Elvis's first photo

[HAPPIES]

I've spoken about the fact that he was eating a peanut at the time before, and it didn't come from any website.

Please share how this is a "fact." I've never read anywhere about this. If you do not have a credible source, it cannot be a "fact."

He kept that photo in his room at Graceland.

And I've never read a comment from anyone about Elvis having this image in his room in Graceland, and I do not recall any photo which shows it sitting in there. Again, if you have no source, please don't post such things, it diminishes the discussion. Thanks.

Well, well!!! What do you know!!! Seems like it was fact after all! So I guess some may have learned something they didn't previously know. Just as I do every time I check in here!. Isn't that wonderful!! Well it is for me anyway.

Thanks to the guys who were able to verify this. I truly appreciate it.

I've explained before, but it appears you have either missed it, or chosen to ignore it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I was close to someone who was there. For personal reasons I do not wish to reveal who they or I am, nor will I ever. You have a right to ask, just as I have the right to refuse to furnish these details.

They were my "source", (in fact there were more), but this one was the most significant, and through many years of conversations and having seen with my own eyes their private photos, and keepsakes, I learned of and have remembered some great, funny, sad, disturbing, and interesting tidbits about Elvis' life and some of those whom he knew. That may not mean anything to you, and so be it. However, it does not diminish for ONE nano second the validity of that relationship or what I personally experienced, and what I know.

If and when someone is able to prove otherwise, I'll happily, and humbly say what I was told was incorrect. However I make no apologies for my, or my "sources' ", OWN personal experiences. Should anyone?

I don't know why this has to be an issue with you when I post. It's funny that we were discussing a beautiful photo Elvis Aaron was good enough to share, and you once again want to demean the discussion with an attack on me. So hopefully, in future you will kindly stop trying to insist on my revealing personal details which I am NOT obliged to do.


Who are you any way?? Naturally, I extend the same courtesy I ask for my self and everyone else, and you do not need to answer.

There's no doubt you are a prolific poster over many years, and you post a lot of articles from which those who are interested learn much. Fortunately, they also lead to discussions whereby new information comes to light which at times, actually not only ADDS to, but CORRECTS the historical record and some long held beliefs regards Elvis. I'm sure there are many fans who are very grateful for that.

So back on topic...... My "source" and I were talking about Elvis one day, and I asked them did they have or had they ever seen any baby photos of Elvis, ( 'cos he must have been a beautiful baby. ) They said no, and the earliest one they'd seen was the one shown here. They didn't have a copy, just described it. This photo was precious to Elvis, and he kept it in his room, which is where he obviously, would sometimes show it to others. I was told he was about two years old, was standing with his Mum and Dad, had a hat on and was eating a peanut. That's ALL I knew about it until now when I learned something new and interesting, as to where it was taken, and why. Thanks again fellas.

I think it's somewhat ironic and mind boggling, that from maybe a handful of childhood photos, and not even one single baby photo that I'm aware of, he went on to become, in my estimate, the most photographed man in human history, and it may well stay that way, for a long time to come.

If I am able to join in a discussion whereby some things come to light all these years later then I'm . In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy Elvis, and all the good people here, who contribute, big or small, all the, to me, (and I know I'm not alone), endlessly fascinating discussions about his extraordinary life.

HAPPIES.

[drjohncarpenter]

I've spoken about the fact that he was eating a peanut at the time before, and it didn't come from any website.

Please share how this is a "fact." I've never read anywhere about this. If you do not have a credible source, it cannot be a "fact."

He kept that photo in his room at Graceland.

And I've never read a comment from anyone about Elvis having this image in his room in Graceland, and I do not recall any photo which shows it sitting in there. Again, if you have no source, please don't post such things, it diminishes the discussion. Thanks.

Well, well!!! What do you know!!! Seems like it was fact after all!

If you are referring to the "Elvis Baby Doll" ad literature posted on page 1 of this topic, you are sadly mistaken. There is nothing factual in those ads, not to mention the doll being hideous.

Again, please don't post rumour as fact. FECC is better than that. Thanks.

[G.I. Blues]

So the photo was taken with a grey concrete looking wall in the back... Is that proof it was taken at the County Jail...? A very thinly supported claim, I would say...

Vernon had been arrested in November 1937 and Elvis is about three years old in that photo, which pushes the date to January 1938 or later. He had to wait months for a trial, but stayed under lock and key until then. The family was only allowed to visit him one day a week, possibly just on Thursdays. One look at the three of them shows it was a time of concern.

