Blurb

Blurb (pronounced blurb)

(1) A brief promotional piece, almost always laudatory, used historically for books, latterly for about any product.

(2) To advertise or praise in the manner of a blurb.

1907: Coined by US graphic artist and humorist Gelett Burgess (1866–1951).  Blurbs are a specific type of advertisement, similar exercises in other contexts known also as “puff pieces”, “commendations” or “recommendations”.  The use of "puff" is thought based on the character "Mr Puff" in the burlesque satire The Critic: or, a Tragedy Rehearsed (1779) by the Anglo-Irish Whig playwright Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751-1816).  Generally, blurbs contain elements designed to tempt a buyer which may include a précis (something less than a detailed summary), a mention of the style and a recommendation.  The term was originally invoked to mock the excessive praise printed on book jackets and was often parodied in a derisively imitative manner and is still sometimes critically used thus but it’s also now a neutral descriptor and an accepted part of the publishing industry.  Blurb is a noun & verb, blurbing & blurbed are verbs, blurbist is a noun and blurbish is an adjective; the noun plural is blurbs.

The blurb has apparently existed for some two-thousand–odd years but the word became well-known only after a publishing trade association dinner in 1907, Gelett Burgess displaying a dust jacket printed with the words “YES, this is a “BLURB”!”, featuring the (fictitious) Miss Belinda Blurb who was said to have been photographed “...in the act of blurbing”, Burgess adding that to blurb was “… to make a sound like a publisher…” and was “…a check drawn on fame, and it is seldom honoured”.  There are sources claiming the word was coined by US academic and literary critic Brander Matthews (1852–1929) in his essay American Character (1906) but Professor Matthews acknowledged the source genuinely was Burgess, writing in the New York Times (24 September 1922): “Now and again, in these columns I have had the occasion to employ the word “blurb”, a colourful and illuminating neologism which we owe to the verbal inventiveness of Mr Gelett Burgess”.

Burgess had released Are You a Bromide? in 1906 and while sales were encouraging, he suggested to his publishers (BW Huebsch) that each of the attendees and the upcoming industry dinner should receive a copy with a “special edition” dust cover.  For this, Burgess used the picture of a young lady who had appeared in an advertisement for dental services, snapped in the act of shouting.  It was at the time common for publishers to use pictures of attractive young ladies for book covers, even if the image was entirely unrelated to the tome’s content, the object being to attract a male readership.  Burgess dubbed his purloined model “Miss Belinda Blurb” and claimed she had been photographed “in the act of blurbing”; mid-blurb as it were.

Are you a Bromide? (Publisher's special edition, 1907).

The dust cover was headed with the words “YES, this is a “BLURB”! All the Other Publishers commit them. Why Shouldn’t We?” and knowing a blurb should not in moderation do what can be done in excess, went on to gush about the literary excellence of his book in rather the manner a used car salesman might extol the virtues of some clapped-out car in the corner of the yard.  His blurb concluded “This book is the Proud Purple Penultimate!”  The industry must have been inspired because the blurb has become entrenched, common in fiction and non-fiction alike and the use of the concept can be seen in film, television, social media and just about anywhere there’s a desire to temp a viewer.  Indeed, the whole idea of “clickbait” (something which tells enough to tantalize but not enough to satisfy without delving deeper) is a functional application of a blurb.  Depending on the source, the inspiration for the word came from either (1) the sound made by a book as it falls to the floor, (2) the sound of a bird chirping or (3) an amalgam of “burp” & “blather”.  The author left no clue.

In his book, Burgess innovated further, re-purposing the word "bromide".  In inorganic chemistry, a bromide is a binary compound of bromine and some other element or radical, the construct being brom- (an alternative form of bromo- (used preceding a vowel) which described a substance containing bromine (from the French brome, from the Ancient Greek βρῶμος (brômos) (stink)) + ide (the suffix used in chemistry to describe substances comprising two or more related compounds.  However, early in the twentieth century, Bromide was a trade name for a widely available medicine, taken as a sedative and in some cases prescribed to diminish “an excessive sexual appetite”.  It was the sedating aspect which Burgess picked up to describe someone tiresome and given to trite remarks, explaining “a bromide” was one “…who does his thinking by syndicate and goes with the crowd” and was thus boring and banal.  A bromine’s antonym was, he helpfully advised, a “sulphite”.  Unfortunately, while blurb flourished, bromide & sulphites as binary descriptors of the human condition have vanished from the vernacular.

Lindsay Lohan with body double during shooting for Irish Wish (Netflix, due for release in 2023).  The car is a Triumph TR4.

Nteflix's blurb for Irish Wish: Always a bridesmaid, never a bride — unless, of course, your best friend gets engaged to the love of your life, you make a spontaneous wish for true love, and then magically wake up as the bride-to-be.  That’s the supernatural, romantic pickle Lindsay Lohan (Mean Girls, The Parent Trap) finds herself in upcoming romantic comedy, Irish Wish.  Set in the rolling green moors of Ireland, the movie sees Lohan's Maddie learn her dreams for true love might not be what she imagined and that her soulmate may well be a different person than she originally expected. Apparently magic wishes are quite insightful.

Blurb Your Enthusiasm (2023, distributed by Simon & Schuster).

Louise Willder (b 1972) has for a quarter century been a copywriter for Penguin, in that time composing some 5000 blurbs, each a two-hundred-odd word piece which aims both to inform and tempt a purchase.  Her non-fiction debut Blurb Your Enthusiasm is not only a review of the classic blurbs (the good, the bad and the seriously demented) but also an analysis of the trends in the structure of blurbs and the subtle shifts in their emphasis although, over the centuries, the purpose seems not to have changed.  Ms Willder also documents the nuances of the blurb, the English tendency to understatement, the hyperbolic nature of Americans and the distaste the French evidently have of having to say anything which might disclose the blurb’s vulgar commercial purpose, tracing over time how changing attitudes and societal mores mean what’s now written of a nineteenth century classic is very different to when first it was published.  Inevitably too, there are the sexual politics of authorship and publishing and blurbs can reveal as much by the odd hint or what’s left unsaid than what actually appears on a dust cover.  Academics and reviewers have perhaps neglected the blurb because traditionally they've often been dismissed as mere advertising but, unless the author’s name or the subject matter is enough of a draw, even more than a cover illustration or title, it’s the blurb which can close the sale and collectively, they’re doubtlessly more widely read than reviews.  Blurb Your Enthusiasm is highly recommended.

Founded in New York City in 1924 by Richard L Simon (1899–1960) & Max Lincoln Schuster (1897–1970), Simon & Schuster was in 2023 acquired by private equity company KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co).

