|
Post by Red Lion on Jan 19, 2005 1:55:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jan 19, 2005 1:57:13 GMT -5
Then how do you know what Paul really looked like?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jan 19, 2005 2:18:41 GMT -5
I think this photo is correct for Paul. It's, to the best of my ability to remember, and the long span of years gone by, basically what I recall seeing of the Beatles as a 6 year old in early 1964.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jan 19, 2005 2:25:04 GMT -5
Then how do you know what Paul really looked like? Having viewed many pics from vintage magazines printed prior to 9/66 I have a pretty good (if not absolute) idea of what Paul looked like. What is certain is that Paul and Bill ( head to toe) do not look that much alike. Is that a satisfactory answer counselor ?
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jan 19, 2005 2:29:20 GMT -5
Having viewed many pics from vintage magazines printed prior to 9/66 I have a pretty good (if not absolute) idea of what Paul looked like. What is certain is that Paul and Bill (head to toe) do not look that much alike. Is that a satisfactory answer counselor ? Vintage magazine pics are in the PM in this forum, I don't see why you wouldn't consider them completely reliable.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jan 19, 2005 9:15:30 GMT -5
Vintage magazine pics are in the PM in this forum, I don't see why you wouldn't consider them completely reliable. If it's in a magazine, you don't know if it's been sized to fit the page... either squished or stretched a little. Of course vintage mags are more reliable than later publications, but that doesn't mean it wasn't altered a little to fit the page.
|
|