But, please, do share what you know about the photo.

I don't think he is already three years old in this picture. Maybe two or two and a half years. Not more.

[drjohncarpenter]

Vernon had been arrested in November 1937 and Elvis is about three years old in that photo, which pushes the date to January 1938 or later. He had to wait months for a trial, but stayed under lock and key until then. The family was only allowed to visit him one day a week, possibly just on Thursdays. One look at the three of them shows it was a time of concern.

But, please, do share what you know about the photo.

I don't think he is already three years old in this picture. Maybe two or two and a half years. Not more.

Ever known a three year-old boy? I've had two of my own. Regardless, the image was taken when Vernon was incarcerated.

[G.I. Blues]

Vernon had been arrested in November 1937 and Elvis is about three years old in that photo, which pushes the date to January 1938 or later. He had to wait months for a trial, but stayed under lock and key until then. The family was only allowed to visit him one day a week, possibly just on Thursdays. One look at the three of them shows it was a time of concern.

But, please, do share what you know about the photo.

I don't think he is already three years old in this picture. Maybe two or two and a half years. Not more.

Ever known a three year-old boy? YES I've had two of my own. Dito, me too! Regardless, the image was taken when Vernon was incarcerated.

[HAPPIES]

I've spoken about the fact that he was eating a peanut at the time before, and it didn't come from any website.

Please share how this is a "fact." I've never read anywhere about this. If you do not have a credible source, it cannot be a "fact."

He kept that photo in his room at Graceland.

And I've never read a comment from anyone about Elvis having this image in his room in Graceland, and I do not recall any photo which shows it sitting in there. Again, if you have no source, please don't post such things, it diminishes the discussion. Thanks.

Well, well!!! What do you know!!! Seems like it was fact after all!

If you are referring to the "Elvis Baby Doll" ad literature posted on page 1 of this topic, you are sadly mistaken. There is nothing factual in those ads, not to mention the doll being hideous.

Again, please don't post rumour as fact. FECC is better than that. Thanks.

You know very well i was referring to the original photo! It's quite disingenuous of you to "cherry pic', sections of posts to support your same tired old argument. Please refrain from doing this as it only makes you seem like you don't know how to fully comprehend what anyone is saying. Thanks.

[HAPPIES]

Does anyone have a photo of Elvis as a little baby? I can remember seeing a very out of focus photograph in a book many years ago,but nothing anywhere since!

Wow, wouldn't that be priceless if it did exist...... I sure hope there is one.

( I also hope Carpenter doesn't accuse you of spreading rumours. }

Regards. HAPPIES.

[drjohncarpenter]

You know very well i was referring to the original photo! It's quite disingenuous of you to "cherry pic', sections of posts to support your same tired old argument. Please refrain from doing this as it only makes you seem like you don't know how to fully comprehend what anyone is saying. Thanks.

OK, "HAPPIES," let's try again.

There is nothing you have shared with us to support your claims regarding "the original photo." And there is nothing anyone else on this topic has offered which supports your claims either.

So please do not post rumour as "fact." This forum aims for a higher standard. There are plenty of other forums for such things.

Is that clear enough for you?

[HAPPIES]

Clear as mud ............ And much to your chagrin I'm not going anywhere...............

HAPPIES.

[MG63]

Restored.

[timothy_sideburns]

Does anyone have a photo of Elvis as a little baby? I can remember seeing a very out of focus photograph in a book many years ago,but nothing anywhere since!

There are a few contenders but nothing that we have any evidence for.

This thread - https://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=71810 shows somethign that was being touted on eBay.



This thread - https://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=106464 shows a photo that apparently has some writing on the back of Clettes and Gladys that somehow adds provenance. I see this one doing the rounds on Instagram often, but never with a source.



That thread also mentions a photo in a Bill Burk Book - The Tupelo Years, purporting to show Gladys outside church with a baby Elvis

Bill Burk printed a photo of a 1935 Tupelo church group in one of his books. He was given the picture by the pastor of the church who pointed out that Gladys can be seen on the right of the photo holding baby Elvis; while Vernon and Vester are on the back row, and their sister Gladys is inside the church looking out of one of the windows. There was some discussion of this a couple of years back on this site, and the photo was posted with it. Elvis's parents and Vester are clearly identifiable.

