Nashville, TN: July '73 --> Tired Eyes!

Found this image online today:

730701AS_Nashville.JPG

On stage, Nashville, TN - Sunday, July 1, 1973 AS


I remember first seeing this in a 1978 book by Wanda June Hill, We Remember, Elvis, with the caption: "Note condition of eyes."

What in the heck? Elvis looks awful.

As early as summer 1973, it seems afternoon shows were not a good idea.


[ Edited to note correct date of image; thanks all! ]

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Last edited by drjohncarpenter on Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Found this image online today:

730623AS_Uniondale.JPG

On stage, Uniondale, NY - Saturday, June 23, 1973 AS


I remember first seeing this in a book by Wanda June Hill, with the caption: "Note condition of eyes."

What in the heck? Elvis looks awful.

As early as summer 1973, it seems afternoon shows were not a good idea. Five afternoons later, it got worse.

Yeah, I remember seeing this picture when he was still alive and thinking he looked so old for it to be 1973.

It looks more like a 76-77 photo, though I am sure there would be better photos from the concert.

Didn't anybody "see" this at the time? I mean, how does that happen so fast, and nobody notices? It was an emergency, and this was the last chance.



rjm

Gosh, I still recall seeing that picture for the first time - I was shocked!! Didn't even spend one single thought about it being taken in '73 already!

I remember that picture very well and it has been used often in magazines to underline the decline of Elvis in his later years. When I first saw this one as a kid I also thought it was a 1977 picture.
However, in favor of our man... he did look good that night afternoon. Somehow they snapped him at the wrong moment, look at this one for example:

I agree, probably a bad moment shot.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I just realized that this photo cannot be from Uniondale. Look below:

comp.jpg

The photo on the right IS from Uniondale, and as you can see Elvis is wearing a) a different necklace and b) a different ring on his left hand. If the photo on the left is from a tour show, I would date it as being from Nashville July 1st matinee mainly because of his hair. It also looks like he could be wearing the Lion Claw necklace, which he did in Nashville. But did he wear that ring in Nashville - I can't make it out in my Nashville photos...?

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I just realized that this photo cannot be from Uniondale. Look below:

comp.jpg

The photo on the right IS from Uniondale, and as you can see Elvis is wearing a) a different necklace and b) a different ring on his left hand. If the photo on the left is from a tour show, I would date it as being from Nashville July 1st matinee mainly because of his hair. It also looks like he could be wearing the Lion Claw necklace, which he did in Nashville. But did he wear that ring in Nashville - I can't make it out in my Nashville photos...?

I agree that the photo is from Nashvile and yes, Elvis did wear that ring in Nashville as you can see in this photo.

730701-Nashville-aft-c12-George Hill.jpg

Sincerely
Brian

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Yes, you've rigth

Uniondale : Egyptian cross
Nashville : latin cross

I've seen this image before too. Uniondale/Nashville doesn't make too many odds .. He looks terrible (for Elvis) and far beyond his years.

I've seen this image before too. Uniondale/Nashville doesn't make too many odds .. He looks terrible (for Elvis) and far beyond his years.

Yup.

It's only a matter of a few days. But I've updated the post, to be accurate. Thanks all for the help on that.

There are many close-up shots of Elvis that clearly show his decline.

There are many close-up shots of Elvis that clearly show his decline.

But ... only 5 and a half months after "Aloha"?

There are many close-up shots of Elvis that clearly show his decline.

But ... only 5 and a half months after "Aloha"?

You have a prurient-like obsession with Elvis' physical decline. Why is that?

You have a prurient-like obsession with Elvis' physical decline. Why is that?

Actually, I don't. Hope this helps!

You have a prurient-like obsession with Elvis' physical decline. Why is that?

Actually, I don't. Hope this helps!

HA! HA! HA! HA!

You the MAN, Doc!

Total BURN on InheritTheWind!

You have a prurient-like obsession with Elvis' physical decline. Why is that?

Actually, I don't. Hope this helps!

Hey Doc! Remember when I wrote "Hope this helps" to you!?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=75570#p1141108

You were looking at soft-core porn pictures again you rascal!

