Betty's Pub 20.1
Main Menu => Old inactive posts. => Topic started by: andyg0404 on December 11, 2015, 06:33:32 PM
-
Hi Betty,
I wondered what happened to my last post. Here it is again.
Here’s an oddity.
Vintage Snapshot Photo - Boys And Girls, All Wearing Dresses - Toy Cart/Wagon
http://tinyurl.com/zoy52kv
Andy G.
-
Not too odd because a lot of boys wore dresses back then. From the wagon in the background, I guessing the picture is very old.
-
Hi,
There are lots of old pictures like this at the auction site but I thought this was a particularly nice one.
CDV - Little Boy Dressed in Frilly Dress, White Leggings & Shoes - Hudson, NY
http://tinyurl.com/pnjkjut
Andy G.
-
Yep. That's a nice dress & a pretty clear picture for its age. The only thing missing is some pretty frilly puffed sleeves.
-
Ummm....I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but the photo looks like it's from the late 1800's. Up until the early 1900s (so I've been told) it was a pretty strict convention that a boy's hair was parted on the side, a girl's in the middle. So in spite of the seller's caption, unless it says something like "Uncle Arthur" on the back I think this may actually be a girl. Nevertheless, if people like thinking it's a boy, it's a boy as far as they're concerned.
-
I don't know much about the styles & fashions of that era, but I have seen pix of boys from the 1920s & 30s with hair parted in the middle. I always thought dresses with a dropped/low waist was a fashion of the 1920s.
-
I don't know what changed, but by the 1920s-1930s boys, especially older boys, were parting their hair in the center. As far as the style of dress, I'm not so sure it's drop-waisted -- usually there was a belt, while in the photo it looks like just a panel of the dress. And the boots look more Victorian than 1920s. But I freely admit I could be 100% wrong about the era, in which case it could well be a boy.
-
Hi,
Thought this was cute.
VINTAGE CDV PHOTO OF BOY IN A DRESS (CDV15)
http://tinyurl.com/hru4bok
Andy G.
-
Hi,
This is a very nice, clear picture of Kim Burfield, along with Barbara Jeffords and George Maharis from Miss Belle.
http://tinyurl.com/jeb3zr9
Andy G
-
Nice finds. I should have commented earlier on the Arthur D. Jones photo; he sure looks like he's having a great time.
-
Wow. Isn't that the one where the mom forces the boy to be a girl?
-
Hi Betty,
It's his Aunt Belle who takes him in and raises him as a girl. It was an episode of the British series Journey to the Unknown and it's based on a short story by Charles Beaumont. There were several shorts made based on the story as well. I posted a bunch of snappy's and and a reminiscence about acquiring the 16mm film almost three years ago and this is the thread http://buffalobetties.com/sissyboys/index.php/topic,9.msg450.html#msg450
Andy G.
-
Yes Andy G. I remember that posting and watching the film on youtube back then it was pretty good. I remember seeing George Maharis in other films but can't remember what they were.
-
Hi Angela,
George Maharis was mainly known for starring in the American television series Route 66 with Martin Milner which started in 1960. He left in the middle of the third season and went on to make some movies and appear on a number of television shows in addition to having a career as a singer. But he never became a big star. I clicked on the youtube link and it's been taken down. I searched and found someone who uploaded the first 15 shows but not the 16th or the 17th which was Miss Belle. But there's a two minute video of music from the show for two episodes, one of which is Miss Belle, that shows stills. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLWQHDLsAMM
Andy G.
-
Hello again,
I did a search for images and found this rather nice color picture which is from the same scene as the earlier one.
http://tinyurl.com/h3y87u3
Andy G.
-
Pretty clear picture too.
-
Hi,
Here's another one.
http://tinyurl.com/jgo2qwu
And this is Kim as Jim Hawkins in Treasure Island which also starred Orson Welles.
http://fastpic.ru/view/51/2012/1214/02ead0eaa9ebb976583cddd9e46e2474.jpg.html
Andy G.
-
Another movie still, this time from Million Dollar Baby - haven't seen this one before ...
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/FV754-CGC-Photo-ARLINE-JUDGE-JIMMY-FAYE-RAY-WALKER-Million-Dollar-Baby-1935-/311521228248?hash=item48881cb5d8
-
That is a great find Ace, I sure wish I lived in Hollywood in those days I would have tried my hardest to be a stand in actor for any girl making pictures back then.
-
Thanks Ace,
Great pic, it's a publicity still and I'm fairly certain the scene didn't appear in the movie.
Andy G.
-
Thanks Ace,
Great pic, it's a publicity still and I'm fairly certain the scene didn't appear in the movie.
Andy G.
As a publicity photo, it was probably never intended to appear in the movie.
-
Hi,
Here's a lucky little boy.
Popular Series Dressing the Bride stereoview boy in dress girls playing dress up
http://tinyurl.com/zl8o4zo
Andy G.
