Mystery Picture or ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Mystery Picture or Fraud ?  

  RSS

PNK33
(@pnk33)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 17
12/04/2009 2:45 am  

Hi,

Just picked up this photo yesterday, the seller said it was an unpublished picture of AC

After taking a closer look I'm not convinced, it's dated 1896 ...

Opinions anyone ?


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/04/2009 3:12 am  

My first reaction is a NO!! But then on closer examination.......the eyes...mouth....widows peak,....masonic hand sign...I...WANT...TO...BELIEVE!!! 😀 Any chance of more info??? where you bought it? Sellers story of how they came to possess this photo etc.


ReplyQuote
PNK33
(@pnk33)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 17
12/04/2009 3:33 am  

I picked it up through e- _ _ _ will contact the seller for details by email, but anyways I kind of felt the same way at first but after a close comparison to other photos the facial characteristics look like they are in the same proportions with other photos except for the bushy eyebrows, and then the signature looks similar as well


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/04/2009 3:53 pm  

can you get your money back? 😉


ReplyQuote
Proteus
(@proteus)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 243
12/04/2009 4:10 pm  

Does anybody recognize that setting or those robes as typical of Cambridge? Is there any clue in the pic that looks consistent or inconsistent with what Crowley was up to in 1897; i.e., university and mountaineering.


ReplyQuote
kalibhakta
(@kalibhakta)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 1
13/04/2009 5:41 pm  

It does look like AC, c. 1896. I think the background is the usual painted backdrop from that era's photographic portraiture. Doesn't rule out a clever fraud or lookalike, of course, but the photo is certainly intriguing.


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1264
13/04/2009 6:04 pm  

Although it was probably sold in good faith, I think the eyes are too small; AC had quite wide piercing eyes and when young, his hair was less frizzy and straighter. Also, I doubt whether AC would have worn such traditional clothes, as he was far more modern in his tastes than the chap in this photograph. This picture seems earlier than 1896 and probably dates from around the 1870's.

This aside, it still is an interesting picture, thanks for sharing.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/04/2009 6:04 pm  
"kalibhakta" wrote:
It does look like AC, c. 1896. I think the background is the usual painted backdrop from that era's photographic portraiture. Doesn't rule out a clever fraud or lookalike, of course, but the photo is certainly intriguing.

I did wonder why the background looked so strangely animated, It does look like Crowley to me but its impossible to tell really.


ReplyQuote
Durga23
(@durga23)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 79
14/04/2009 4:23 am  

Doesn't really look like him at all to me. Looks more like Ben Stiller 🙂


ReplyQuote
phthah
(@phthah)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 210
14/04/2009 4:35 am  

93 PNK33,

I don't think it's him. This guy appears to be older and his hair is curly. Compare this picture with the picture called "A.C. at 23" on page 4 of the galleries here at Lastal. When Crowley was 23 it would have been around 1898 e.v. This would have been a couple years after your photo and A.C. still looks younger than the guy in your picture. There is a slight resemblence, but that's about it. Just my opinion FWIW.

93 93/93
phthah


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/04/2009 1:28 pm  
"phthah" wrote:
93 PNK33,

I don't think it's him. This guy appears to be older and his hair is curly. Compare this picture with the picture called "A.C. at 23" on page 4 of the galleries here at Lastal. When Crowley was 23 it would have been around 1898 e.v. This would have been a couple years after your photo and A.C. still looks younger than the guy in your picture. There is a slight resemblence, but that's about it. Just my opinion FWIW.

93 93/93
phthah

I just compared the two pictures back-to-back and still think the facial features look very similar, the only thing im not sure about is the hair. It is concievable of course that Crowley did something with his hair for the purpose of having the photograph taken. I also think the hands look like Crowley's.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/04/2009 2:10 pm  

LOL, well there is something of a likeness there.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
14/04/2009 3:11 pm  

LOL! That's one scary looking Babe of the Abyss!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/04/2009 3:24 pm  

This photo of yours - was it very expensive?

Looks to me very like that Victorian actor - you know, thingummy.


