Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Old style drynites

  1. #1

    Default Old style drynites

    So I was going through my closet when I found these, forgot I bought this them.

    So much better than the current ones.

    Anybody else agree?

    Sent from my R800i using Tapatalk
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	uploadfromtaptalk1312052992239.jpg 
Views:	8810 
Size:	113.1 KB 
ID:	5259   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	uploadfromtaptalk1312053235466.jpg 
Views:	14283 
Size:	130.1 KB 
ID:	5260   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	uploadfromtaptalk1312052913202.jpg 
Views:	5764 
Size:	187.3 KB 
ID:	5258  

  2. #2

    Default

    I remember those. They are actually crinkly, unlike the current ones.


    Sent from my iPhone

  3. #3

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ScottishHusky View Post
    Anybody else agree?
    nope.
    i've still got the original ones

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ade View Post
    nope.
    i've still got the original ones
    Heh, I didn't start wearing them until 2004 ish. It's what got me into being a DL.

    Sent from my R800i using Tapatalk

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ScottishHusky View Post
    Heh, I didn't start wearing them until 2004 ish.
    the packet, pictured above, is from 2002. the ones you'll be familiar with are actually the 7-10 size, re-branded as 8-15. basically, they ditched the XL size and just repackaged the L to cover up to age 15/16. here's a view of what you've missed:


    A = original 7-10 age range.
    B = new (and current) 'trim-fit' cut covering 8-15 age range.
    C = original 10+ (10-15) age range.

    but, that's not the worst thing you've missed (because of the accident of your year of birth): you've also never had proper Monster Munch. the current ones are absolute crap, compared to the original ones, dating from the late 70s.
    in fact, crispy snacks in general, today, are all crap in comparison to earlier years. to give you a clue: Walkers haven't changed that much since the 70s, but in the 70s they were one of the lesser brands, the kind you'd refuse.
    new and improved? bah, humbug!

  7. #7

  8. #8

    Default

    Would love to get my hands on the old ones. hate that they changed them to the trim fit. Old ones fit alot better (or was that I was thinner)

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ade View Post
    the packet, pictured above, is from 2002. the ones you'll be familiar with are actually the 7-10 size, re-branded as 8-15. basically, they ditched the XL size and just repackaged the L to cover up to age 15/16. here's a view of what you've missed:


    A = original 7-10 age range.
    B = new (and current) 'trim-fit' cut covering 8-15 age range.
    C = original 10+ (10-15) age range.

    but, that's not the worst thing you've missed (because of the accident of your year of birth): you've also never had proper Monster Munch. the current ones are absolute crap, compared to the original ones, dating from the late 70s.
    in fact, crispy snacks in general, today, are all crap in comparison to earlier years. to give you a clue: Walkers haven't changed that much since the 70s, but in the 70s they were one of the lesser brands, the kind you'd refuse.
    new and improved? bah, humbug!


    Hmmm they got more rectangular over time.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ade View Post
    the packet, pictured above, is from 2002. the ones you'll be familiar with are actually the 7-10 size, re-branded as 8-15. basically, they ditched the XL size and just repackaged the L to cover up to age 15/16. here's a view of what you've missed:


    A = original 7-10 age range.
    B = new (and current) 'trim-fit' cut covering 8-15 age range.
    C = original 10+ (10-15) age range.

    but, that's not the worst thing you've missed (because of the accident of your year of birth): you've also never had proper Monster Munch. the current ones are absolute crap, compared to the original ones, dating from the late 70s.
    in fact, crispy snacks in general, today, are all crap in comparison to earlier years. to give you a clue: Walkers haven't changed that much since the 70s, but in the 70s they were one of the lesser brands, the kind you'd refuse.
    new and improved? bah, humbug!
    I really liked those ones over the newer ones today. Those ones are just plain out crap and they hurt the youngsters that wear them so I have heard. I sent them e-mail after e-mail from all my different e-mails just to try to give them a little flooding of e-mails and made each one vary from one to another and still they are selling the same ole crap. The ones from 2002 and prior were so freaking comfortable that I actually liked to wear them and wore them to school not just because they were the most comfortable alternative to underwear but also was that I needed them too.

    All the best!
    -Alex

Similar Threads

  1. Drynites suprise
    By danbaby in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 13-Jan-2011, 03:33
  2. How stretchy are Drynites?
    By Guineapigged in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-Jun-2010, 19:27
  3. New Drynites - My take
    By RedApple in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 13-Apr-2009, 19:55

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.