|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
Celebrity, Film & Television Discussion For all of your chat, opinion and thoughts on mainstream celebrities, film and television programmes. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
January 9th, 2016, 04:38 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 179
Thanks: 181
Thanked 9,475 Times in 177 Posts
|
Katy Jurado or not?
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to guntcher For This Useful Post: |
|
January 11th, 2016, 03:57 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 139
Thanks: 37,888
Thanked 734 Times in 122 Posts
|
|
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to signal For This Useful Post: |
January 11th, 2016, 04:17 AM | #3 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Outskirts of Goosebump City, near the BusbyBerkeleyBakery
Posts: 777
Thanks: 4,712
Thanked 8,843 Times in 754 Posts
|
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.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Please do PM me on any dead links, loading fails, or other issues with host. It will be fixed! Last edited by ConstantOgler; January 11th, 2016 at 04:36 AM.. Reason: link to copy of completed sale |
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ConstantOgler For This Useful Post: |
January 11th, 2016, 05:44 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 139
Thanks: 37,888
Thanked 734 Times in 122 Posts
|
Quote:
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. |
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to signal For This Useful Post: |
January 12th, 2016, 07:58 PM | #5 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Outskirts of Goosebump City, near the BusbyBerkeleyBakery
Posts: 777
Thanks: 4,712
Thanked 8,843 Times in 754 Posts
|
@ 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.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Please do PM me on any dead links, loading fails, or other issues with host. It will be fixed! Last edited by ConstantOgler; January 12th, 2016 at 08:08 PM.. |
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ConstantOgler For This Useful Post: |
January 12th, 2016, 11:41 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 139
Thanks: 37,888
Thanked 734 Times in 122 Posts
|
Quote:
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 Following 7 Users Say Thank You to signal For This Useful Post: |
August 10th, 2020, 02:09 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 168
Thanks: 3,868
Thanked 1,872 Times in 165 Posts
|
Not Katy but Kati!
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.
__________________
I'll think of something profound later.... maybe. Last edited by The_Archivist; August 10th, 2020 at 02:56 AM.. Reason: spelling |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|