-
Hi,
1940s Photo negative Girls in Clown Costume Man in a dress
http://tinyurl.com/znbg2kr
Andy G.
-
Nice find Andy, it seems like there was a lot of cross dressing in the 30's, 40"s and 50's. I remember in the late 60's my parents took part in a mock wedding for somebodies anniversary and my father was a brides maid. What a shock when I first discovered the 8 mm film of that party and my father in his dress, nylons and wig and he gave me hell for dressing up back then. Well like he always said "do as I say not as I do".
-
I do have to add though, I sure looked a whole lot better looking in girls clothes than he and his friends did. I relabeled that film reel Nightmare on Elm the 60's version.
-
Hi,
Thought this was a nice old time picture of a boy in a dress.
http://tinyurl.com/hau26yj
Andy G.
-
Hi,
VINTAGE PHOTO NEWBURY TEENAGE BOY SCOUTS CUBS IN DRESSES WITH TEDDY BEARS 1963
http://tinyurl.com/h9nav6d
Andy G
-
Hi,
Cute Boy in a Dress Ringlet Curls Cabinet Card (inv8)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Cute-Boy-in-a-Dress-Ringlet-Curls-Cabinet-Card-inv8-/222053040180?hash=item33b3648034:g:ISEAAOSwxp9W4tfc
Andy G.
-
Great find, but one has to wonder about this one.
Although they did curl some boy's hair on special occasions in those days, they almost never put ribbons in their hair too (but it did happen). The back of the photo only reveals the photographer's company, & something written in ball point pen, which wasn't invented until many decades later. Because whatever was handwritten also has a string of numbers, it may have been an estate, liquidation, or auction marking rather than something about the person. Many antique & junk shops would write stuff on the back of these as inventory info.
I tried to enhance the writing but with the low contrast of it, it was beyond my software to sense it properly without enhancing every lump or grain in the background.
-
Hi Betty,
It was the pants underneath, as well as the shoes and socks, that made me think it was a boy, if it was a girl I think they would have been frillier, like in this illustration.
http://www.fashion-era.com/images/Children/jon_1858_children.jpg
Andy G.
-
Judging probabilities, I'd say boy. Back then parents just wouldn't put a girl in a tunic and knickerbockers as in the photo. On the other hand boys did sometimes wear small ribbons to hold their hair in place, although if the hair bow had been nearly the width of the kid's head, I would have said "girl" in spite of the clothes.
There's a rather good 3-part article posted back in 2011 on how to tell the boys from the girls in old photos: links below...
http://houseofmirthphotos.blogspot.com/2011/05/wow-boy-in-dress-by-pat-street.html
http://houseofmirthphotos.blogspot.com/2011/11/wow-boy-in-dress-part-ii-by-pat-street.html
http://houseofmirthphotos.blogspot.com/2012/04/wow-boy-in-dress-part-iii-by-pat-street.html
-
Regarding the "houseofmirth" articles referenced in my last post, although they were meant for evaluating 19th Century photos, they are pretty reliable up through World War I (c 1917). The guidelines begin seriously breaking down in the 1920s, and by about 1935 are no longer very reliable or helpful. On the other hand, I know for a fact that many infant boys were still put in dresses in the early 1940s. Also the modern idea of blue for boys / pink for girls did not become established till the mid 1950s. Before that, parents were much freer in their choice and the prevailing wisdom was supposedly just the opposite: pink for boys / blue for girls. This may be one reason that Disney's "Alice in Wonderland" (film conceived and begun in the late 1940s, completed and released in 1951) wears a blue dress rather than a pink one.
-
Thanks for your posts Robyn Jodie, I love the photo of the little boy you posted on Mar 15. Would have loved to wear that myself with ringlets in my hair. Alice in Wonderland is my favourite and the dress for sure. I keep trying to talk myself into dressing as her for Halloween. I love your posts and thank you for them.
-
A minor correction: if you are referring to the photo posted in this thread on March 15, it would not be me but our overworked and underpaid (at least undercontributed) moderator Betty who posted it. But thanks for the compliment.
-
Hey Robin Jodie,
it was a big mistake on my part as this pic came from Andy G. and Betty re-posted it after some magic to clean it up. Sorry Andy and Betty, credit where credit is due. I am a little sluggish after being absent for a little bit. Can't wait for Spring to arrive and get me out of my slump. I need to do what Andy does and go for a walk in the morning.
-
Hi,
I think this qualifies as an oddity. The skirt looks like something you would see covering a small round end table.
Cabinet photo of boy in fancy dress skirted costume with rifle, and dog
http://tinyurl.com/jyobptw
Andy G.
-
Hi,
And this photo of a boy in one of the fancy dress costumes that Frankie has let him have.