In 2025, there emerged an indication there was, at least in one corner of the publishing industry a push-back against what might be called the “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” blurb with the  publisher of Simon & Schuster’s flagship imprint in the US announcing it will “no longer require authors to obtain blurbs for their books”.  Revealed in an essay in Publishers Weekly, it was explained that while Simon & Schuster never had “a formal mandatory policy” about the matter, a culture had evolved to make blurbs “tacitly expected” and the responsibility of harvesting them from famous writers, celebrities and such devolved upon authors, their agents & editors.  The publishing house rejected the notion the blurb “production line” is “what makes the book business so special: the collegiality of authors and their willingness to support one another”, arguing the very ubiquity of the things had become “…incredibly damaging to what should be the industry’s ultimate goal: producing books of the highest possible quality.”  Memorably, Simon & Schuster’s critique of “authors feeling obliged to write blurbs for their friends” was summed up in the phrase: “an incestuous and unmeritocratic literary ecosystem that often rewards connections over talent.”  Students of the blurb will of course be disappointed if this becomes a trend and among authors it must have been fun to cast an eye over new releases just to try to work out if one individual was no longer on speaking terms with another but more practically, others did observe that while blurbs may be of marginal interest to those browsing the shelves, it was understood booksellers could be influenced to increase their orders if a book seems “well-blurbed”.  However, even if Simon & Schuster are no longer giving authors a tacit “nudge”, it may be many remain prolific blurb writers because it's a very cheap way to keep one’s brand-recognition on the shelves and up to date.

Reagent

Reagent (pronounced ree-ey-juhnt)

In chemistry, a substance that produces a chemical reaction, used in analysis and synthesis.

1785: A compound word, the construct being re(act)- + agent.  The prefix re- is from the Middle English re-, from the Old French re-, from the Latin re- & red- (back; anew; again; against), from the primitive Indo-European wret-, a metathetic alteration of wert- (to turn).  Agent is from the Latin agēns, present active participle of agere (to drive, lead, conduct, manage, perform, do) from the Proto-Italic agō, from primitive Indo-European hzéǵeti.  It was cognate with the Old Irish aigid, the Ancient Greek ἄγω (ágō) (I lead), the Old Norse aka (move, drive), the Avestan azaiti and the Sanskrit अजति (ájati) (to drive, propel, cast).  The difference between a catalyst and a reagent is that catalysts are not consumed during the chemical reaction, whereas reagents may be.  A catalyst is a substance which can increase the reaction rate of a particular chemical reaction, while a reagent is a substance used in chemical analysis or to induce another chemical reaction.

Novichok

A Novichok (Russian: новичо́к (novičók) (newcomer)) agent is one of a number of chemical weapons developed by the state chemical research institute (GosNIIOKhT) in the Soviet Union (USSR) and Russia between 1971-1993.  Said to be the deadliest nerve agent ever created, Novichok was designed in a way that evaded the restrictions on chemical weapons imposed by treaties to which the USSR was a signatory.  Novichok agents have become well-known because they’ve been used to poison several opponents of the Russian government, most notably Sergei Skripal (b 1951; a former officer in the Russian military agent of UK intelligence) and his daughter, Yulia Skripal (b 1985) who were poisoned in the city of Salisbury, UK.  The Kremlin denied complicity and accused the UK government of whipping-up anti-Russian hysteria.

The design requirements for Novichok included it being undetectable using standard equipment, being able to penetrate personal protective equipment, being easier to handle in its transportable form and able to circumvent the various chemical weapons treaties the USSR had signed.  The use of reagents made many of these objectives possible.  As a binary weapon, in which precursors are mixed to produce the nerve agent immediately prior use, handling is easier because, in un-mixed form, the reagents are less hazardous and thus simpler to store and transport.  The reagents are also chemically less unstable and have a long shelf life although western analysts note at least one liquid form of Novichok is sufficiently stable to be able to remain deadly for decades if stored in a controlled environment.

In July 2018, a UK distillery was forced to apologize after releasing a 75% abv vodka named Novichok, days after a woman and her partner were poisoned with the same nerve agent that almost killed Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury earlier in the year.  Bristol Dry Gin’s limited edition Novichok vodka quickly sold out and the company has made clear there are no plans for a second batch.  Amesbury woman Dawn Sturgess (b 1974), who lived some eight miles (13 km) north of Salisbury, fell ill on 30 June 2018, dying within days after being exposed to what experts said must have been a sizable dose of the Novichok substance.  Her partner, Charlie Rowley (b 1973), was for some time critically ill but recovered.

Just before Ms Sturgess’ death, Bristol Dry Gin posted to its Facebook page an image of its new “limited edition” Novichok vodka, along with a promotional blurb: "Our new limited edition vodka is out! Set at 75%, this smooth drinking spirit is no laughing matter."  "Available as a 35cl bottle, perfect for manbags and gym bottles, or as a pack of three 5cl minis, a great solution to body cavity searches. Get em from our web store or distillery.”  Not so much the product as the timing of the release attracted criticism, many finding it in “poor taste” and the distillery in its statement of apology agreed, admitting the timing “may have lacked sensitivity” and was named and launched only after the Skripals had recovered.  “It was intended to lighten the mood and ease tensions, not to cause offence, and reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. We sincerely apologize if any offence was caused, especially to the families of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, and understand the timing of the release of this product may have lacked sensitivity.  The Novichok Edition is a limited edition, which sold out within a hours of being released, and we have no plans to produce any more.”

Capitalism in Russia proved a little more robust, a Russian entrepreneur capitalizing on the poisoning in the UK of Sergei & Yulia Skripala by releasing the новичо́к (novičók or Novichok) brand of cooking oil.  Ulyanovsk-based farmer Alexei Yakushev explained he was inspired to choose the name for his new brand of sunflower oil after watching a news report of the events in Salisbury.  “I regularly watch the news” Mr Yakushev informed an interviewer and as the product wasn’t available in store, he decided to produce and bring it to market himself.

Said to be the ideal oil for sukhariki (oven-toasted stale bread strips), the Novichok oil was marketed under the slogan “products for a long life” and, in a nice touch, the label included the famous insignia of the KGB.  On Mr Yakushev’s webpage, to counter Western propaganda, he included in the “About us” section the line “We don’t hide money offshore,” in rhyme.

Puffery

Puffery (pronounced puhf-uh-ree)

(1) Undue or exaggerated praise; inflated laudation; publicity, claims in advertising, acclaim etc, that are exaggerated (also known as the “puff piece”).

(2) In common law jurisdictions (often as “mere puffery), certain claims or assertions made which, even if literally untrue or misleading, are not actionable.

(3) An act of puffing (rare except in humor).

1730–1735: The construct was puff (in the sense of “to praise with exaggeration”) + -ery.  The noun puff was from the early thirteenth century Middle English puf, puffe, puff & puf, from the Old English pyf (a short, quick blast of wind, act of puffing) which was imitative and cognate with the Middle Low German puf & pof.  It was derived from the verb which was from the Middle English puffen, from the Old English pyffan & puffian (to breathe out, blow with the mouth) and similar forms in other European languages included the Dutch puffen, the German Low German puffen, the German puffen, the Danish puffe and the Swedish puffa.  The sense of “to blow with quick, intermittent blasts” was common by the mid-fourteenth century while the meaning “pant, breathe hard and fast” emerged some decades later.  It was used of the “fluffy light pastry" from the late fourteenth century while the “small pad of a downy or flossy texture for applying powder to skin or hair” was first so described in the 1650s.

