Tweet Someone got their Olive's Mixed?

Hey people that famous Alberto Vargas painting from the the 20's supposedly of a topless Olive Thomas, looks exactly like the provocative "Joy Girl " Olive Borden, and nothing like sweet demure little Olive Thomas whatsoever! Thusly, I'm seriously wondering if people didn't somehow have their Olive's mixed? And this farce even appeared in the documentary about Olive Thomas "EVERYBODY'S SWEETHEART? So what is the story here? Surely this has been mused over at some point in the past? I can't be the first to figure it out?

I mean It's clearly Olive Borden in the painting folks. How could anyone think otherwise? Anyway, it had to be painted before Olive Thomas death in 1920 to possibly be her. And it's much more Jazz Age Mid 20's like than that. Borden was much Sexier than Thomas, though both were very beautiful young women. My question is how could one ever be mistaken for the other? Boggles the mind. I will never believe that the painting is not Borden. It definitely isn't Thomas. Can we get a confirmation on just when it was done? 1920 I seriously doubt. Didn't Vargas recall himself? I mean the guy painted so many naked gals that he must have been fuzzy on the details himself over the matter? "Err, they all look alike to me, Olive, Olive? Olive Thomas? Oh, yeah I painted her Nude once!" Err, didn't I??? I think not pal!

Olive Thomas looks like if a boy kissed her that she would turn an blush. Olive Borden on the other hand looks like she would gobble the guy up. I have to believe that somebody goofed in that Playboy story back in 1964, and the myth has been perpetuated to this very day! Has anyone else addressed this notion before? Time someone straightened this out.



The Wrong Olive?

Do you mean this Olive Borden? (Actually, by the time Vargas layed down his airbrush, it's hard to tell who the model was. But not Thomas, I'd bet.)

Clarence,

It's clearly Borden, and I can't believe that no one has questioned this before. It's completely impossible that it was Thomas. IMPOSSIBLE! This is one of the longest running cases of mistaken identity I have ever heard of. Actually, I haven't heard of it. I just brought it up for the first time tonight. Thomas fans and Borden fans need to weigh in.

You make a convincing case, but like Juror #8 in 12 Angry Men I'm not 100% convinced.

If given a choice between Thomas and Borden, I'd certainly guess the latter too, but there's always the possibility that it's neither. Also, all it might have taken to inspire Vargas could have been one image of Thomas in uncharacteristically exotic make-up, and let his fancy do the rest.

Although admiring Vargas' obvious qualities as a fine artist (hubba hubba), capturing likenesses of people wasn't necessarily his strong suit.

This is his portrait of Ann Sheridan. Well, I can see Sheridan there when I'm told it's her, but the painting doesn't exactly scream out "Oomph Girl" to me:


Even when he uses a photograph, he doesn't seem able to quite get it. Anna Sten:



I might have guessed Una Merkel on that last one!

Rollo,

Phooey! Olive Borden had a very distinctive look all her own. And Vargas captured it perfectly. There is no doubt of any kind that it is not Olive Thomas. The mere fact that the painting was of some forgotten Silent Film Star with the first name of Olive must have led to this rather silly mix-up back in 1964. I'm just wondering if such an injustice to both ladies can ever be fully rectified? I hope that we get to hear from both camps on the matter. Olive Thomas supporters won't want to lose their Vargas I'm sure. Borden fans will probably be thrilled to have him.

A "silly mix-up," no doubt. But Vargas was a kind of impressionist painter, just like many of the fan-mag cover artists of the time, whose glamorous cover portraits, more often than not, bear no more than a scant resemblance to the stars they purport to represent. We can be pretty sure, at any rate, it wasn't Olive Oyle he had intended to represent.

Damn! I thought this thread was about mixing martini's.

A "silly mix-up," no doubt. But Vargas was a kind of impressionist painter, just like many of the fan-mag cover artists of the time, whose glamorous cover portraits, more often than not, bear no more than a scant resemblance to the stars they purport to represent. We can be pretty sure, at any rate, it wasn't Olive Oyle he had intended to represent.

Not a mix-up, it's Olive Thomas. Vargas was hired by Florenz Ziegfeld in May of 1919 to paint portraits of his showgirls (one of his first series was Our Beloved Preceptress). Thomas had been a Frolic showgirl before her film career and Vargas painted this as part of his Ziegfeld series after Thomas's death.

I agree with gagman, this doesn't look anything like her, and I don't think it is either. I have sheet music which obviously has her as the model, which I will send tonight. This could even be Raquel Torres as much as it looks like Olive T.

A "silly mix-up," no doubt. But Vargas was a kind of impressionist painter, just like many of the fan-mag cover artists of the time, whose glamorous cover portraits, more often than not, bear no more than a scant resemblance to the stars they purport to represent. We can be pretty sure, at any rate, it wasn't Olive Oyle he had intended to represent.

Not a mix-up, it's Olive Thomas. Vargas was hired by Florenz Ziegfeld in May of 1919 to paint portraits of his showgirls (one of his first series was Our Beloved Preceptress). Thomas had been a Frolic showgirl before her film career and Vargas painted this as part of his Ziegfeld series after Thomas's death.

