Post here your Elvis' pictures

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:36 pm

rjm wrote:
TJ wrote:It does look like him. The decision to obscure part of the photo isn't necessarily suspicious. If only selling a print, the value of that print would obviously be much lower if the seller posted the complete photo in the listing.


The seller did him/herself no favors with that bizarre "watermark." Instead of protecting something historically valuable, it makes it look "dodgy," as the British say.

There are likely people or at least other buildings in the obscured area. And a buyer would certainly like to see what's there.

I do get a vibe of honesty, reading it. And perhaps inexperience with the process of selling such a print.

It's not 'shopped since the image of Elvis, if indeed it is him, has never been seen before, to my knowledge. It really, really looks like him! I don't see how any other kid could look like that. That's our little boy! (In the midst of a bit of a growth spurt.)

I mean, WE know Elvis. It would almost be like seeing your own kid in in a photo, don't you think? Some things, you just know.

Why did they put that dang thing on the glass? {sigh}

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4


So true Robin. If you look at his shoulders in this pic, they're are clearly shaped like that of Elvis. If we could see more of his fingers, we would know right away.

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:50 pm

The whole picture may tell us things that the obscured photo does not.

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:33 am

bripet56 wrote:This one was posted on facebook by Jayne Purdy over in The Man and His Music group. She wrote:
RARE UNPUBLISHED PHOTO of ELVIS? on bicycle....the story told is that Elvis was leaving the drug store in Tupelo circa 1945. This is posted by Kevin Woolnough on The EP Information Network group - what a pic!


1172854_10151788264393680_1519274223_o.jpg


The photo look OK to me and the bike looks like the one we have in another photo from Tupelo.

What do you guys think?

Sincerely
Brian
http://www.brian56.dk


Even is this pic, he has his face tilted the same way.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y86/hi ... 0/03-4.jpg

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:22 am

Another teenaged Elvis...perhaps about 15 years old?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:54 am

bluejeans1944 wrote:Another teenaged Elvis...perhaps about 15 years old?

Image


No, probably 16. Here are a few details for you:


Image

With cousin Gene Smith, Loew's State photo booth, Memphis, circa 1951
Corrected view.


Image

With cousin Gene Smith, Loew's State photo booth, Memphis, circa 1951
Same image, less cropped.


Image

With cousin Bobby Smith, Loew's State photo booth, Memphis, circa 1951
Corrected view.
Note this is the SAME booth as the one with Gene, but Elvis is wearing different clothes.
Last edited by drjohncarpenter on Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Looks as though the original face has been masked out and Elvis' added in. The body being covered is a dead give-a-way as the build and clothing would tell another story.

It's a fake.

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:09 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:The whole picture may tell us things that the obscured photo does not.


Yes. Like vehicles. It would be helpful to check out the model year of parked vehicles.

Because it is surely not 1945. And the vehicles could both place and date the photo.

But we can't see 'em.

rjm
P.S. -- Hoping one of our members gets the winning bid!

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4

Re: Elvis Tupelo 1945?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:47 pm

I think it's a fake! Why would Elvis have his photo taken with his eyes closed and his head back outside a shop?

Re: Elvis Tupelo 1945?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:26 pm

mysterytrainrideson wrote:I think it's a fake! Why would Elvis have his photo taken with his eyes closed and his head back outside a shop?


Why would anyone? But it is someone with their eyes half closed and their head slightly tilted back. Sometimes photos don't work out as you'd like them. These days we can check them straight away.. not back then.

The photo itself looks real to me. I'd like to see the full shot, I presume it's partial because whoever owns it doesn't want it copied off the net.

Re: Elvis Tupelo 1945?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:50 pm

mysterytrainrideson wrote:I think it's a fake! Why would Elvis have his photo taken with his eyes closed and his head back outside a shop?


If you check back old pics, Elvis did this a lot. Even in the Graceland press conference on March 7th-1960, he did this.

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:04 pm

It is Elvis. The hat behind him, seems unreal...

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:54 pm

promiseland wrote:Looks as though the original face has been masked out and Elvis' added in. The body being covered is a dead give-a-way as the build and clothing would tell another story.

It's a fake.


This is my concern from the beginning. Some here need to apply more critical thought before making a pronouncement.

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:54 pm

Thank you very much for sharing, it's a fantastic, rare find!

But my boy, my boy ...I really want to know where (or in which street) this picture is taken...

