically new in the box.  One hundred percent museum quality!

Revlon Couturine doll lipstick with chinchilla fur, ca. 1962

From what I was able to piece together from newspaper ads, the ones without animal fur were advertised as "mannequins" and originally released in 1961, while the chinchilla, fox and mink ones were referred to as "girls" and debuted during the holiday season of 1962.  Both series fell under the Couturine name. 

Ad for Revlon couturine lipstick, 1962

There were originally 12 designs, according to this ad.  Of course, you paid a little more for the Mannequins with hats and jewelry. 

Revlon couturine lipstick ad, 1961

Most of them were similar but had a few details switched up.  This is especially true for the Girls series. For example, the brown mink/fox one I procured has the same color velvet at the bottom and one pair of rhinestones, but the one in Lips of Luxury has pink velvet and 4 rhinestones.  The colors of the velvet and type of fur were also mixed and matched.

Revlon-couturine-variations
(images from Sun Shine)

But one question remains.  I'm wondering where Jean-Marie Martin Hattemberg, whose book Lips of Luxury I referenced earlier, retrieved his information.  Obviously I don't think he just made up the idea that each Couturine was intended to be a replica of an actress or other famous woman.  But I'm so curious to know how he came to that conclusion since I've never seen them advertised or referred to that way anywhere other than his book.  Perhaps he knew someone at Revlon who designed them?  Or maybe they were marketed differently outside of the U.S.?  In any case, there's no mention of the chinchilla Couturine and several other of the original 12 dolls in Lips of Luxury, so I'm not sure who they're supposed to be.  Hopefully one of these days I'll solve another makeup mystery. 😉

Save