Members MsGuy Posted February 2, 2014 Author Members Posted February 2, 2014 "Honey, get over it. Jake was no good for you anyway." lookin 1 Quote
Members lookin Posted February 2, 2014 Members Posted February 2, 2014 Lost version of The Importance of Being Earnestine opens to mixed reviews A retitled and recast production goes on to great success AdamSmith and MsGuy 2 Quote
AdamSmith Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 Algernon: No cucumbers! Lane: No, sir. Not even for ready money. (...with lookin as my muse. ) MsGuy and lookin 2 Quote
Members MsGuy Posted February 3, 2014 Author Members Posted February 3, 2014 Thanks guys. I knew there had to be some good captions in there somewhere, but you guys have exceeded all expectations. lookin and AdamSmith 2 Quote
Members lookin Posted February 3, 2014 Members Posted February 3, 2014 Much credit to the original material. Would it be an intrusion to ask where you found it? AdamSmith 1 Quote
Members MsGuy Posted February 3, 2014 Author Members Posted February 3, 2014 ROFLMAO...lookin, I'm the last person you should expect to be able to retrace my steps through the swamps of the internet but I'll do my best. ===== Son of a bitch, I did it!! Try http://victoriangentlemeninlove.tumblr.com/ Victorian Gentlemen in Love, putting Nebuchadnezzar out to grass since 1837 to give it its full title. ==== The blog is one guy's effort to document male/male photographs from deep time. Most seem to be from his personal collection. He's posted a number of rare photo's of Oscar Wilde and friends plus some of other well known Queers, but most are of anonymous regular guys who happen to be displaying a bit too much personal affection for the camera. LOL, and there's a scattering of overt Uranian porno, of course: one of a set of five & & AdamSmith and lookin 2 Quote
Members BigK Posted February 3, 2014 Members Posted February 3, 2014 I wonder how many of these photo's are faked??? Quote
Members MsGuy Posted February 3, 2014 Author Members Posted February 3, 2014 ???? One? ==== On a more serious note, the blogger himself raises the same issue: a ( rjvzs@**.com ) submitted to victoriangentlemeninlove : "The subjects of the August 17, 2013 and October 30, 2011 photos appear to be the same pair. Their hats, the chairs, the curtain (and especially the cord around it) are all the same. I suspect that the set is in fact modern but made to look old." They do indeed, well spotted! As to the age of the photographs; it is difficult with many of these images to tell if they are indeed vintage (or of what vintage), especially as many come with no provenance if we’ve reblogged them from elsewhere. Generally we just have to go with the aesthetic, and if anyone would like to offer more details, please do. Quote