The meaning “to fill, inflate, or expand with breath or air” dates from the 1530s while the intransitive sense (in reference to small swellings & round protuberances) was noted by 1725.  The transitive figurative sense of “exalt” was known by the 1530s which shifted somewhat by the early eighteenth century into the meaning “praise with self-interest, give undue or servile praise to”, the idea by mid century focused on the figurative sense of “empty or vain boast”, this sense soon extended to mean “flattery & inflated praise”.  The derogatory use of poof for “an effeminate man; a male homosexual” was noted from the 1850s and is presumably from puff (possibly in the sense of “powder puff”, an allusion to the stereotype of their “excessive concern with maintaining a delicate appearance”)) and the extended form “poofter” was early twentieth century Australian slang, an unusual linguistic departure for a dialect which tended either to clip or add a trailing “e”, “y” or “o” sound to words.  The correct spelling for the furniture piece (A low cushioned seat with no back; a padded foot-stool) was pouf, from the French pouf & pouff (again of imitative origin) but, presumably because of confusion caused by the pronunciation, the spellings puff & poof sometimes are used.  The suffix -ery was from the Middle English -erie, from the Anglo-Norman and Old French -erie, a suffix forming abstract nouns.  The suffix first occurs in loan words from the Old French into the Middle English, but became productive in English by the sixteenth century, sometimes as a proper combination of -er with “y” (as in bakery or brewery) but also as a single suffix (such as slavery or machinery).  Puffery is a noun; the noun plural is pufferies.  Lawyers can probably get a feeling for what is "pufferyish" without being "puffery as defined" but probably don't use the non-standard adjective.

Mere puffery

The origin of “puffery” in the publishing industry is thought to be the character of Mr Puff, the verbose and bogus critic in Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s (1751-1816) The Critic (1779).  Puffery was the class of “criticism” used as a tool by literary cliques (comprising groups of authors who praised each other’s works) and this excessive lauding was referred to also as a “blow up” (ie the notion of puffing into a balloon, inflating something which although becoming bigger, remains essentially “empty’).  In the jargon of publishing, a puff (or puff piece) is the equivalent of a “blurb”.  In law, the concept of “mere puffery” was created to provide a buffer between the “meaningless” sales pitch and the deceptive or misleading claims which amount to a misrepresentation.  A misrepresentation may be actionable; “mere puffery” is not.  Puffery is used to describe a claim that (1) a “reasonable person” would not take seriously or (2) is so vague or subjective that it can be neither proved nor disproved.  Those two definitions operate in conjunction because even if an assertion can be disproved, if it would be absurd for the “reasonable person” to claim they believed it, it will be held to be “mere puffery”.

Doubling down: Disappointed at losing the case based on their £100 offer, to restore public confidence, they offered £200. 

In contract law, the term “puffery” comes from one of the most celebrated cases in English jurisprudence: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892, EWCA Civ 1) before the Court of Appeal.  During the deadly influenza pandemic in the northern winter of 1889-1890, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company it would pay £100 (equivalent to some £14,000 in 2023) to anyone who became ill with influenza after using their smoke ball in accordance with the instructions enclosed with the product.  Mrs Carlill was concerned enough by the flu to buy a ball which, following the instructions, she used thrice daily for some weeks but nevertheless, caught the flu.  Unable to persuade the company to pay her £100, Mrs Carlill brought an action, in court claiming a contract existed which the company denied.  At first instance, despite being represented by a future prime-minister, (Henry Asquith QC (1852–1928; UK prime minister 1908-1916)) the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company lost, a verdict upheld unanimously by the Court of Appeal.  It was a landmark in the development of contract law, refining the long-established principles of (1) offer, (2) acceptance, (3) certainty of terms and (4) payment although it would be decades before the implications would begin comprehensively to be realized in legislation.  Not only did Mrs Carlill secure her £100 but she survived the pandemic, living to the age of ninety-six.  On 10 March 1942, she died after contracting influenza.

So, Mrs Carlill, having used the smoke ball three times a day for almost two months before she developed influenza sued for breach of contract and the court held the offer made in the advertisement was not “mere puff” but constituted a valid offer of contract; the Smoke Ball Company’s offer was thus a misrepresentation because, in the particular circumstances detailed, a “reasonable person” would be likely to believe that they would receive £100 and thus, relying on the claim, be persuaded to purchase the product.  However, all the circumstances must be considered on a case-by-case basis and an individual’s simple reliance on a claim they sincerely believe to be true is not sufficient to for something to be held a misrepresentation.

Something will be regarded as "mere puffery" if obviously a "joke line", even if it could be disproved with enough research and analysis.

In the famous Red Bull lawsuit in 2013, the court noted the company’s advertising slogan “Red Bull gives you wings” was “mere puffery” in that no reasonable person would believe ingesting even many cans of the stuff would mean they would “grow wings and fly” (although there are other consequences which can follow high consumption) but the lawsuit claimed that implicit in the slogan was the allegedly deceptive and fraudulent suggestion that the drink was a “superior source of energy”, something not backed up by scientific evidence.  heard before US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the class action was lodged by someone who had been drinking Red Bull for a decade-odd.  His claim was not that he expected feathers to sprout but that idea drinking Red Bull would increase performance and concentration (as advertised on the company's television, on-line and marketing campaigns) was “deceptive and fraudulent and is therefore actionable”.  The scientific basis for the action was research which found energy drinks gained their “boost” through caffeine alone, not guarana or any other ingredient, adding although there was no academic support for the claim Red Bull provides “any more benefit to a consumer than a cup of coffee”, the defendants persistently and pervasively market their product as a superior source of “energy” and thus worthy of a premium price over a cup of coffee or other sources of caffeine.  Red Bull, while denying any wrongdoing or liability and maintaining its “marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate”, the company settled the lawsuit “to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation”.  As part of the settlement, anyone resident of the US who claimed to have purchased a can of Red Bull at some time after 1 January 2002 was eligible to receive either a $US10 reimbursement or two free Red Bull products with a retail value of approximately $US15, a webpage created to enable those affected to lodge their claim.  To avoid any similar claims, the company “voluntarily updated its marketing materials and product labeling".

Advertising is often a mix of puffery and specific claims which can be actionable, depending on the circumstances, either in damages or restitution.

So every case is decided on its merits.  A case before the Federal Court in Australia in 2017 held that a false assertion an app had “the most property listings in Sydney” was a misrepresentation because uncontested evidence proved otherwise although the court note were the app to claim it was “the best” app of its kind that would be mere puffery because, in that context, the phrase “the best” means nothing in particular because it’s not something which can be reduced to a metric or precisely defined.  More intriguing for those who like to speculate when grey turns black or white was the Pepsi Points Case which was in many ways similar to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.  PepsiCo’s advertising included a point system which customers could use to redeem prizes and one campaign had offered a military jet fighter (then invoiced by the manufacturers at US$23 million odd) in exchange for 7 million "Pepsi Points" (then worth US$700,000).  Mailing a $700,000 cheque to PepsiCo, a customer asked to collect his jet.  The court held the offer was “mere puffery” on the basis of (1) aspects of the campaign which clearing indicated “its jocular nature”, (2) that no reasonable person would believe a US$23 million jet could be obtained by exchanging US$700,000 and it was (3) anyway impossible for the company to deliver a military fighter jet in operable condition to a civilian customer.  It was an interesting case because it might have been decided differently if the object had been closer in value to the points mentioned and been something there was no legal impediment to supplying (such as a US$1 million car).  Were it a US$143 million car (there is one such used car), the promotion would presumably still be judged puffery but at some point, it must be that the relative values would be close enough to for the “reasonable person” test to apply.  That however is something impossible to reduce to an equation and each case will be decided on its merits.  Just to be sure, PepsiCo bumped up by several orders of magnitude the points required to start one’s own air force and added some text to make it clear the whole thing was just a joke.