I've had a look at the book and I assume this is the photo being described

326872384_1317131529137226_6168620390624377892_n.jpg

However Burk does not say this is 1935. Nor does he claim it is the earliest photo of Elvis. In fact the photo is captioned by Burk as follows

Elvis (second left, back row) at a Presley Family reunion in East Tupelo

He gives no other details. He doesn't mention being given it by a pastor. There is nothing to say Vester and Vernon are in it or to say who the person is looking out from the window.

It is discussed at length in this thread 10 years ago - https://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=64393

It's curious. The person back row second left that Burk points out as Elvis looks nothing like him. I assume the woman chris J describes as being Gladys with Elvis is the one second from the right. To my eyes the tallest man at the back, just to the left of the window does look like Vernon. The woman to the right does have a look of Gladys with the slight head tilt and she is carrying a baby. The clothes look more 30s/40s than 50s.

Is it the earliest known photo of Elvis? If so why would Bill Burk get it wrong. He's usually very dilligent and you'd think if he had something historic on his hands, he would've made a splash about it. But why print it as a photo of Elvis, when to my eyes I cannot see Elvis in this photo?

I'd be interested to know what people think about this photo.

Finally -
I think the "very out of focus" photo Jan 1 recalls seeing it this one. It comes from Sean Shaver's book Our Memories of Elvis. It does not give a source other than to mention being traded at a resturant near Graceland. Hardly reliable. You'd think Sean might've tried a bit harder.

327003574_579594663638355_8268068198052019579_n.jpg

326716711_865755841309405_5758758352238922338_n.jpg

[moonandback]

I can't even begin to describe how sad that is, all these wonderful pictures out there that might never be seen. Do we know who these relatives might be?

No.

Aunt Delta was one of those family members who stole and sold personal items like clothes etc.

[Alan_K]

I think it's somewhat ironic and mind boggling, that from maybe a handful of childhood photos, and not even one single baby photo that I'm aware of, he went on to become, in my estimate, the most photographed man in human history, and it may well stay that way, for a long time to come.

In a pre digital age, most probably, but take into account that either side of his "brief" 23 year career some of the UK Royals may have been photographed a lot, again pre digital. Taking into account the digital age I'm sure theres a few people who might have a stake to that claim.

[drjohncarpenter]

I think it's somewhat ironic and mind boggling, that from maybe a handful of childhood photos, and not even one single baby photo that I'm aware of, he went on to become, in my estimate, the most photographed man in human history, and it may well stay that way, for a long time to come.

In a pre digital age, most probably, but take into account that either side of his "brief" 23 year career some of the UK Royals may have been photographed a lot, again pre digital. Taking into account the digital age I'm sure theres a few people who might have a stake to that claim.

Many others have been photographed more, in either era, starting with major world leaders like the President of the United States.

[Swedish]

I think it's somewhat ironic and mind boggling, that from maybe a handful of childhood photos, and not even one single baby photo that I'm aware of, he went on to become, in my estimate, the most photographed man in human history, and it may well stay that way, for a long time to come.

Most photographed in the world... the Eiffel Tower!

[Alan_K]

I think it's somewhat ironic and mind boggling, that from maybe a handful of childhood photos, and not even one single baby photo that I'm aware of, he went on to become, in my estimate, the most photographed man in human history, and it may well stay that way, for a long time to come.

In a pre digital age, most probably, but take into account that either side of his "brief" 23 year career some of the UK Royals may have been photographed a lot, again pre digital. Taking into account the digital age I'm sure theres a few people who might have a stake to that claim.

Many others have been photographed more, in either era, starting with major world leaders like the President of the United States.

Doc, seriously, you need to know, its not always the same person
But it could win under most photographed men catagory.

[drjohncarpenter]

Many others have been photographed more, in either era, starting with major world leaders like the President of the United States.

Doc, seriously, you need to know, its not always the same person
But it could win under most photographed men catagory.

That was one example.

However, in the eight year administrations of presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush II or Obama, I have no doubt whatsoever that more photos were made of each one than those captured of Elvis Presley.

Here's another simple example: the 20-year career of a professional model -- male or female -- will doubtless mean hundreds or thousands more images than those made of Presley.

When a hapless, myopic Elvis fan claims the singer was "the most photographed man in human history," one needs to put on their thinking cap for about two seconds and use some common sense.

I can't tell you the answer to that silly declaration, but I can say it ain't Elvis.