You were looking at soft-core porn pictures again ...

Actually, no I wasn't. But maybe we now have a little window into your non-Elvis interests.

There are many close-up shots of Elvis that clearly show his decline.

But ... only 5 and a half months after "Aloha"?

Back in the 1990s JAT issued a book with pictures shot by Ed Bonja. On one page was an "Aloha"-backstage-photo and on another one a backstage-photo shot in April. In three months Elvis went from slim and tanned to bloated and pale. The King must have done something very unhealthy to change his looks so fast.

In the fall of 1972 Elvis did not look well and I am pretty sure that "Aloha" was just a short stop on his way down. He pulled himself together for a short time and continued with his disasterous lifestyle as soon as the show was over.

You were looking at soft-core porn pictures again ...

Actually, no I wasn't. But maybe we now have a little window into your non-Elvis interests.

Huh. So now you're reduced to "I know you are but what am I" tactics? Oh dear. I was hoping you were more clever than that. Let's take a look at who posted the degrading pictures of of scantily clad girls and called them "treasures":

That eBay seller sure has some remarkable "treasures" ...
http://stores.ebay.com/wildestwesterns/

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=75570#p1140231

The fact that you think it's amusing to post degrading images of very young girls in various states of undress says a lot about your attitude toward women.

p.s. Your creepy new Avatar is very fitting.

Let's take a look at who posted the degrading pictures of of scantily clad girls and called them "treasures"...

Your comments have all been off-topic, but false statements which misrepresent me like this deserve clarification.

If one carefully reads the topic you cite, my comment is about the 1969 Elvis photo posted. I found it was being sold by someone on eBay whose catalog is not that of an Elvis fan.

Further, I never posted a single photo from that eBay seller, I just copied their link. And, for any intelligent, rational person, my "treasures" observation -- and the entire post -- was firmly tongue-in-cheek.

Humour, grace and civility are obviously elusive traits. I suggest you take a break from this forum, your angry, off-topic posts all over this fine forum in the past week indicate something is very wrong at home.

There are many close-up shots of Elvis that clearly show his decline.

But ... only 5 and a half months after "Aloha"?

Back in the 1990s JAT issued a book with pictures shot by Ed Bonja. On one page was an "Aloha"-backstage-photo and on another one a backstage-photo shot in April. In three months Elvis went from slim and tanned to bloated and pale. The King must have done something very unhealthy to change his looks so fast.

In the fall of 1972 Elvis did not look well and I am pretty sure that "Aloha" was just a short stop on his way down. He pulled himself together for a short time and continued with his disasterous lifestyle as soon as the show was over.

As time has proven, "Aloha" was the final pinnacle of the Presley career. After that, the downward slide towards summer 1977 began in earnest. And it is heartbreaking. We all wish something could have been done.

Let's take a look at who posted the degrading pictures of of scantily clad girls and called them "treasures"...

Your comments have all been off-topic, but false statements which misrepresent me like this deserve clarification.

If one carefully reads the topic you cite, my comment is about the 1969 Elvis photo posted. I found it was being sold by someone on eBay whose catalog is not that of an Elvis fan.

Further, I never posted a single photo from that eBay seller, I just copied their link. And, for any intelligent, rational person, my "treasures" observation -- and the entire post -- was firmly tongue-in-cheek.

Humour, grace and civility are obviously elusive traits. I suggest you take a break from this forum, your angry, off-topic posts all over this fine forum in the past week indicate something is very wrong at home.

Sorry facts make you defensive and rude. When you posted a link of the seller's other "treasures" on an Elvis post I thought it would be other cool Elvis items for sale. Imagine my shock and horror when the images of young scantily clad girls came up. (And who went off topic? You.) Not funny and extremely childish. If this is your idea of humor then you really need to get out of the house. Your hatred toward women is unsettling.

Humour, grace and civility are obviously elusive traits. I suggest you take a break from this forum, your angry, off-topic posts all over this fine forum in the past week indicate something is very wrong at home.

Pot, meet kettle!