Katy Jurado or not?

[guntcher]

Found this on the usenet.

[signal]

Originally Posted by guntcher

Found this on the usenet.

Is this really her? Besides the difference in the face,
this photo looks like a post - 1960 studio photograph,
and the woman in this pose looks too young to be
Katy after that date,.

[ConstantOgler]

Originally Posted by signal

Is this really her? Besides the difference in the face,
this photo looks like a post - 1960 studio photograph,
and the woman in this pose looks too young to be
Katy after that date,.

In defense of guntcher's post, a supposed original sold on Web not long ago for high $$ from a prestigious seller. It seems many believe it's so.

[signal]

Originally Posted by ConstantOgler

In defense of guntcher's post, a supposed original sold on Web not long ago for high $$ from a prestigious seller. It seems many believe it's so.

I have some issues w/ nose shape, but face not otherwise way off imo.
Also, precise dating of decade/studio implies expertise. Can you share?

I looked at website and they claim it is her. Reasons for
my doubts:
1. Shape of facial features seems wrong.
2. Where are the other poses from this studio session?
Highly unlikely that any woman would pose for just one photo.
3. Clarity/sharpness of image is much better than film
photography of 1950's or earlier. Even Playboy photographs
did not look this sharp prior to 1964-65.
4. If photo quality does indeed date picture as being
post - 1960, then woman in photo looks too young to
match age for Katy at that time.
Having said that, I do not criticize posting photo here.
When another website claims it has a celebrity photo,
one must think that they believe it to be true.

[ConstantOgler]

@ signal
Agree the nose in the nude doesn't match with most photos from her actress days. As shown in post #5 it's blunt & broad. But look at first row there, especially 1, 3 & 4. If this is her, she's younger, & that nose looks different too. Thinner & curved, more like the nude photo. (Sixth row #2 also not like the rest).

So this too is someone else. Or . . . ? By the time High Noon was shooting she was late 20's. These other photos could be age 20 +/-. Makes sense the nude would be earlier, not later.

The idea that Basch could not shoot a sharp b&w photo in his studio in the 40's is, all due respect, bananas. The famous Hollywood portrait photogs who started in the 20's used large format cameras, optimal lighting & film etc.. The results were great, but not sharp? Playboy shoots have nada to do with it. Likewise, saying a photo is not authentic b/c it's a loner, & "where are the others?". That's a 21st Century, web-based, quantity-over-quality POV, jmo. Artists routinely destroy all inferior work, & when it's a potentially scandalous nude done by self-important artist ca.1950, it's 100%% credible.

Maybe not her, but I need better arguments to convince me.

[signal]

Originally Posted by ConstantOgler

@ signal
Agree the nose in the nude doesn't match with most photos from her actress days. As shown in post #5 it's blunt & broad. But look at first row there, especially 1, 3 & 4. If this is her, she's younger, & that nose looks different too. Thinner & curved, more like the nude photo. (Sixth row #2 also not like the rest).

So this too is someone else. Or . . . ? By the time High Noon was shooting she was late 20's. These other photos could be age 20 +/-. Makes sense the nude would be earlier, not later.

The idea that Basch could not shoot a sharp b&w photo in his studio in the 40's is, all due respect, bananas. The famous Hollywood portrait photogs who started in the 20's used large format cameras, optimal lighting & film etc.. The results were great, but not sharp? Playboy shoots have nada to do with it. Likewise, saying a photo is not authentic b/c it's a loner, & "where are the others?". That's a 21st Century, web-based, quantity-over-quality POV, jmo. Artists routinely destroy all inferior work, & when it's a potentially scandalous nude done by self-important artist ca.1950, it's 100%% credible.

Maybe not her, but I need better arguments to convince me.

Okay. I have been looking at celebrity photos on the web since
1998, and the photos can almost always be sorted by style and
quality of image into time periods. Most, if not all, of the photos
posted here from the 1950's look a lot softer around the edges
than this one. I questioned this photo because it doesn't really
look like Katy, and the photo looks a lot sharper than other pics
from the same decade. Also, this site has studio photos from
the 1920's and 1930's that are actually sorted by the photographer
as well as the actress. This is a one-off. No photographer's name.
No other photos have surfaced from this studio session. IMHO
this is an art photo from the 1970's of somebody else. I'm not
upset. I'm just very doubtful.

[The_Archivist]

Let's see if we can settle this!


Another ebay seller had more of the set of photos for sale.
https://www.ebay.ie/itm/KATI-JURADO-...-/352256928001


Quoting from this listing for one of them
"DESCRIPTION: A vintage 1950s original 2 1/4" camera negative of voluptuous pin-up model and burlesque star KATI JURADO posing in lingerie for the photographer PETER BASCH and from his personal archive."


Here are all the pictures of the set I was able to find:



Gallery: http://www.imagebam.com/gallery/r2o6...x0zrwd0ce52w9t


So not the actress Katy Jurado. Just someone using a similar name as often happens in the adult business world. Hope this helps.

[Kul Kat]

Originally Posted by guntcher

Found this on the usenet.

... not Katy.