Topic: Historians: There are at least three guys with odd looking small hats in this photo from NYC
Posted by Original_Lonley_Guy_
Moderator


teapots.nli said: It doesn't say that picture is from 1970 (it obviously isn't.  for example why are there no women there and why is everyone wearing 1940's clothes?).

­
I got the photo from the New York Times. It is 1970.


Posted by .
Unregistered


I think I have solved the mystery.  You're welcome.

http://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/de/1a/d6/de1ad6f999a4e3c9e0f4a06a3ce9dd25.jpg


Posted by .
Unregistered


Bartender is wearing a St. Patrick's day-type hat; there's a shamrock decoration on the back wall not present in other pictures of McSorley's.  If you look closely at the hats that are of interest to you, you can see a string under the chin holding them on on the guy to the left of the stovepipe and on the guy in the foreground staring into the lens.  Those strings would make it annoying to wear the hats for any length of time.  Could they be some St. Patrick's day hat that has fallen out of favor? 


Although your photo was used to illustrate an article from 1970, I think it was a stock photo taken much earlier...the fedoras and the wide, peaked lapels aren't from 1970.


Posted by Original_Lonley_Guy_
Moderator


. said: Bartender is wearing a St. Patrick's day-type hat; there's a shamrock decoration on the back wall not present in other pictures of McSorley's.  If you look closely at the hats that are of interest to you, you can see a string under the chin holding them on on the guy to the left of the stovepipe and on the guy in the foreground staring into the lens.  Those strings would make it annoying to wear the hats for any length of time.  Could they be some St. Patrick's day hat that has fallen out of favor? 


Although your photo was used to illustrate an article from 1970, I think it was a stock photo taken much earlier...the fedoras and the wide, peaked lapels aren't from 1970.

­
No, it was a photo from 1970. The New York Times is a stickler for accuracy. There's also an Alfred E Neuman on the back wall.

Don't forget that 50-60 year old men from any generation tend to dress like they did when they were in their 20s.

I don't think these are party hats because you only see them on three people.


Posted by Original_Lonley_Guy_
Moderator


Ok, I apologize. You guys are right.

This photo is much older than 1970. I misread the caption. It said:



McSorley’s Old Ale House in the East Village. In 1970, many years after this picture was taken, the storied bar was forced by a judge to admit women.



I misread this as saying: McSorley’s Old Ale House in the East Village in 1970.


Posted by Original_Lonely_Guy.
Unregistered


Original_Lonley_Guy_ said:
­
No, it was a photo from 1970. The New York Times is a stickler for accuracy. There's also an Alfred E Neuman on the back wall.

Don't forget that 50-60 year old men from any generation tend to dress like they did when they were in their 20s.

I don't think these are party hats because you only see them on three people.

­
BUT... Alfred E Neuman on the back wall! :hmmm: :tinfoilhat:


Posted by .
Unregistered


Fake. Dude in the background is holding an iPhone.


Posted by .
Unregistered


Alfred E Neuman is older than you think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman­

(although I'll grant you that it's probably him)

http://www.ginandluck.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/walls.jpg


Posted by Original_Lonley_Guy_
Moderator


. said: Alfred E Neuman is older than you think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman­

(although I'll grant you that it's probably him)

http://www.ginandluck.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/walls.jpg

­
The crazy thing is, I spotted Alfred using the low res image, going primarily on the shape!

I read a LOT of Mad when I was a lad! :lmao:


Posted by .
Unregistered


My bet is that the "100" on the shamrock represents the 100th anniversary of McSorley's (1954); the lapels are right for a suit made in the late 40s or early 50s (look at photos of President Truman, a former haberdasher).

That doesn't answer your hat question, though.


Posted by Original_Lonely_Guy.
Unregistered


. said: Alfred E Neuman is older than you think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman­

(although I'll grant you that it's probably him)

http://www.ginandluck.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/walls.jpg

­
That is actually fascinating. Thanks.


Posted by das but
http://dasbut.com


Original_Lonely_Guy. said:
 Original_Lonley_Guy_ said:
­
No, it was a photo from 1970. The New York Times is a stickler for accuracy. There's also an Alfred E Neuman on the back wall.

Don't forget that 50-60 year old men from any generation tend to dress like they did when they were in their 20s.

I don't think these are party hats because you only see them on three people.

­
BUT... Alfred E Neuman on the back wall! :hmmm: :tinfoilhat:

Alfred e Neuman has actually been in existence since 1910.


Posted by das but
http://dasbut.com


. said: Alfred E Neuman is older than you think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman­

(although I'll grant you that it's probably him)

http://www.ginandluck.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/walls.jpg

Sorry to butt in... I usually don't go in threads with more than a page 

This guy beat me to it


Posted by Original_Lonley_Guy_
Moderator


das but said:
Alfred e Neuman has actually been in existence since 1910.

­
Well, at it became popular in the magazine in 1956. So the question is: Do you think this photo is older than the mid 50s?


