> retrowavelength <retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:S9qdnQJuQLqGUf_AnZ2dnUU7-asAAAAA@giganews.com:
>
>> Ran into this while perusing Eeek-bay. The seller appears to assert
>> this model isn't the Joan Blondell as commonly identified. Any
>> thoughts on this? Anyone seen that name before?
>>
>> --rwl
>>
>> begin 644 PAYTON TONE JOAN BLONDELL LOOK A LIKE s-l1600.jpg
>>
>> Attachment decoded: PAYTON TONE JOAN BLONDELL LOOK A LIKE s-l1600.jpg
>> `
>> end
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Yes, she is often identified as Joan Blondell (which I don't believe),
> but also Ruth Egnor and once Dagmar(?).
>
> I've even got one file somebody aptly named "model often mistaken for
> Joan Blondell".
>:-)
>
> See attached
>
>
> begin 644 Ruth Egnor per abpev Scan10389 match Scan10210.JPG
>
> Attachment decoded: Ruth Egnor per abpev Scan10389 match Scan10210.JPG
> `
> end
>
>
So, this Egnor is really Tone? I've got some work to do then retagging.
Have we seen the Tone name in print anywhere? How did it come to our
attention besides this one vendor I found?
--rwl
|
|