1951 Press Photo Robert Mariotti in the Member of the Wedding - orp21124
http://tinyurl.com/heo7249
Andy G.
-
The "the fancy dress costume" on the boy with dog and rifle looks like it's supposed to be some kind of armor. But I thought armor went out when gunpowder came in, so to me it's a real oddity.
-
Thanks. This another one I never heard of before. It turns out the picture is from a 1951 play. There is a 1952 movie of it, but not starring the same actors. Anxious to see it, hoping it also may feature a fella in a tutu I searched around for it. It shows in circulation recently but not currently available from my usual sources. I've requested seeders for it, & will search around a little more while I wait for peeps to respond to the request.
-
Hi Betty,
Member of the Wedding is a book written by Carson McCullers which was turned into a very successful Broadway play starring Julie Harris as Frankie, the 12 year old girl, Ethel Waters as the maid Bernice and Brandon DeWilde as John Henry in the original production. The boy in the photo is playing John Henry. The three stars also appeared in the movie version of it and since the play premiered it has been done in revivals, summer stock and amateur productions many, many times. There was a version that was broadcast on television with Pearl Bailey as Bernice, Dana Hill as Frankie and Benjamin Bernouy as John Henry. I have a videotape of the broadcast and that's what I used with Snappy to capture the stills I posted to the site back in January 2013. Here's a link to that thread. http://buffalobetties.com/sissyboys/index.php/topic,9.msg415.html#msg415 There are a few pictures of Brandon DeWilde and then the rest are of Benjamin Bernouy in his blue tutu. He spends a lot of time on stage wearing it.
Andy G.
-
Ah. I remember it now. Is the one in the blue tutu from the 1952 movie? Is the TV version also the movie version?
I tried to download it but it stopped about 1/3 through, & won't restart.
Here's what I got in pictures so far.
-
The two pictures you posted in addition to the one from the auction are of Brandon DeWilde from the 1952 movie. The 15 pictures of Benjamin Bernouy in the blue tutu that I posted are from the 1982 television movie. This is a link to Amazon with a videotape of the 1952 movie. http://tinyurl.com/h9joww8 This is a link to Amazon with a videotape of the 1982 movie. http://tinyurl.com/jztalvd The 1952 version appears on television every now and then. I don't believe the 1982 version has ever been rerun. If you look on IMDB you'll see several other versions that appeared on television although I've never seen them. I did see a version at the Roundabout Theater in lower Manhattan where John Henry wore a similar outfit but I was never able to get photos from the production. I also sat through a very long amateur production once and when John Henry came out dressed up it was not in any kind of female apparel. Very disappointing.
-
Golly, with so many versions of it made, I'm surprised there aren't any complete full copies of them circulating around the internet.
It's easier to get a full blu-ray version of the new Star Wars movie than this stuff (Yep, the blu-ray is on the torrents now - - avoid the older "cam" versions, that's where someone recorded the movie with a phone or mini-cam in the theater).
http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/star-wars-force-awakens-pirated-blu-ray-quality-1201737273/
-
I have not seen this one yet but that is quite a lot of money to take in.
-
Star Wars? It was OK by itself, but disappointing compared to the previous movies... especially compared to the oldest ones. I rate it on the Betty-O-meter at about a 7, which is good. Anything above a 5 is worth seeing. But all the previous Star Wars movies I would rate as 8 or above when they were new. Of course they're not as highly rated today because they're old & we've grown tired of them, so I'll just stick to how I liked them when they were new.
A cam video of the film was on the torrents just days after the movie's release (a video of the movie shot with a phone of other hidden mini cam in the theater). I didn't expect a full HD blu-ray version until it came out as pay-per-view though.
Can't wait to see it at home in HD. My 32" TV/monitor that I got for almost nothing broken, gives an excellent picture, & has been running good about 2 years now without a problem since I fixed it up. 32" is plenty big enough because my viewing distance is usually 6' or less away.
Be careful & do your research first before using torrents or you might get caught downloading something that may be illegal in some countries. Use one of the older (or very old) free versions of utorrent, & research torrenting properly through google. You want it set up to block MPAA, RIAA, & other authorities ISPs and/or use peerblock to do block them... update the blocks each time before you use torrents too. Make sure peerblock is on, functioning, running properly, & blocking UDP from bad ISPs before using torrents. Within minutes of downloading most torrents, it should show a list of ISPs that it just blocked. If it doesn't, re-install, & update it.
Time/Warner cable/internet will ask you to remove all file sharing software if they detect you have it, even if you use it only for legitimate legal reasons. That's odd because even Windows 10 utilizes file sharing to distribute its software, updates, & telemetry (spyware & data mining). Many Linux OS, their updates, & apps are distributed through torrents to save on bandwidth & host costs.
Many software companies that offer free software/apps, independent bands, or small movie makers rely on the torrents to distribute their goods, or get known.