In the matter of Tyrrell’s Crinkly Crisps.  Often packaging & advertising will contain a number of claims, some of which will be mere puffery (even if it’s easy to prove blatantly they’re untrue) while others need to be verifiable:

2 Pack: Not puffery; every pack must contain two packets.  There have been instances when customers have complained they’ve received more than was advertised and paid for but it’s rare.  Usually, such things are treated as “windfalls”.

Vegan: Not puffery; the contents must be vegan (as defined in the regulation of whatever jurisdiction in which they’re sold).

Triple Cooked: Probably puffery because it’s doubtful the term has any legal definition although were it possible to prove the production process is essentially the same as for any other crisp (chip), it might be actionable.  Because “triple” does have a defined value, were it proved the goods were cooked only twice as long as the practice of other manufacturers, that would presumably compel a change of text to “Double Cooked”.

More Crunch: Probably puffery because the measure of such things is so subjective and there is a point at which to increase crunchiness becomes self-defeating because other desired qualities will be lost.

Crinkly Crisps: Not puffery; the crisps must to some extent be crinkly although it might be fun to have a judge explore the margins and tell us how slight a corrugation can be while still being called “crinkly”.

No Artificial Nasties: Not puffery; these packets probably contain artificial ingredients because they’re almost impossible to avoid in the industrial production of food.  What constitutes a “nasty” is however a thing of quantity as well as quality; something millions every day harmlessly (even beneficially) can be a toxic “nasty” in large quantities so what’s included in the packet will be safe as supplied.  If potential “nasties” are found to exist in a quantity above a certain point, it’s actionable.

Gluten Free: Not puffery; unless there is an allowable quantity (ie trace amounts) permitted by regulation, there must be no gluten.

Sea Salt & Vinegar: Not puffery; sea salt is a particular type of salt so it must be used and there must be evidence of the use of vinegar.

165 g Net: Not puffery; each pack must contain 165 g of edible content +/- the small % of production line variation a court would deem acceptable.

Content guide (fat, energy etc): Not puffery; again, what’s claimed must be a reliable indication of the products within whatever small variation is acceptable.

Photograph with giant crisp: Puffery and an example of how the “reasonable person” test works in conjunction with an objective test of truth.  The packs do not contain crisps as large as is represented in the image (indeed, such would be too big even to fit in the packet) and no reasonable person would believe this is what they’re buying.

Smith's Double Crunch Chips, now available in Hot & Spicy Chicken Wings, Ultimate BBQ Ribs, Original and Cheesy Garlic Bread.

The advertising for Smith's Double Crunch was a handy case-study in the way courts treat the words and phrases used in “mere puffery” in a different way from when they appear as warranties, guarantees, contractual clauses an such; in that, it’s an example of one of the exceptions to use usual convention in common law jurisdictions of following the “Vagliano rule”.  The rule was established by the House of Lords in Bank of England v Vagliano Bros (1891) AC 107 and although technically a principle in statutory interpretation, it has influenced other areas in law; it holds that when interpreting a statute, courts should start by considering the natural meaning of the words in the statute itself, without referring to previous case law or historical background, unless the language is ambiguous.  The rule is of such significance because it prioritizes the literal and ordinary meaning of words over any interpretation which could be derived if other factors are allowed to intrude.  In his judgment, Lord Herschell (Farrer Herschell, 1837–1899; Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain 1886 & 1892-1895) wrote: “I think the proper course is, in the first instance, to examine the language of the statute and to ask what is its natural meaning, uninfluenced by any considerations derived from the previous state of the law, and not to start with inquiring how the law previously stood, and then, having ascertained that, to see whether the statute will bear an interpretation which is in accordance with it. If the statute is clear, its provisions must prevail, whatever the previous law may have been. If the statute is ambiguous, then, and only then, may the history of the law be referred to.”

Smith's Double Crunch Chips, Flamin' Hot flavor.

The “Flamin' Hot” claim would be “read down” as being understood by any “reasonable person” as being a piece of puffery suggesting “spicy” and nobody would open the packet expecting to find flaming chips inside (indeed, that would demand very different text on the packaging).  The Flaming Hot flavour is no longer on sale.

Obviously, the strictures of the Vagliano rule can’t be applied to what genuinely is “mere puffery” and courts need to decide which words & phrases “at the margins” should be subject to the usual rigor (and treated thus as conveying their “natural meaning”) as opposed to those which may be accepted as just the way things are done in advertising.  The advertising may be deconstructed thus:

While the company may claim their Double Crunch Chips are “irresistible”, it’d not be required to remove the assertion even it was proved an individual (or thousands of them) indeed could resist the inclination to eat the product.  It would however have to be truthful in the claim to being “gluten-free” and manufactured with “no artificial flavours” and “no artificial colours”.  In saying they’re a “deep ridged chip” it would be necessary for a court to determine only that ridges exist and they’re not obviously “less deeply ridged” than other comparable products.  The manufacturer is not claiming the ridges are the “deepest” or even “deeper than most”, just that they are “deep”.  Of course the core claim for a product called Double Crunch Chip was that it delivers “twice the crunch”.  While it might be possible to quantify the quality of “crunch” (in terms of audio volume or sensation), no court would require the findings to suggest “twice the audible volume” and the experience of biting a chip is so individually variable as the make the use of the term to vague to be of use in this context.  The same would apply to the “big, bold flavour you love”, the first element being impossible to define and the latter a classic piece of puffery.

Ornamentalism

Ornamentalism (pronounced awr-nuh-men-tl-iz-uhm)

(1) The desire or tendency to feature (usually what’s judged an excess of) ornamentation in design or execution (buildings, interiors, furnishings, cars, artwork etc).

(2) Any artistic or architectural style characterised by ornamentation.

(3) In the pre-revolutionary Russian literary tradition, an intricate, mannered and ostentatious prose style most prevalent in the early twentieth century.

(4) In politics, something implemented to lend the appearance of being something substantive while in reality changing little (synonymous usually with “window dressing”).

