An image of Gary Cooper you'll never forget!

[mndean]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1929-Press-Phot ... 416a587558

I think the makeup artists have outdone themselves here.


Note: if this belongs in Images (don't know the rules re: a single image), please move it.

[LongRider]

What a hoot! Thanks for posting.

[CoffeeDan]

HUH?! I still can't figure out how the seller missed the info on the back that clearly identifies the actor in the photo.

[boblipton]

The mustache makes him look like someone else.

Bob

[pookybear]

Ha!

And WITHOUT even writing the seller I know if you tried to correct them they would tell you that their so call
friendly authority told it was Gary Cooper. Some people are just swimming on the shallow end.

Pookybear

[mndean]

HUH?! I still can't figure out how the seller missed the info on the back that clearly identifies the actor in the photo.

You and me both. Then again, I even find misidentified photos on Getty Images. This was the most egregious I've seen in some time. This lister is much more interested in making sure the stills are watermarked. What the still is, and the condition of it are secondary.

[Joe Migliore]

He was great in PIE NOON.

[didi-5]

That's absolutely hilarious. Especially when the seller actually shows a scan of the back, with the actor correctly identified!

[Bob Birchard]

Let's be fair to this seller--there is a disclaimer that reads: "[note: we try very hard to offer you the most accurate details,
but ask that you look at the scans below to see actual image and information]." In other words, the seller suspects few will search for Chester Conklin, but many will search for Gary Cooper--and Cooper's name does appear in the border caption on the front of the still. Is this tactic honorable? NO. Is this tactic honest? NO Is this seller duplicitous? I would never say such a thing. That is for each to decide in his or her own way.

[Frederica]

Let's be fair to this seller--there is a disclaimer that reads: "[note: we try very hard to offer you the most accurate details,
but ask that you look at the scans below to see actual image and information]." In other words, the seller suspects few will search for Chester Conklin, but many will search for Gary Cooper--and Cooper's name does appear in the border caption on the front of the still. Is this tactic honorable? NO. Is this tactic honest? NO Is this seller duplicitous? I would never say such a thing. That is for each to decide in his or her own way.

But will people who are looking for Chester Conklin photos (we know they are legion) think to search for "Gary Cooper"? It's not the first search term that springs to my mind whenever I'm searching for photos of Chester Conklin. OK, so far that's "never," but just for the sake of discussion. Or does the seller assume that a Cooper newbie might be fooled into thinking the photo is of Cooper during his tragic "lost years" phase?

[Doug Sulpy]

The simple (but boring) answer is probably that the guy was putting up multiple listings, selected the "copy your previous listing" from Ebay, and forgot to change the ID in the title.

[Bob Birchard]

The simple (but boring) answer is probably that the guy was putting up multiple listings, selected the "copy your previous listing" from Ebay, and forgot to change the ID in the title.

Not at all. Read his disclaimer. He says look at the scan of the back of the still to get the real ID. He only mentioned Cooper (whose name is in the border legend on the bottom front of the still) to drive traffic to the auction.

[Pantages98382]

Whatever his reasoning, the seller relisted the photo at $7.00 - a drop of $2 - and sold it. My guess is that he would have realized a much better price if he had been a little more careful.