Torrents are used for dozens of legal reasons. File sharing, torrents, & its software are not illegal. How dare any ISP demand you remove any legal sharing software off your computer, when your Roku box, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, & smart TVs rely very heavily on file sharing. When you're downloading, streaming, & watching video on that stuff, bits of it are also being uploaded back from your devices to others using the system to lighten the load on the distributor's servers.
Almost nobody gets arrested or fined for downloading stuff anymore. The typical procedure these days is your ISP will send you a warning if you got caught illegally downloading something. After you get caught, & got a warning a third time, they cut off your internet. Most people get a VPN or seedbox after their second warning so they don't get caught again. A VPN or seedbox downloads, manages & stores your torrents on their cloud, then you download or stream your finished files from them. It's like a cloud service except utorrent or something is installed in it for file sharing. It does the downloading & file sharing for you instead of your home computer.
http://www.oldapps.com/utorrent.php?old_utorrent=29
http://www.oldapps.com/utorrent.php?old_utorrent=31
http://www.peerblock.com/releases/public-releases/peerblock-1.2.0-r693
https://kat.cr/star-wars-episode-vii-the-force-awakens-2015-brrip-xvid-etrg-t12303582.html (700mb DVD)
https://kat.cr/star-wars-episode-vii-the-force-awakens-2015-720p-brrip-x264-aac-etrg-t12298992.html (1gb BR)
https://kat.cr/the-member-of-the-wedding-1952-dvdrip-avi-lee1001-t8842442.html
(1-3 seeders - may take a day or 2 to download)
Beware that underground, covert, & Black Hat sites may not function or open with windows 10 & some Macs or I-products due to their highly intrusive spyware data-mining, & built-in policing. Some of those sites even block Windows 10 & some Apple users. You need a real computer using Windows 8.1 or lower, un-corrupted by new Windows telemetry/upgrade software, with a real browser (forget about that Explorer or "Edge" garbage), or Linux, to use most of that stuff properly & get the whole internet. Windows 10 in it's default form, browser, & search won't even acknowledge that Betty's exists. Although if you can find us on a Windows 10 machine, Betty's will not fully function properly on Windows 10 in its default form. You're missing almost half the internet with W10, Bing, Edge, & Explorer. And Yahoo is not a search engine or service, it's a directory. Don't use it to search for stuff, because it won't find half of it.
We are still considering blocking all Windows 10 machines in the near future for the safety & privacy of our users & this site. But we are now 100% compatible with any android tablet & phone. They get their own separate feed of Betty's specially designed for mobile browsers automatically (I built that). Most I-portables will work with the mobile feed too, as long as they're using a mobile browser.
-
Hi,
Here's a cute one.
Kids In Funny Costumes Boy Wearing Dress Pretending To Be A Girl Fun And Games
http://tinyurl.com/zt4q8db
Andy G
-
Wow that kid looks like a someone I knew when he was a kid. He was a crossdresser about my age. We didn't meet until I was 18, but I saw pix of him dressing as a kid. Sigh, we lost him to cancer a few years ago.
-
I got a fair copy of the 1952 movie, Member of the Wedding, a few days ago. The boy dressing up is a brief scene. There's some other vintage dresses that the girls were that are interesting too. So I included them in the video caps. I love vintage dresses, & lots of other vintage stuff, so the movie was enjoyable. The story & acting was good, so I would recommend seeing it for much more than just the dressup scene. Amazon, Hulu, or perhaps Netflix probably have it, or perhaps one of the other versions. Just be careful if you torrent & know what you're doing. You're more likely to catch a virus or other maleware visiting most popular websites than using torrents, but you must block authorities from prying into your business. So that means no Windows 10, No Macs, & no earlier versions of Windows with modern W10 telemetry/spyware installed on them.
Here's the caps:
-
more
-
more
-
more
-
more
-
more
-
more
-
more
-
more
-
Here's a clip of the movie. Don't try to make sense of the dialog, I cut & edited the scene so only the crossdressing part shows. That way there will be less of a chance of the copyright frauds claiming ownership. Still battling the copyright dispute on my previous 2 videos. I've won 7 out of the 9 claims against the music on them, but 2 are still fighting it out. If they can't come up with a good argument & prove their ownership within a week, YouTube will revoke their claim against me. I've presented plenty of proof that the music is indeed Public Domain, & nobody can own rights to the recordings I used. 1 long recording was from 1935. All the rest were from 1900-1920, with a few that were just recordings of player pianos playing piano rolls from 1900-1920... the was no performer, it was a machine playing, & no machine can own a copyright yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR4YBfHtgP4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR4YBfHtgP4
-
Thanks Betty, very neatly done.
Andy G.
-
Hi,
ANTIQUE PHOTO CHILD BOY IN DRESS HAT PLANTS SOCIAL HISTORY
http://tinyurl.com/hqtzduo
Andy G