Page 2 of 8
Re: underwear
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:54 am
by CHAZ
CHAZ wrote: Horrible things as itchy nad with lots of holes!!!
This should read "and with lots of holes"...!
Actually they were particularly uncomfortable and thick!! I remember we only changed twice a week so you can imagine the state of affairs...I often wondered if you got the Morleys of the guy who had had your House Number before you....but thne again I can't imagine that a UF guy has the same ****!! as a former Grecian!!!
Re: underwear
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:53 am
by Jo
CHAZ wrote:CHAZ wrote: Horrible things as itchy nad with lots of holes!!!
This should read "and with lots of holes"...!
I thought it was better before - a trifle too much information perhaps but very descriptive

Re: underwear
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:38 pm
by CHAZ
I should add that we were also provided with pyjamas that were stripped and had a tie up in the front. Thses made us look like convicts...
So what with itchy Morleys, itchy breeches, itchy yellow socks and bands that half choked you, the average Housey boy in the early 80s would have made a great specimen for any dermatologist
Re: underwear
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:07 pm
by Vièr Bliu
CHAZ wrote:I should add that we were also provided with pyjamas that were stripped and had a tie up in the front.
Ripcord!!!
Re: underwear
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:21 pm
by J.R.
Vièr Bliu wrote:CHAZ wrote:I should add that we were also provided with pyjamas that were stripped and had a tie up in the front.
Ripcord!!!
Ar !!! The good old ripcord.
That brings back painful memories !
Re: underwear
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:21 pm
by michael scuffil
CHAZ wrote:I should add that we were also provided with pyjamas that were stripped and had a tie up in the front. Thses made us look like convicts...
They were indeed sometimes stripped, but don't you mean striped?
(Actually pretty well every male wore pyjamas like that in those days. They were probably the most normal part of our kit.)
Re: underwear
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:22 pm
by michael scuffil
CHAZ wrote:I should add that we were also provided with pyjamas that were stripped and had a tie up in the front. Thses made us look like convicts...
They were indeed sometimes stripped, but don't you mean striped?
(Actually pretty well every male wore pyjamas like that in those days. They were probably the most normal part of our kit.)
Re: underwear
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:33 pm
by Vièr Bliu
michael scuffil wrote:
(Actually pretty well every male wore pyjamas like that in those days. They were probably the most normal part of our kit.)
From my and CHAZ's late 70s/early 80s point of view, they were almost as much museum pieces as the breeches.
And getting back to underwear, I believe the Morleys factory closed down in the 90s.
Re: underwear
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:34 pm
by CHAZ
Re: underwear
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:05 pm
by Angela Woodford
CHAZ, thank you so much for the link. I've really enjoyed browsing through the vintage posters. Marvellous.
One day, I hope to trace a 60's Dr Zhigavo poster - always loved it.
Stripy pyjamas with the cord in front... I confess, I find these
attractive. Weird!
I wonder why? Dunno!
Re: underwear
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:18 pm
by J.R.
Angela Woodford wrote:
Stripy pyjamas with the cord in front... I confess, I find these
attractive. Weird!
I wonder why? Dunno!
Oh - Come On Angela ! - You know WHY !!!! 
Re: underwear
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:44 pm
by Angela Woodford
Oh, OK -
But men in my time never wore these pyjamas with cords. That's why it's a bit baffling!
We also at Hertford suffered twice weekly changes of underwear. Oh dear.
Re: underwear
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:45 pm
by michael scuffil
Angela Woodford wrote:
We also at Hertford suffered twice weekly changes of underwear. Oh dear.
Are you saying this was too many or too few? At Horsham (in the 50s and 60s) it was weekly.
The pyjama-cord thing is curious. CH pyjamas (stripes and cords) were what I'd been used to before I went to CH. I carried on with this style until I renounced pyjamas entirely about 40 years ago. I must admit I have not the faintest idea what the modern well-dressed man wears in bed. (Unless I am the modern well-dressed man. In bed perhaps. But otherwise I make no claims to modernity. As for well-dressed in the daytime, since the Grecians' coat it's been downhill all the way.)
Re: underwear
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:54 pm
by Katharine
michael scuffil wrote:Are you saying this was too many or too few? At Horsham (in the 50s and 60s) it was weekly.
I'm sure we were told that Sir Harry Vanderpant had given money for you to have a third set of underwear, given his name we thought this entirely appropriate.
Does anyone know if the story is true?
Re: underwear
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:05 pm
by CHAZ
I must admit I have not the faintest idea what the modern well-dressed man wears in bed. (Unless I am the modern well-dressed man. In bed perhaps. But otherwise I make no claims to modernity. As for well-dressed in the daytime, since the Grecians' coat it's been downhill all the way.)[/quote]
Perhaps we shoudl launch a survey on this one?