Posted by Original_Lonley_Guy_
Moderator


. said: My bet is that the "100" on the shamrock represents the 100th anniversary of McSorley's (1954); the lapels are right for a suit made in the late 40s or early 50s (look at photos of President Truman, a former haberdasher).

That doesn't answer your hat question, though.

­
I think you are right. If you look at modern photos of the place on yelp, they have One Fifty Nine and "160" in the same location.

It is insane to think that so many things in that bar are still in nearly the same location.


Posted by das but
http://dasbut.com


Original_Lonley_Guy_ said:
­
Well, at it became popular in the magazine in 1956. So the question is: Do you think this photo is older than the mid 50s?

Doesn't matter... That image could have made its way into the picture after its advent so it doesn't really play a factor in this, does it


Posted by .
Unregistered


I think that the lapels, the hair styles, the (few) eyeglass glass frame styles, and the hats are all about right for the mid 1950s.  

When you contemplate just how insane it is that the place is a time capsule, notice the accumulation of dust on the light fixture:

http://www.ginandluck.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/walls.jpg

...they're not into change.


Posted by .
Unregistered


I'm sure no one in that picture imagined that people would be straining to decipher it 60 years later....

...so what do you think that computer archaeologists in the year 2075 will make of this board?


Posted by Original_Lonley_Guy_
Moderator


das but said:
Original_Lonley_Guy_ said:
­
Well, at it became popular in the magazine in 1956. So the question is: Do you think this photo is older than the mid 50s?

Doesn't matter... That image could have made its way into the picture after its advent so it doesn't really play a factor in this, does it

­
Well, here's a crazy idea. Here is a google map giving directions from the 1950s location of Mad Magazine to McSorley's. Do you think they were regulars there?

http://goo.gl/maps/53BoR


Posted by .
Unregistered


Original_Lonley_Guy_ said:
­
Well, here's a crazy idea. Here is a google map giving directions from the 1950s location of Mad Magazine to McSorley's. Do you think they were regulars there?

http://goo.gl/maps/53BoR

­
Nicely done, OLG!


Posted by Original_Lonley_Guy_
Moderator


. said: notice the accumulation of dust on the light fixture:

http://www.ginandluck.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/walls.jpg


­
That's not just dust. Google "Wishbones" and "McSorley's" for a creepy explanation of what those are. :shudder:


Posted by .
Unregistered


Original_Lonley_Guy_ said:
­
That's not just dust. Google "Wishbones" and "McSorley's" for a creepy explanation of what those are. :shudder:

­
Yeah, I did see that story when I was looking for photos.  Creepy indeed.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's about time for me to call it a night.  We still haven't answered your hat question...you might look for photos of St. Patrick's Day parties in the mid 50s and see if you see more of them, perhaps on women.


Posted by .
Unregistered


Original_Lonley_Guy_ said:
­
Well, here's a crazy idea. Here is a google map giving directions from the 1950s location of Mad Magazine to McSorley's. Do you think they were regulars there?

http://goo.gl/maps/53BoR

­That one guy in the little hat wearing the black leather jacket does look kinda Jewish.


Posted by .
Unregistered


Original_Lonley_Guy_ said:
das but said:
Alfred e Neuman has actually been in existence since 1910.

­
Well, at it became popular in the magazine in 1956. So the question is: Do you think this photo is older than the mid 50s?

­The caricature on McSorley's wall isn't Alfred E. Neuman, but rather the image that Jew Bill Gaines ripped off and renamed Alfred E. Neuman:

image

The original dates to the late 1800's and was captioned "What? Me worry?"

image

For the history and origin of this image, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman#Genesis


Posted by .
Unregistered


Here's an earlier version of the "Me Worry?" boy which was copyrighted in 1914 by the artist Harry Stuff:

image

Harry Stuff's widow, Helen Pratt Stuff, later filed a lawsuit against Mad Magazine for copyright infringement for unauthorized use of the image.

Not surprisingly, going up against a Jewish publisher, she lost:


[Helen Pratt Stuff’s] claim against Mad was a strong one, and Mad stood to lose not only its beloved mascot, but millions of dollars in damages. [Mad’s lawyer] went to work. The nature of copyright law is such that if Mad could prove that the Stuffs had even once failed to protect their copyright of the boy’s image, or if Mad could prove that the image existed prior to 1914, the widow’s claim would be invalidated.

…By the time the case was heard [Mad’s lawyer] was able to prove that even though the Stuffs had won several cases, they had abandoned their copyright by not contesting every subsequent copyright of the boy’s picture, and that they also had no case based on originality, since the picture had been in prior used.

…The case eventually went to the Supreme Court; all previous copyrights remained invalidated, and Mad established its right to its adopted mascot, Alfred E. Newman.


http://www.dograt.com/2007/02/19/pratt-attack-8/



Quick Reply
Moniker:
 

Registration Required

Thank you for your vote!

But in order to make it count, you must be a registered user.

Log In | Register | Close