Nudity on our notes!!

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

Just playing around on ebay and found a nice close up reverse shot of a 1937 $20 note.

By golly, there's a breast showing!!  

I'll bet this posting will get lots of hits!!  

Start pulling out your $20 notes...

LETS hope those whacko yankee imperialist running capatilist holy rollers don't get ahold of them...otherwise Canada may be subject  to the same fines and censorship as JJ and the NFL ...yah..oooookkkaaaayyyyyy

Yikes! No wonder the BoC gives me such a hard time, they're trying to cover up their "politically incorrect past mistakes"  

Here's the offending link: http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3943326725&indexURL=6&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting

sid-63 said this on Nov. 25th, 3:27am:

I'll bet this posting will get lots of hits!!

 

Count me out.  I am too chicken.  I won't be a part of it.

Jonathan

Thanks for the link Paul.

I was just coming to the site tonight to offer up a link.

I can't believe that it took me so long to find this...my "nudity radar detector" must go into sleep mode when I'm looking at notes.

Or perhaps I'm just getting old.  

By golly, there's a breast showing!!  

I don't have an actual 1937 note to look at, but I did look at the eBay picture. I don't see any nudity---there is a cloth wrapped around the woman's entire chest. The closest I can see is the cloth on the woman's right side (our left) has kind of a shadow due to the wrinkles, and if you use your imagination, it looks like the cloth is dipping there, but it looks to me to be an optical illusion.

Sorry "Slugboy", but I must disagree with you.  

Being in the medical profession for 20 years, having been married for 17 years, not to mention the occassional "rendezvous" I had prior to marriage, I've been exposed to many a nipple.

I've looked again at this note. On the link, and on my own. I've magnified the area.

It's definitely a nipple. And nipples are attached to breasts. So my conclusion is that this is a breast.  

I tried picturing what you are seeing, but I just can't agree. Remember, this is 1937 and art such as this was perhaps common place...? I don't think this would be acceptable today...even though morals and standards are, ironically, less today then they were then.

I tried picturing what you are seeing, but I just can't agree. Remember, this is 1937 and art such as this was perhaps common place...?

Oh, I'm not denying the possibility that such a picture would exist on a note. I was just saying what I thought it was, based on the eBay graphic. It's possible that I'm just misinterpreting the (relatively poor) graphic. I'm not sure how you can get such high-quality magnifications of it.

Although I don't have your extensive experience () with real-life nudity, I have seen many paintings in this style (sort of Baroque-ish). It seemed to me that the gland in question was oddly-shaped and angled as compared to other portraits of that style. Perhaps the creator of the picture on the note wanted to create something more anatomically accurate than that which is conventionally displayed.

I don't think this would be acceptable today...even though morals and standards are, ironically, less today then they were then.

True, but you might be surprised what is allowed in the name of tradition. For example, the U.K. Royal Standard has some nudity on it (and it's a lot more obvious than on this note  )

Yes Slugboy, you are correct...anything is possible today!! What was I thinking...

I looked, although quickly last night, and some of the other notes around that time, tend to show a lot of skin, including a child...$1000 note!!  

I don't see anything unusual about it. Typical art-deco stuff. Lots of scripophily (stock certificates and such) from the time have nudity like that. There's nothing obscene about the 1937 $20. As others have alluded to, ironically if such an image would appear on the back of a note today the anally-retentive would be out of the woodwork to make their displeasure known to talk about how they see it as being sexually-suggestive, another sign of moral decay in society, etc etc....

Hey, you just never know.

Frontal nudity is legal now...at least in Ontario!!  

I bet people would see any nudity (particularly female) as exploitative.

Then again, male nudity would likely be seen as vulgar and unnecessary, and children as pornographic.

At least in the 30's nudity could be artistic...did Hefner actually set us back a bit?