1860s: The construct was ornament + -al + -ism.  Ornament (an element of decoration; that which embellishes or adorns) was from the Old French ornement, from the Latin ornamentum (equipment, apparatus, furniture, trappings, adornment, embellishment), from ornāre, the present active infinitive of ornō (I equip, adorn). The verb was derived from the noun.  The -al suffix was from the Middle English -al, from the Latin adjectival suffix -ālis, ((the third-declension two-termination suffix (neuter -āle) used to form adjectives of relationship from nouns or numerals) or the French, Middle French and Old French –el & -al.  It was use to denote the sense "of or pertaining to", an adjectival suffix appended (most often to nouns) originally most frequently to words of Latin origin, but since used variously and also was used to form nouns, especially of verbal action.  The alternative form in English remains -ual (-all being obsolete).  The –ism suffix was from the Ancient Greek ισμός (ismós) & -isma noun suffixes, often directly, sometimes through the Latin –ismus & isma (from where English picked up ize) and sometimes through the French –isme or the German –ismus, all ultimately from the Ancient Greek (where it tended more specifically to express a finished act or thing done).  It appeared in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form abstract nouns of action, state, condition or doctrine from verbs and on this model, was used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism etc).  Ornamentalism & ornamentalist are nouns; the noun plural is ornamentalisms.

Lindsay Lohan mug-shot Christmas tree ornament.  Even the blurb: “…handmade photo-fresco Ornament made with a hybrid Gypsum based polymer that has the crystaline structure of ceramics…” has about it the whiff of ornamentalism.  In some places, this ornament may be thought blasphemous.

The sense of the noun & adjective ornamental (the comparative “more ornamental”, the superlative “most ornamental”) differ from those of ornamentalism in that the former is almost always either positive or neutral.  In the narrow technical sense something ornamental has “no purpose beyond the decorative” although many “ornamental devices” often either can or do fulfill some function, thus the nuanced phrase “merely ornamental” to distinguish the pure forms.  As a noun, “ornamentals” are plants, fish and such bred or maintained for no purpose other than their aesthetic value (although obviously they also often a commercial product).

The same positive or neutral senses tend to be enjoyed by the noun & verb “ornament” which means usually “a decorative element or embellishment” (such as a ceramic piece displayed but never used for its nominal purpose).  In music it means specifically “a musical flourish not needed by the melodic or harmonic line, but which serves to decorate that line” while in the rituals of Christianity, ornaments (in this context always in the plural) are objects (crosses, altar candles, incense and such) used in church services.  So in musical and liturgical use, ornaments enjoy a duality in that they are both decorative and fulfill some function.  That is reflected in biology when the word is used to describe a characteristic that has a decorative function (typically in order to attract a mate) such as the peacock’s marvelously extravagant tail feathers.

Ornamentalism is best known in architecture and design and can been seen in styles ranging from the rococo ((Würzburg Residenz, Würzburg Bavaria, Germany; left), to the McMansion (Wildwood New Jersey, USA; right))

In literary theory, ornamentalism is used to describe a style of writing in the pre-revolutionary Russian literary tradition in which prose was constructed in an intricate, mannered and ostentatious way.  It’s most associated with the early twentieth century and the great exponents of the art were the now sadly neglected Andrei Bely (1880-1934), the symbolist Fyodor Sologub (1863–1927) and the monumentally bizarre Alexei Remizov (1877-1957); it was one of the many stylistic trends briefly to flourish within the Russian avant-garde early in the twentieth century.  It came to be of some interest to later deconstructionists and post-modernists (the latter debatably among the greatest (or worst, depending on one’s view) ornamentalists) because the writers focused not on the capacity of the text to convey narrative or ideological content but the aesthetic and formal qualities of language itself; they treated language as an autonomous artistic medium, focusing on its rhythm, sound, texture and visual patterns.  Even at the time, there was criticism that the style was one of self-indulgence and intended for an audience of fellow writers and those who followed developments in the avant-garde; what comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) would later condemn as “formalism”.

What the ornamentalists did was elevate the elements of language (words, sentences, paragraphs etc) to be artistic objects to be assembled and arranged, their interplay as important (some critics suggested more so) than any implied or discernible meaning, thus the fragmented, non-linear prose which was a complete rejection of traditional realism: the ornamentalists called their work “associative structures”, suggesting they really were the proto postmodernists.  In that sense, it wasn’t the textual devices (repetition, alliteration, assonance) or the unusual syntactic structures which was most striking but the often chaotic mixture of prose and poetry and the interpolation of visual and performative elements into the text.  Needless to say, there was much symbolism, presumably thought an adequate substitute for coherence.  Vladimir Nabokov (1899–1977) was a noted critic of some of the more wilfully obscure ornamentalists but in his early Russian works and later English novels, their influence is detectable in his sensitivity to language's aesthetic possibilities.  While ornamentalism never really became a formal “school” of literature, it did exert a pull on Russian modernism and the possibility of elements like language operating as autonomous artistic objects.

In the US car industry peak ornamentalism happened between 1957-1962: 1960 Chrysler 300F (left), 1958 Buick Limited (centre) and 1959 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz (right).

An earlier Russian literary tradition which was later sometimes a part of ornamentalism was skaz (from the sleazat (to tell)), a genre of folk tales consisting usually of an eye-witness account of an episode in peasant or provincial life, distinguished by the narrative being related by a fictitious narrator rather than the author directly.  What that method did was afford an author some latitude in the use of speech forms such as dialect, slang, mispronunciations and, not infrequently, neologisms, all of which lent the texts a naturalistic vigour and colourfulness which usually wouldn’t appear in a naturalistic piece, told in the first person.

A Spanish literary tradition in the same vein as ornamentalism was plateresco (from platero (silversmith), most associated with sixteenth century romances (with most of what that implies).  The English version of the terms was “plateresque” (silversmith-like) and literary criticism borrowed the idea from architecture & design where it describes the ornate styles popular in Spain during the sixteenth century, the word applied in the same way as rococo (which can be thought of as “high ornamentalism”).  The more familiar Spanish term was Gongorism which described the style of writing typified by that of the poet Luis de Góngora y Argote (1561-1627), famous for his baroque and affected ways with the language which featured a Latinistic vocabulary & syntax, intricate use of metaphors, much hyperbole, mythological allusions and a general weirdness of diction.  In fairness, Góngora did not always write in this manner but so distinctive were his narratives when he did that a minor industry of imitators followed including Richard Crashaw (1613-1649) and the English polymath Sir Thomas Browne (1605–1682) who had great fun while Gongorising.  Gongorism as practiced was a deliberate exaggeration of technique, unlike the earlier aureate (from the Latin aureatus (adorned or decorated with gold), the construct being aure(us) (golden, gilded) +‎ -ate (the adjective-forming suffix).  Arueate language (characterized by the use of (excessively) ornamental or grandiose terms) was most generously described as a sort of poetic diction and it was much in vogue for English and Scottish and poets of the fifteenth century, the works of whom are characterized by the used of ornate & ornamental language, often studded with vernacular coinages from Latin words.

Debunk

Debunk (pronounced dih-buhngk)

(1) To expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated.

(2) To disparage, ridicule, lampoon.

