Have a real cigarette – have a Camel (Nov, 1958)
Have a real cigarette – have a Camel
New kind of whirlybird! This portable one-man ‘copter can be completely assembled in the field and ready to fly in a hurry. Its pilot, Dick Peck, is a Camel smoker. “I want a cigarette that smokes mild and tastes good,” he says. “Camels do both.”
So good and mild . . . the finest taste in smoking!
Millions of smokers like Dick Peck know the difference between “just smoking” and Camels. They know you get more to enjoy out of Camels —so rich in taste, so mild to smoke. No other cigarette has ever equalled this exclusive blend of costly tobaccos. Today, more people smoke Camels than any other cigarette of any kind. How about you?
Dick Peck?!?
Comment by Charlene — December 24, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
Is that part of a cloud in the inset picture or is it a puff from his Camel?
Rick
Comment by rick — December 24, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
At least it isn’t Dick Pecker.
Comment by Paul — December 25, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Dick kind of looks like Frankenstein’s monster.
“Rrrgh! Smoke good! Mild taste!”
Comment by John M. Hanna — December 27, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Actually,those cigs were probably a heckuva lot safer(“safer” being a relative term here)than today’s smokes,because they didn’t have all the chemical additives that today’s cigarettes do.
I read recently that American smokers are almost 10 times more likely to get lung cancer than smokers elsewhere because their cigarettes are contain naturally cured tobacco,whilst American smokes contain chemically cured tobacco.
Of course,that doesn’t change the fact that Dick Peck looks as if the big C is already eating his fugly ass alive.
Comment by Fred — December 28, 2009 @ 12:17 am
Fred, so “natural” = “safer” . . . right? And “chemical” = “bad”. Uhhhh . . . OK.
Comment by Don — December 28, 2009 @ 8:58 am
Fred: You “read recently”? Well then the matter is closed! Actually if you want to see what “smokers elsewhere” are inhaling just go to the Philip Morris International website and see what goodies they have packed in their cancer sticks. I’m not familiar with “chemically cured tobacco” either. I didn’t see it listed here or here.
Comment by Firebrand38 — December 28, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
Smoking Camels and flying around in your hastily assembled one-man ‘copter? C’mon, Dick, throw a fifth of liquor into the equation.
Comment by rsterling78 — December 28, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Non-filter cigarettes do use higher quality tobacco than the filter cigarettes do. The longer tobacco leaf fibres are needed to hold the cigarette together.
Comment by JMyint — December 28, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
Firebrand, Fred is one of those anti-science activists who are always convulsing over “big pharma”, “big medicine”, and “big science”. I think big words scare them.
Comment by Charlene — January 1, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
Charlene, I believe you’re right.
Comment by Firebrand38 — January 1, 2010 @ 7:00 pm
Fred, that’s an interesting statistic, and one which I’ve never encountered before. Source, please?
And which “chemicals” are responsible? Everything made out of atoms is a “chemical.”
Comment by GaryM — January 4, 2010 @ 10:40 am