Ed

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:39 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
promiseland wrote:Looks as though the original face has been masked out and Elvis' added in. The body being covered is a dead give-a-way as the build and clothing would tell another story.

It's a fake.


This is my concern from the beginning. Some here need to apply more critical thought before making a pronouncement.


That is the concern. But *which* other Elvis face would that be? Where is the other photo?

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:56 am

rjm wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
promiseland wrote:Looks as though the original face has been masked out and Elvis' added in. The body being covered is a dead give-a-way as the build and clothing would tell another story.

It's a fake.


This is my concern from the beginning. Some here need to apply more critical thought before making a pronouncement.


That is the concern. But *which* other Elvis face would that be? Where is the other photo?

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4



That is my concern...where is the other photo? Also why has it taken over 65 years to appear anywhere??

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:44 am

I don´t find it odd at all that part of the photo is obscured. It happens all the time.
Both on Ebay and elsewhere when somebody has a photo they either want to sell or don´t want people to copy.

Of course I would love to see the entire photo but I don´t think it is hiding something that would reveal that it could absolutely not be Elvis.

It still looks like Elvis to me.

Sincerely
Brian
www.brian56.dk

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:17 pm

Where is his shadow?

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:39 pm

rjm wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
promiseland wrote:Looks as though the original face has been masked out and Elvis' added in. The body being covered is a dead give-a-way as the build and clothing would tell another story.

It's a fake.


This is my concern from the beginning. Some here need to apply more critical thought before making a pronouncement.


That is the concern. But *which* other Elvis face would that be? Where is the other photo?

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4


You're missing the point. I said "masked" by this meaning the eyes, nose and mouth all added in separate. The eyes could be of one photo, the nose-mouth from another.

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:56 am

Frank R. wrote:Where is his shadow?


How are we supposed to know where Charlie Hodge was?

Re: Elvis Tupelo 1945?

Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:25 am

promiseland wrote:
rjm wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
promiseland wrote:Looks as though the original face has been masked out and Elvis' added in. The body being covered is a dead give-a-way as the build and clothing would tell another story.

It's a fake.


This is my concern from the beginning. Some here need to apply more critical thought before making a pronouncement.


That is the concern. But *which* other Elvis face would that be? Where is the other photo?

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4


You're missing the point. I said "masked" by this meaning the eyes, nose and mouth all added in separate. The eyes could be of one photo, the nose-mouth from another.


That's intriguing. In other words, they created a face?

Well, anything's possible. I suppose if the right person gets the print, they could have it really checked out by Photoshop experts. The only problem is that the price is rising.

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4

Re: Elvis Tupelo 1945?

Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:06 pm

Re the shadow: isn't the boy standing at a slightly lower level than the other people - just off the kerb, on the road maybe?

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Mon Aug 26, 2013 4:55 am

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:This is what was posted regarding the "watermark":

the reason the right side is covered up is because this is an unpublished photo. The original owner of the photo is probably the only one that has seen the full picture. If an unpublished photo gets released without a part of the image being covered people can start sharing it and spreading it as their own picture. It's sad that people do that but it's a protective measure on behalf of the owner.




It sure looks like Elvis, imo.


I think this should be moved to the "All Elvis" section so more people would see it.




RKS


The person in that quote about reason behind the watermark is me! LOL

Reason behind my amusement is just that I first saw this picture on Monday the 19th, from the same site (facebook Elvis Information Network page) same that Mrs. Purdy did. And this is as interesting/fascinating to me as it seems to be to everyone else here. It's just interesting to see a quote of my own pop up in front of me from another place on the internet. I don't have problem with my quote being used at all. We're all here just trying to figure this thing out. But I will say I didn't mean my comment in the quote to read like I know exactly why the current owner of photo did this. It's just experienced speculation on my part. I'm a fan of other historical figures that I've read heavily on and whenever a rare photo pops up the reason I gave is usually same reason given by folks in the publishing business. But who knows?

I almost posted this photo myself right here for you fine folks back on the 19th but I had so many questions myself, didn't know where to start. Alot of the comments I've read here already touched on the same curiosities/observations I have.