1920–1925: An invention of US English, the construct being de- + bunk.  The de- prefix was from the Latin dē-, from the preposition dē (of, from (the Old English æf- was a similar prefix)).  It imparted the sense of (1) reversal, undoing, removing, (2) intensification and (3) from, off.  Like dis-, the de- prefix was used to form a complex verb with the sense of undoing the action of a simple one and the handy device has been most productive, English gaining such useful words as demob, degauss and, of course, the dreaded deconstruct & the lamentable decaffeinate.  It’s obviously valuable but the more fastidious guardians of English were of course moved to caution it shouldn’t be used because one was too indolent to find the existing antonym although it was conceded that some coinings were necessary to convey some special sense such as “decontaminate”, needed in those situations when something like “cleanse” is inadequate.  Bunk in this context was etymologically un-related to other forms of “bunk” and was a and was a clipping of bunkum (pronounced buhng-kuhm) which meant (1) insincere speechmaking by a politician intended merely to please local constituents and (2) insincere talk; claptrap; humbug.  Debunk & debunked are verbs, debunking is a noun & verb, debunker & debunkment are nouns and debunkable is an adjective; the noun plural is debunks.

Although the exact date in unclear, during sittings of the sixteenth United States Congress (1819-1821), a long, torturous debate ensued on the difficult matter of the Missouri Compromise, something which would later return to haunt the nation.  Well into discussions, Felix Walker (1753–1828; representative (Democratic-Republican (sic)) for North Carolina 1817-1823), rose and began what was apparently, even by the standards of the House of Representatives, a long, dull and irrelevant speech which, after quite some time, induced such boredom that many members walked from the chamber and other attempted to end his delivery by moving that the question be put.  Noting the reaction, Representative Walker felt compelled to explain, telling his colleagues “I’m talking for Buncombe”, referring to his constituents in Buncombe County.  Delivered phonetically, the phrase entered the political lexicon as “talking to (or for) Bunkum” and this was soon clipped to “bunk” meaning “speech of empty thoughts expressed with inflated or pretentious language”.  Later, the sense of bunk was extended to mean “anything wrong or worthless”.

Bunk in the sense of “wrong, worthless” probably gained its popularity from the phrase “history is bunk”, attributed to Henry Ford (1863–1947), famous for being founder of the Ford Motor Company and infamous for some of his more odious opinions.  His words first appeared in print in an interview, publishing in 1916, the context being his opposition to US involvement in the war in Europe:

"History is more or less bunk.  It is tradition.  We don’t want tradition.  We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker’s dam is the history we make today.  That’s the trouble with the world.  We’re living in books and history and tradition.  We want to get away from that and take care of today.  We’ve done too much looking back.  What we want to do and do it quick is to make just history right now."

Quite what Mr Ford meant has been much discussed over the years and the man himself did later discuss it, although there are inconsistencies in his explanations.  Historians have concluded he was expressing scepticism at the value of history as it is taught in schools and other educational institutions; his feeling being there was too much emphasis on kings & emperors, wars & empires, politics & philosophy and entirely too little on the lives of ordinary people who, in a sense, actually “made the history”.  Ironically, given his critique of what’s known as the “great man” school of history, he is regarded as one of the great men whenever histories are written of the early automobile and the development of assembly-line mass-production.

The verb “debunk” actually emerged from a work of what would now be called popular revisionist history.  In 1923, novelist William Woodward (1874-1950) published the best-selling Bunk, the blurb suggesting his purpose being to “take the bunk out of things” and debunk was soon adopted by academic historians who in the 1920s made something of an industry in writing books and papers debunking the myths and puff-pieces the propaganda of World War I (1914-1918) produced in abundance.  An obviously useful word, it was soon in vogue throughout North America and quickly made its way across the Atlantic and to the rest of the English-speaking world.  Pedants in England, rarely happy with anything new, of course objected to a short punchy word intruding where they might use a paragraph but debunk made itself at home and never left.

A more recent coining was "prebunk", used as both noun and verb.  The act of prebunking involves issuing warnings about disinformation or misinformation before dissemination and once done, the fake news is said to have been prebunked (in political warfare it's a pre-emptive strike and thus differs from something like an injunction which is preventive).  Very much a word of the era of Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013), "prebunk" seems not to have been used until 2017, sometime after a spokesperson for the Trump administration formalized the concept of "alternative facts".  "Alternative facts" was not something new and had been part of the language of government probably as long as there have been governments but the Trump White House was the first blatantly to admit use.  Mothers with young children are familiar with "alternative facts" such as Santa Claus or the tooth fairy and the idea worked so well under Trump it became a core part of the Biden administration's media management although, if coming from Joe Biden (b 1942; US president 2021-2025) himself, it was hard to tell where "alternative facts" ended and senility began.

Servergate, the scandal about crooked Hillary Clinton's (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) home-brew mail server was as much about the cover-up which was her attempt to debunk the facts as it was about her initial wrongdoings.  For cartoonists, crooked Hillary was the gift which kept giving.   

Conspiracy theories have probably been around as long as human societies have existed but as means of communications have expanded, their spread has both extended and accelerated, social media just the latest and most effective vector of transmission.  Debunking conspiracy theories is also a thing although in this, there’s doubtlessly an element of preaching to the converted, the already convinced dismissing the debunkers as part of the conspiracy.  However, debunking can in itself be something of a conspiracy such as the wholly unconvincing stories concocted to try to explain away the curious business surrounding crooked Hillary Clinton’s home-brew mail server.  Trying to dismiss concerns about that as the stuff of conspiracy theorists was less a debunking than a cover-up.

Lindsay Lohan in The Parent Trap (1998).

A more conventional debunking was published by Nicki Swift which detailed the truly bizarre conspiracy theories about Lindsay Lohan’s “twin sister”.  It began after the release of the 1998 film The Parent Trap in which twins Hallie Parker and Annie James meet at summer camp after being separated at birth and, having been re-united, the pair embark upon a series of adventures in an attempt to bring back together their divorced parents.  Lindsay Lohan played both parts including many scenes in which the twins appeared together and while there had been advances in technology since Hayley Mills (b 1946) undertook the role in the 1961 original, the film was thought an impressive achievement in editing and stage direction, the body-double being Erin Mackey (b 1986, about a fortnight before Lindsay Lohan).

The conspiracy theory was that Lindsay Lohan didn’t play both parts and that she actually had a co-star: her twin sister Kelsey Lohan, variations of the explanation for the now absent spouse including that she was murdered immediately prior to the film’s debut while others say she was killed in 2001 after a mysterious (and well-concealed) disappearance.  BuzzFeed included an entry about this in one of their pieces about celebrity conspiracies, documenting the story of how after Kelsey died in a car accident (which, given her “sister’s” driving habits when young, was at least plausible) the Disney corporation “covered their tracks” by saying Lindsay portrayed the twins, her family corroborating this due to their obsession with celebrity.  Whether there was an intention to suggest Disney was in some was involved in the “death” wasn’t made clear but the wording certainly hints at the implication.  Surprisingly, nobody seems ever to have suggested the Freemasons were involved.

Mandii Vee (b 1996), for whom the truth is out there.

