I'm pretty sure that the lighting in the first picture was done with aluminum reflectors, but I'll allow that they may have contained photofloods (plain for tungsten-balanced film, or blue (another extinct species) for daylight film).

The second picture was probably a single light high and to camera right (look at the small, round catchlight in the eye) with reflector fill from the left and a background light located behind the model's legs and skirt (see how much light from the background is hitting the underside of her arm?). The clothing and pose look late-60s to me, when the swinging London fashions had made it into the mainstream, but before the '70s flower-girl styles. If I interpret the filename correctly, this was from the UK Vogue, which is consistent with the painstaking effort that went into it: notice the geometry created on her left leg by the precisely draped skirt, which just short of falling away, and the way she is stabilizing the hair so that the highlight is just perfect and it is separated from the background without the use of a hair light. Not only was the studio crew quite competent, the model really knew her stuff as well. If you manage to emulate this picture, I'd love to see the result!

Even in their original, non-faded color, I suspect that these pictures may have been a bit on the warm side. They date from an era when fluorescent lights were rapidly displacing incandescents, but the fluorescents of the time were mostly rather cold in tone, and some were a ghastly greenish blue. Probably in reaction to this, "natural" light was expected to be warm, and cold light was sort of "artificial".

The natural aging of C41 process prints takes them into the caramel end of the palette, which you will have to take into consideration if you are trying to emulate a vintage print, as opposed to its original appearance.