I have an exceedingly hard time believing this is 1949. The fabric in the woman on the right’s shirt looks like a contemporary print mixing jungle/plants/botanicals with an animal print. Her hairstyle just doesn’t seem ’40s, nor does her purse. Could the date perhaps refer to the age of someone in the photo, perhaps the righthand woman?
It is definitely a developer’s stamp–I should have included it in the post. But I certainly agree with you about the shirt. I’m out of town now, but I’ll post an imagine of the back of the photo when I return.
I have to agree with Paloverde about having a hard time believing this photo is 1949. The shapes of the armscyces and shoulders of the clothing does not look right for the period. Also the type of fabric the center woman is wearing. And the cut and length of the woman’s pants looks wrong for the period, as well. Also, the hairstyles, and the shape of the glasses the man is wearing.
I have an exceedingly hard time believing this is 1949. The fabric in the woman on the right’s shirt looks like a contemporary print mixing jungle/plants/botanicals with an animal print. Her hairstyle just doesn’t seem ’40s, nor does her purse. Could the date perhaps refer to the age of someone in the photo, perhaps the righthand woman?
It is definitely a developer’s stamp–I should have included it in the post. But I certainly agree with you about the shirt. I’m out of town now, but I’ll post an imagine of the back of the photo when I return.
I have to agree with Paloverde about having a hard time believing this photo is 1949. The shapes of the armscyces and shoulders of the clothing does not look right for the period. Also the type of fabric the center woman is wearing. And the cut and length of the woman’s pants looks wrong for the period, as well. Also, the hairstyles, and the shape of the glasses the man is wearing.