The idea of the Walt Disney Company as somehow evil has been around for decades and was the undercurrent in the helpful video posted on Mandii Vee’s YouTube channel, her explanation for the scandal being that Kelsey "mysteriously died" prior to the film's release and that put Disney in a predicament because they didn't want to release a movie starring a now dead girl.  Such things have been done before and sometimes with notable commercial success but according to Mandii Vee, Disney thought it would bring “bad juju” (a noun or adjective meaning “something cursed or haunted by a dark aura”).  Disney’s solution was said to be a high-finance version of comrade Stalin’s (1878-1953) “un-personing” or the techniques of erasure George Orwell (1903-1950) detailed in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), paying Lindsay Lohan's parents millions in hush money to keep the secret, never speaking of the unfortunate Kelsey again and denying she ever existed.  At that point, Disney would have pulped and re-printed all the film’s promotional collateral, re-shot the credits and publicized the story that Lindsay Lohan played both roles.  Finding the idea one actor could do both at the same time improbable, Mandii Vee extended her forensic analysis, delved a bit into physics and pondered whether such things were technically even possible.

The Edsel

1958 Edsel Citation convertible.  The range was named after Henry Ford's son Edsel (1893–1943; president of the Ford Motor Company (FoMoCo) 1919–1943).

It has been suggested debunking needs to be applied to some possibly mythical aspects of the story of the doomed Edsel.  The name “Edsel” has become a byword for commercial failure, based on the sad story of the car, a brand introduced in 1958 by FoMoCo and so poorly received the whole venture was within three years shut down after having for 1959 been absorbed into the hastily concocted MEL (Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln) division.  Presumably it was thought not wise to name the amalgamation Lincoln-Edsel-Mercury (LEM) because there were already enough temptations for folk to dub the Edsel a "lemon".  FoMoCo would have been grateful had the country been prepared politely to forget the whole Edsel debacle had ever happened, but because one of the corporation's new V8 engine families had already been designated MEL, the reminders lingered until 1967.  Unlike the Edsel, the MEL V8s were a success and while too heavy to achieve much success in competition (except in power-boat racing where for a time they filled a niche), on the road they were solid, reliable (if thirsty) units although the decision to run the power-steering pump directly off the crankshaft baffled many and didn’t set a trend.  The conventional wisdom is the Edsel failed because:

(1) It was just another variation of the existing large cars sold by the corporation under the Ford and Mercury brands while the public's appetite increasing was for smaller, imported models (and within a few years Ford’s own and smaller Falcon, Fairlane & Mustang).

(2) This "variation on a theme" reality was a stark contrast to the pre-release publicity which had for almost two years hinted at something genuinely innovative and "new".  In the modern sense, the Edsel was "over-hyped".

(3) It was introduced into a market where automobile sales were in decline because of a brief but sharp recession, the mid-price sector, where sat the Edsel, especially affected.

(4) The build quality was patchy, as was the factory’s support for dealers.  The fact that quality-control by some of FoMoCo's competitors was as bad or worse was not a great deal of help. 

(5) The styling was judged unattractive.  There was much clumsiness in the detailing (although almost the whole US industry was similarly afflicted in 1958) but the single most polarizing aspect was the vertical grill assembly, controversial not because it was a regression to something which had become unfashionable in the “longer, lower, wider” era where things tended to the horizontal but because of the shape which to some suggested a woman’s vulva.  Some used the words “vagina” or “genitalia” but in those more polite times, many publications were reluctant to use such language in print and preferred to suggest the grill resembled a “horse collar” or “toilet seat” although the latter was (literally) a bit of a stretch and anyway already used of some of the trunk (boot) lids on Chryslers styled to excess by Virgil Exner (1909–1973); more memorable was Time magazine’s “an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon”.  Some found the debate amusing and some disturbing but few found the look attractive.  The anthropomorphic implications of the grill were toned-down when the range was restyled for the 1959 range and vanished completely for the short-lived 1960 season but by then the damage was done.

Too much, too soon and too little, too late: 1958 Edsel Corsair (left), 1959 Edsel Corsair (centre) and 1960 Edsel Ranger (right).

The failure is a matter of record but one figure that has often puzzled analysts is that Ford booked a loss of over US$250 million on the programme at a time when a million dollars was still a lot of money and, depending on how the conversion is done, that would in 2022 dollars equate to between 2-3 billion.  The extent of the loss would be understandable if the Edsel had been as genuinely new as claimed but it’s difficult to see where all the money went given that all the expensive components were borrowed from the existing Ford and Mercury line up:

(1) The engines, although some were of a unique displacement, were just variations of the existing corporate line-up used in Ford, Mercury & Lincoln models (the Mileage-maker straight-6 and the Y-Block, FE (Ford-Edsel) & MEL V8s).

(2) The platform, (core body structure & suspension) was shared with Ford & Mercury models.  Even the longer wheelbase numbers sometimes cited in the Edsel brochures was a bit of a fudge (though in a court probably defensible because literally true) given the extra inch (25 mm) was gained by the simple trick of locating the rear axle that further back on the leaf springs (something in the era done also by Chrysler).  The bodies and interior space were not in any way affected and if the extra inch delivered a "smoother ride", it doubtful many could tell the difference.    

(3) No dedicated factories were built for the Edsel, the cars assembled on the same assembly lines used for the Ford & Mercury products.

So the costs involved in the development were relatively less expensive endeavors such as body panels and interior trim.  The marketing expenses were presumably high and there were costs associated with the dealer network but the suspicion has long been the infamous quarter-billion dollar loss was Ford taking advantage of accounting rules, perhaps booking against the Edsel most of the development costs of things like the FE engine, something that would remain in production until 1976.  That the Edsel was a big failure is disputed by nobody but financially, the losses may have been both over-stated and to some extent transferred to the taxpayer, a long tradition in "free-market" capitalism (capitalize the profits, socialize the losses).

1960 Edsel Ranger Sedan.

However the accounting is deconstructed, there’s no dispute about the affair’s final contractual imbroglio which, remarkably, compelled FoMoCo to introduce a re-styled 1960 Edsel which was produced for only 34 days in late 1959; cited sometimes as a case-study in contract law text-books, it appears as a cautionary tale.  Ford had intended to axe the brand after production of the 1959 models was completed but received advice from in-house counsel the contract with the dealer network (executed on 19 November 1956) included as an “essential term” an undertaking to provide Edsels for distribution for three seasons (which in the US didn't align exactly with calendar years, “model years” traditionally running from September to August).  The solution obviously was to cut the losses by "buying out" the contracts and to that all but one dealer agreed.  What that meant was Ford faced the prospect of being sued for violating the terms of a contract it had written and the possibility a court could make an order for “specific performance”, meaning it would have to embark on a whole season's production of a car selling dismally.  In the circumstances, that probably was unlikely but after the troubles of the previous few years, the last thing Ford wanted was a embarrassing court case so the decision was taken to do a minor re-styling of the 1960 Ford and offer a limited range badged as Edsels; while that sounds as cynical as it was, it was a quick & dirty way to (sort of) satisfy honor on both sides.  Thus, to fulfil contractual obligations, the 1960 Edsel appeared, 2846 of which left what was by then a leisurely production-line between 15 October and 19 November 1959.  It was on that day the contract with the dealers expired and unilaterally it was terminated.