[Yamaguchi.Y]

Finally -
I think the "very out of focus" photo Jan 1 recalls seeing it this one. It comes from Sean Shaver's book Our Memories of Elvis. It does not give a source other than to mention being traded at a resturant near Graceland. Hardly reliable. You'd think Sean might've tried a bit harder.

I have always thought the baby photo in Shaver's "Our Memories" was not legit. Even the story is far-fetched.

[Alan_K]

Many others have been photographed more, in either era, starting with major world leaders like the President of the United States.

Doc, seriously, you need to know, its not always the same person
But it could win under most photographed men catagory.

That was one example.

However, in the eight year administrations of presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush II or Obama, I have no doubt whatsoever that more photos were made of each one than those captured of Elvis Presley.

Here's another simple example: the 20-year career of a professional model -- male or female -- will doubtless mean hundreds or thousands more images than those made of Presley.

When a hapless, myopic Elvis fan claims the singer was "the most photographed man in human history," one needs to put on their thinking cap for about two seconds and use some common sense.

I can't tell you the answer to that silly declaration, but I can say it ain't Elvis.

Yes, but those you've suggested were more in the progessional digital age whereas Elvis was not. The definition of a photograph does cover both but I'm sure the definition has changed in order to include digital. Like for Like?

I'd go for Queen Elizabeth II for most photographed person and I'd consider someone like Paul McCartney as a contender for most photographed man, but Prince Philip as well.

[drjohncarpenter]

Yes, but those you've suggested were more in the progessional digital age whereas Elvis was not.

They are just examples. There are MANY others. You are adverse to rational thought.

Also, to claim Bush or Clinton came to office in "the progessional digital age" is absurd.

[Alan_K]

Yes, but those you've suggested were more in the progessional digital age whereas Elvis was not.

They are just examples. There are MANY others. You are adverse to rational thought.

Also, to claim Bush or Clinton came to office in "the progessional digital age" is absurd.

In 1989 Fuji introduced the fisrt commercial digital camera the FUJIX DS-X, but it was slow on the uptake. But in 1991 Kodak came out with the professional use digital SLR camera that did take off. Now I've never stated that the digital age was there when Bush came to office but it arrived whilst he was in office and obviously was there when Clinton did.

I was using digital cameras by Kodak in 1995 and that was off the shelf for consumers like me. I could take loads on the card instead of being more careful about using film up, so the digital age and or era did lend itself to more photos being taken with the ability to scan them and delte any that weren't up to the mark on the spot instead of leaving the scene to see what the darkroom revealed on film. But proferssionals had been using the equipment for sometime before I ever did.

[mrt]

I've spoken about the fact that he was eating a peanut at the time before, and it didn't come from any website.

Please share how this is a "fact." I've never read anywhere about this. If you do not have a credible source, it cannot be a "fact."

From the Graceland Living Legacy book;

[BobDylan]

I've spoken about the fact that he was eating a peanut at the time before, and it didn't come from any website.

Please share how this is a "fact." I've never read anywhere about this. If you do not have a credible source, it cannot be a "fact."

From the Graceland Living Legacy book;

Oh, boy. Now you've done it. Shown proof from a reliable source that also casts doubt on Elvis positively being 3 years old.

Someone ain't gonna be happy.

[drjohncarpenter]

I've spoken about the fact that he was eating a peanut at the time before, and it didn't come from any website.

Please share how this is a "fact." I've never read anywhere about this. If you do not have a credible source, it cannot be a "fact."

From the Graceland Living Legacy book;

legacy-book.jpg

So, nearly eight years later, someone comes up with something in print about fabled "peanut story." Please tell us you are not "HAPPIES," our sadly misinformed forum friend. She never shared a darn thing!

It's interesting, the idea may have originated from a thirty year-old coffee table book about Graceland. I never bothered with it, too superficial. As you were scanning the sentence, did you notice the author, Chet Flippo, did not indicate where the asinine claim originated?

Big request:

Since you took the trouble to scan part of that page, might you also share if he wrote in his footnotes where this came from? I'm going to bet there are no footnotes, and if so, there is no source here, credible or otherwise. Chet died ten years ago, we can't ask him. Besides, Flippo certainly wasn't visiting Vernon Presley at Lee County Jail in March 1938, he was born in 1943.

Let's wrap up the "peanut story," once and for all!

Thanks.