I've been musing about this picture on a few other pages elsewhere with folks and I've made the same observations as others Right Here have already made (I think Doc and rjm among them) about him appearing closer in age to 13than the 1945 date given which would put him at 10 years old. I was quickly dismissed by a few on that other site saying "No-way....no older than 10." Then some were also saying "this doesn't even appear to be the face of a young Elvis Presley so it's fake".
It's fairweather fans like that on random pages and forums on internet that spew unknowledgable 'opinions' as 'Fact' that sometimes cause some of the most confusion and problems. :roll:


You don't have to be too bright or too knowledgable an Elvis fan to look at that picture and not notice 2 things.
1) That's not the face or build of a 10 year old boy
2) That most definitely IS the face of a young Elvis Presley

First thing I noticed reading everyones comments...we all agree that boy in picture looks like young Elvis and looks more like 1948 circa than 1945.

I have to say that's one of the things I really appreciate about FECC forum, you folks have, not only an interest in the facts, but also enough respect for the history of them to really strive to get it right. I love the hell out of it.

When Kevin Woodnough posted this picture on the facebook page my first thought was, I wonder who the original source is/was for the story about the Drugstore/the film/and asking Elvis to pose.
There were 3 drug stores in Tupelo at this pertic timeframe. One on Main street, another on Spring St (I believe) and the 3rd escapes me presently but I know this just because I read an interview about a month ago with a fascinating Ole-Timer that made it clear about there being 3 different Drugstores in town.
This muddies the waters a bit as it could be in front of any of them, but it also makes one thing more clear, which is it opens the possibilty for it being in not just one specific location (assuming the story about the drugstore us accurate) but possible elsewhere in Tupelo.

Those are my musings for now.

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:05 am

1Sixstring wrote:First thing I noticed reading everyones comments...we all agree that boy in picture looks like young Elvis and looks more like 1948 circa than 1945.

I have to say that's one of the things I really appreciate about FECC forum, you folks have, not only an interest in the facts, but also enough respect for the history of them to really strive to get it right. I love the hell out of it.

When Kevin Woodnough posted this picture on the facebook page my first thought was, I wonder who the original source is/was for the story about the Drugstore/the film/and asking Elvis to pose.
There were 3 drug stores in Tupelo at this pertic timeframe. One on Main street, another on Spring St (I believe) and the 3rd escapes me presently but I know this just because I read an interview about a month ago with a fascinating Ole-Timer that made it clear about there being 3 different Drugstores in town.
This muddies the waters a bit as it could be in front of any of them, but it also makes one thing more clear, which is it opens the possibilty for it being in not just one specific location (assuming the story about the drugstore us accurate) but possible elsewhere in Tupelo.

Those are my musings for now.


If the young man in the photo is 13 -- and he is clearly NOT a ten year-old -- and Elvis was 13 in 1948, we must also remember he moved with his family from Tupelo to Memphis that year.

Again, many more questions than answers regarding this photo.

Re: NEW Elvis in Tupelo

Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:20 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
1Sixstring wrote:First thing I noticed reading everyones comments...we all agree that boy in picture looks like young Elvis and looks more like 1948 circa than 1945.

I have to say that's one of the things I really appreciate about FECC forum, you folks have, not only an interest in the facts, but also enough respect for the history of them to really strive to get it right. I love the hell out of it.

When Kevin Woodnough posted this picture on the facebook page my first thought was, I wonder who the original source is/was for the story about the Drugstore/the film/and asking Elvis to pose.
There were 3 drug stores in Tupelo at this pertic timeframe. One on Main street, another on Spring St (I believe) and the 3rd escapes me presently but I know this just because I read an interview about a month ago with a fascinating Ole-Timer that made it clear about there being 3 different Drugstores in town.
This muddies the waters a bit as it could be in front of any of them, but it also makes one thing more clear, which is it opens the possibilty for it being in not just one specific location (assuming the story about the drugstore us accurate) but possible elsewhere in Tupelo.

Those are my musings for now.


If the young man in the photo is 13 -- and he is clearly NOT a ten year-old -- and Elvis was 13 in 1948, we must also remember he moved with his family from Tupelo to Memphis that year.

Again, many more questions than answers regarding this photo.


This is very true Doc, and that thought was not lost on me either. I remember thinking at the time of reading that interview that of the 3 drugstores referenced one of them was near the end of town closest to N Green str address they were at at that time before leaving for Memphis. Of course this pic hadn't surfaced yet so it's perhaps odd I made note of that, but either way I did. So was one of the things I thought about as soon as a first looked this picture. If there's nothing doctored here and this photo is legit, it's definitely in that time frame of the Tupelo/Memphis shift. Boy if only that other side was visable, might clear alot up

Re: Elvis Tupelo 1945?

Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:27 am

The winning bid was $361.68....& not the original photo but a copy of it. I wonder if it may be listed again...for sale.