1960 Ford Fairlane 500 Sedan.

Even that wasn’t the end of the company’s problems.  Although in recent years there had been successes such as the 1958 and 1959 Fords (which benefited from Chrysler’s quality control issues and the styling of GM cars in those years which respectively had been thought dated and polarizing), apart from the disaster which had been the Edsel, the 1958-1960 Lincoln had sold poorly and Continental Division, intended as a competitor not for Cadillac but Rolls-Royce had been shuttered after two highly unprofitable seasons.  So hopes were high for the 1960 Ford until it occurred to someone it was 81½ inches (2045 mm) in width, meaning it would not be possible for buyers to register the things in those states which mandated 80 inches (2032 mm) as the maximum width for passenger cars.  To add insult in injury, being essentially a 1960 Ford, the 1960 Edsels were also affected.  Crony capitalism worked its magic and legal work-arounds were "negotiated" but it meant the 1960 body was a one-off, the next season’s cars coming in at a neat 80 inches.

1960 Edsel Ranger & Villager production.

A generation on, by 1977, FoMoCo must have been been content collective amnesia had overtaken the land because in that year the "Villager" option appeared for the Mercury Cougar Station Wagon, the package including (1) Medium Rosewood woodtone (ie DI-NOC fake timber) on body-side and liftgate, (2) Bright surround rails with Medium Rosewood woodtone inserts, (3) Rosewood woodtone narrow protective bodyside molding & (5) Villager script on liftgate.  The option was a microcosm of the of the method used to create the original Edsel.

1960 Edsel brochure showing three of models least produced in the range's 34-day existence in late 1959.

Although the 1960 Edsels lasted in production barely a month, to ensure compliance with contractual obligations was not only fulfilled but seen to be fulfilled, for the collateral documents were designed with the same care (though not printed in the same volume) as was lavished on those for the Ford & Mercury range.  The "nifty-thrifty" shtick was a response to the recent brief but unpleasant recession and the consumer reaction to the bloated cars Detroit put on the market in the late 1950s.  Economic boom times however returned and although smaller cars (imports and beginning in 1960 also domestically produced "compact", intermediate" & "sub-compact" examples) gained increased market share, the big (full-size) continued to get bigger and heavier until the first oil shock of 1973 compelled what John Foster Dulles (1888–1959; US Secretary of State 1953-1959) would have called "an agonizing reappraisal" (ie doing "not what were wish to do but what were are forced to do").

An unexpected twist in the tale was the convertible and two-door hardtop would in the next century be the most frequently replicated faux Edsels, built using the equivalent Ford as a base.  What the combination of the collapse in demand and the truncated season meant was the volume of the 1960 Edsels was low and some of the body styles were, by industry standards, genuine rarities and while the rule remains “rare does not necessarily mean valuable”, the emergence of the Edsel as a collectable at the lower end of the market saw the most desirable of the body styles attract a following, especially the two-door convertible (76 units), two-door hardtop (295), four-door hardtop (135) and nine-seat station wagon (59).  It took a while for the idea of the “Edsel as a collectable” to gain traction so the attrition rate of the 1960 cars was for a long time as high as might have been expected and probably little different from comparable Fords but by the twenty-first century what had emerged was something which would in 1961 have seemed bizarrely improbable: Fake Edsels.

1960 Ford Two-door Hardtop (left) and 1960 Edsel Two-door Hardtop (right); the elipse was one a popular shape for taillights.  One can debate whether the Edsel's rear styling was better or worse than that of the Ford but undeniably, compared even to some of the bizarre creations of the era, it was distinctive and achieved the desired "product differentiation", one of the factors which later would doom FoMoCo's Mercury brand. 

Like many communities, Edsel collectors are connected in clubs and on-line with the most prized of their cars being the rarities.  Thus, with so few 1960 Ranger Convertibles and Hardtops left, some resorted to creating their own and the commonality with the 1960 Fords which was so criticized when the cars were new proved advantageous, most parts simply “bolting-in”.  If one has a 1960 Edsel Ranger Sedan and a 1960 Ford Sunliner convertible, it’s technically not challenging for those with the requisite skills to swap components and re-fashion the rear to emulate a Ranger Convertible.  As long as the nature of the vehicle is disclosed, the result is likely to be admired but buyers have long been cautioned to check the VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) because such is the interchangeability of parts, done with sufficient attention to detail, it would be only the VIN which would confirm how the thing started life and even the trick of moving the axle an inch to the rear (the Ford Sunliner at 119 inches (3,023 mm) against the Edsel Convertible’s 120 (3,048)) can be done.

1960 Edsel Ranger Convertible.

The rear fender-skirts (spats) were in the era a dealer-fitted accessory but (like the dreaded "Continental kits") they have been re-produced and now appear on many more Edsels than had them when new, their attraction being they are thought a "period accessory" although fender skirts began in the 1920s as a aerodynamic aid.  When fitted to the Jaguar XK120 (1948-1954) they were found to increase top speed by 3 mph (5 km/h) because the "parachute" effect of the air entering through the wheel wells was removed but brake cooling was affected meaning they were ideal only for certain race tracks (had the XK120 ever run at Berlin's old Automobil-Verkehrs- und Übungsstraße (AVUS; Automobile traffic and training road) with its two straights each 6 miles (10 km) long, spats would have been fitted and they appeared even on some Porsche 917s).  They also precluded the use of wire wheels so in competition, some Jaguar drivers fitted them (using steel wheels at the rear) but used wire wheels at the front.  By the 1950s, fender skirts were mostly a "neo-classical affectation" but in the US mainstream they appeared on some models as late as the mid 1990s and they're since been seen on EVs (electric vehicles).

So, as in any market for collectables, when something is claimed to authentic, it’s a case of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) because there are counterfeit 1960 Edsels out there, the convertible said to be the most numerous although the nine-seat Villager station wagon was originally the one with the lowest production count.  With the odd exception (including the Mercedes-Benz 300 SLs (W198; 1954-1963) and certain Porsche 911s (since 1964)) it’s convertibles which tend to command a price premium and the emergence of the big station wagon as a niche in the collector trade happened only in recent years, almost two decades after the extinction of the breed.  More inventive still, some have even created “Edsels that never were” including two-door 1960 Villager station wagons and 1958 & 1959 versions with retractable hard-tops, using as a base the Ford Fairlane Skyliner models from those years.  The Skyliner iterations are more challenging to execute because there was in 1958 & 1959 a greater degree of differentiation between Fords & Edsels but it has been done and even the odd Edsel coupe-utility (built on the equivalent Ford Ranchero) has appeared.  Because the factory never produced any of these models, there should be no sense of them being counterfeit although, if represented to an unwary buyer as "a factory model", that would be an act of deception and in most cases actionable.

A J.D. Vance meme with sofa (in US memes referred to usually as a "couch", reflecting the preferred general use).

Memories of the Edsel’s grill were revived in 2024 during another debunking exercise.  In July that year, a post appeared on X (formerly known as Twitter) claiming there was a passage in J.D. Vance’s (b 1984; US vice president since 2025) book Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis (2016) in which the then Ohio senator (Republican) boasted of having enjoyed a sexual act with a latex glove, strategically placed between a sofa’s cushions.  It was fake news and nothing in the book even hinted at such an experience but quickly the post went viral; it once could take years for urban myths to spread between a few cities but in the social media age such things whiz around the planet in hours.  Quickly the tale was debunked but the sofa was a popular choice among the meme-makers and it says something about US politics that so many really wanted to believe "couchgate" was true.