Fred,

Oh yeah? Well, I believe that story is a myth too. Or if Vargas ever did paint Olive Thomas this is most definitely not that work. It's Olive Borden plain and simple. Study photos of Borden and Thomas and they look nothing whatever alike. No one is going to mistake a photo of Borden for Thomas and Vice-versa.

missdupont,

Thanks for the support on this matter. It's much appreciated.

Not a mix-up, it's Olive Thomas. Vargas was hired by Florenz Ziegfeld in May of 1919 to paint portraits of his showgirls (one of his first series was Our Beloved Preceptress). Thomas had been a Frolic showgirl before her film career and Vargas painted this as part of his Ziegfeld series after Thomas's death.

Fred,

Oh yeah? Well, I believe that story is a myth too. Or if Vargas ever did paint Olive Thomas this is most definitely not that work. It's Olive Borden plain and simple. Study photos of Borden and Thomas and they looks nothing whatever alike. No one is going to mistake a photo of Borden for Thomas and Vice-versa.

missdupont,

Thanks for the support on this matter. It's much appreciated.

(Facepalm.)
This is not a negotiable point. Vargas's work is very well documented. This portrait was painted in the early 20s at Ziegfeld's request, shortly after Thomas's death, which is why it is called "Memories of Olive." Olive Borden was never a Ziegfeld girl, and she did not die until 1947. But don't believe me. Please contact the San Francisco Art Exchange (http://www.sfae.com/" target="_blank" target="_blank) who handle Vargas's paintings and lithos, they'll confirm for you who it is.

Fred,

Then He must have been looking at photos of the wrong Olive too? I'll never accept that it's Thomas. I believe that this has gone on so long that no one wants to admit to the truth. Even though it's staring them right smack in the face!

Fred,

Then He must have been looking at photos of the wrong Olive too? I'll never accept that it's Thomas. I believe that this has gone on so long that no one wants to admit to the truth.

It's Erich von Stroheim.

A person would have to be Daffy to still think that it is Olive Thomas. It's not and never was.

:( A person would have to be Daffy to still think that it is Olive Thomas. It's not and never was.

OK, we're daffy. You go right ahead and call it whoever you want to call it.

Maybe the real story is that Borden posed for Vargas for some Art magazine during the early 20's. I'm not saying that he never painted Olive Thomas. Maybe he did? Just that this pose has to be of Borden.

:? Maybe the real story is that Borden posed for Vargas for some Art magazine during the early 20's. I'm not saying that he never painted Olive Thomas. Maybe he did? Just that this pose has to be of Borden.

Oh for heaven's sake. There are other realms of knowledge than silent film, you know, and art is one of them. I will say it again, Vargas's work is very well known and well documented. Vargas himself kept records and a diary, Ziegfeld also kept records. These portraits were hung in the lobby of the Amsterdam theater, so the public saw them. Vargas was alive until 1982 and he was interviewed extensively by Reid Austin for the bio Austin did of him. There are books of Vargas's work available, you can get them from libraries or purchase them from amazon.

But again, you call it whoever you want to call it.

I think it's Bebe Daniels

Do we have an idea when the image was painted? Olive Borden attended convent schools in Virginia and Maryland until she and her mother moved to California in the fall of 1922 and I have a hard time imagining that Sibbie Borden would have permitted her underage daughter to pose for a portrait like the one above.

-HA

Vargas' work was so generalized & glamorized that the supposed identity of his models is almost moot--he was inspired by pectoral muscles, not faces. A skilled portrait painter captures the personality of a subject even if his style is sketchy & impressionistic; that wasn't Vargas.

Do we have an idea when the image was painted? Olive Borden attended convent schools in Virginia and Maryland until she and her mother moved to California in the fall of 1922 and I have a hard time imagining that Sibbie Borden would have permitted her underage daughter to pose for a portrait like the one above.

-HA

Unless it's been doctored, the date on the image itself is 1920.

Proves nothing. I believe that they just put 1920 on there to maintain the idea that it was Olive Thomas.

You might want to leave this discussion Fred. Too-frequent face palms can leave a mark!

I think it's Bebe Daniels

I WISH I could belive that! I'd transfer the image to wallpaper, & have my whole house re-hung.

I was right! This thread did turn out to be about mixing martinis'.

You might want to leave this discussion Fred. Too-frequent face palms can leave a mark!

I'm gone. Hell, it's Rex the King of the Wild Horses.

Vargas' work was so generalized & glamorized that the supposed identity of his models is almost moot--he was inspired by pectoral muscles, not faces. A skilled portrait painter captures the personality of a subject even if his style is sketchy & impressionistic; that wasn't Vargas.

Are you saying that Vargas wasn't skilled? I'll disagree with that assessment. Of course he was glamorizing his subjects, that's what he did, but it would be hard to glamorize a Ziegfeld girl more than Ziegfeld was already glamorizing them.

That he wasn't skilled in portraiture is exactly what I'm saying; or rather, what his own work says. (Or if he was, he chose to hide his talent under a bushel.)

Ziegfeld must have been satisfied by the resemblance to Olive T., as he's supposed to have kept a copy of this picture in his office in memory of her (though possibly his eyes weren't on her face).

Ziegfeld must have been satisfied by the resemblance to Olive T., as he's supposed to have kept a copy of this picture in his office in memory of her (though possibly his eyes weren't on her face).

Ziegfeld and Thomas were reportedly very...shall we say "cordial?"...friends during her Frolic days, so it is distinctly possible he recognized parts of Thomas that we would not.