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 915
14/04/2009 4:42 pm  

Personally I don’t think it is Crowley but there is definitely a likeness especially in the angles of the chin and proportions between the chin, lips, and nose. Enough of a likeness for me to say I wouldn’t discount it. Photos and lighting can be very misleading. I don’t think anyone can say with certainty either way so don’t let it detract from your enjoyment of the photo. It’s a nice piece.

The parts that strike me are specific to the nose. The man in the photo has a pronounced alar cartilage at the tip of his nose. Notice how it seems to dip down further than Crowley's in most of his photos. Crowley had a more rounded/bulbous alar.

The shape and upward slant of the nostrils is also different from what I can tell. Crowley's nostrils didn’t seem to have the same flare. The cartilages of the nose can change with age but the profile of the bridge of the nose shouldn’t unless it's broken. The profile of Crowley’s nose from around the same time show a more graceful sweep from what I can see. The man in the Photo seems to have a Roman nose, a sharp line break from the nasal bone to the bridge of the nose.

Also, Crowley's upper lip usually appeared more full from most of the angles I have found.


ReplyQuote
PNK33
(@pnk33)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 17
14/04/2009 5:46 pm  

The similarities are more evident in this picture ...in the eyes and the area surrounnding his nose

re: This ebay item no. 250394273432 pretty much explains it all:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... amp;_rdc=1

I paid $ 100 CAN , on April 10th, I don't think the winning bidder ever paid the $ 142.00 otherwise ....


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 915
14/04/2009 6:39 pm  

Hmmm... I think I see something here...

Seriously though, the likeness is much stronger in that image you just posted. I still think the nose bridge is wrong and the eyes look more deep set on the mystery man. Have you considered having the signature verified?


ReplyQuote
fanadil
(@fanadil)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 24
14/04/2009 8:40 pm  

I don't think it's Crowley. This appears to be a much older photograph (1850s?) and not representative of his look (or the way just about anybody dressed) at the time it is claimed to have been taken. Also (being a 32nd degree in both York and Scottish Rites) I'm not seeing any "masonic hand sign," just a standard portraiture pose (remember Napoleon?). Also, does this look like someone who is 20 or 21 years old? I think the hands are too big, the eyes too small, and the hair too dark and curly. I wish we could read the word between the name and the date on the back (the name does not look like a signature, either). And I'm trying to remember the details as to when, exactly, he became "Aleister."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2009 1:20 am  

It looks as though the word between the name and date is "July". I agree with einD. regarding signature verification. Interesting nonetheless.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2009 2:51 am  
"fanadil" wrote:
Also (being a 32nd degree in both York and Scottish Rites) I'm not seeing any "masonic hand sign," just a standard portraiture pose (remember Napoleon?). A

Hmm,I was thinking more The Royal Arch( Master of the Second Veil),circa round that time. also see Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor (3rd Edition). Though I could be waaayy off. 😉


ReplyQuote
PNK33
(@pnk33)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 17
21/05/2009 10:01 pm  

- The auctioneer stated he acquired it from a reputable paper dealer.

- BURLINGTON is printed on the right hand corner of the picture.

- Not sure how photographs were developed in the past but it looks like the picture is glued to a piece of cardboard.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/05/2009 11:20 pm  

If I may imply that the first thing I thought upon looking at his photo is it resembles extremely of Aleister's Father... No doubt in my mind. I believe it could actually be a younger father of Crowley... and perhaps not 1896... and the auctioner could have gotten the name confused who knows?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/05/2009 2:36 pm  
"FraterNepios" wrote:
If I may imply that the first thing I thought upon looking at his photo is it resembles extremely of Aleister's Father... No doubt in my mind. I believe it could actually be a younger father of Crowley... and perhaps not 1896... and the auctioner could have gotten the name confused who knows?

Yes actually! Very well could be Crowley's father, it does look more like him than Aleister.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/05/2009 1:19 am  

Well the first thought is it Crowley: Hell no 😀
But on some pervert way it kinda bears resemblance.
But maybe it´s `cause of that picture is being introduced possibly as him.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
23/05/2009 1:40 am  

For what it's worth, and in my opinion, it looks not even remotely like Crowley to me.

And I suspect that this thread might conceivably be being used solely to generate "provenance" for a doubtful item. It is therefore locked.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Share: