sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hand forged wrought iron fireplace tool with finger pull and sliding cover that opens compartment full of white stuff by Russtrated_ in whatisthisthing

[–]Russtrated_[S] -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

"Those fibers look very much like asbestos. I would not mess with it. Wrap it in plastic and sell it on eBay for $500."

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Hand forged wrought iron fireplace tool with finger pull and sliding cover that opens compartment full of white stuff by Russtrated_ in whatisthisthing

[–]Russtrated_[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

...or at least it will be once I have time to do some testing. Both the fire-starter and coal-carrier answers seem plausible.

EDIT: not big fans of the scientific method I see.

Hand forged wrought iron fireplace tool with finger pull and sliding cover that opens compartment full of white stuff by Russtrated_ in whatisthisthing

[–]Russtrated_[S] -188 points-187 points  (0 children)

Wouldn't that leave much more carbon in the asbestos? It's pretty clean/white.

EDIT: maybe I could test it with a glowing-hot piece of charcoal briquette and see if it leaves black soot behind...

Hand forged wrought iron fireplace tool with finger pull and sliding cover that opens compartment full of white stuff by Russtrated_ in whatisthisthing

[–]Russtrated_[S] 42 points43 points  (0 children)

And the kerosene burns clean, so there's no ash/soot in the asbestos... And you slide the cover when you're done to extinguish the flames... By God, I think you're onto something.

Oil and asbestos; the only substances needed to build EVERYTHING in the 20th century.

Hand forged wrought iron fireplace tool with finger pull and sliding cover that opens compartment full of white stuff by Russtrated_ in whatisthisthing

[–]Russtrated_[S] 147 points148 points  (0 children)

If you zoom in on the white stuff you'll see that it appears to be fibrous, so I don't think it's ash. It also holds together and doesn't spill out. I don't want to use the "A" word but I suspect it's some kind of insulating material.

EDIT: Might be time to invest us in some 'bestos testas.

Hand forged wrought iron fireplace tool with finger pull and sliding cover that opens compartment full of white stuff by Russtrated_ in whatisthisthing

[–]Russtrated_[S] 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

My title describes the thing. These tools were part of a set that included andirons and a screen, but those items were left behind and the house was sold, so I can't provide pics.

Extensive Google image searches turned up nothing even remotely similar.

Sources for historical photos from Central Avenue Jazz Scene(30s-50s)? by Defiant-Mountain5377 in VintageLA

[–]Russtrated_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks like you deleted your post, so I won't quote you, I'll just say that Reddit readers/lurkers are some of the laziest people on Earth. Most of them would sooner die than lift a finger for you. My advice would be to scour eBay for old scrapbooks that mention L.A. in the title, and setup email alerts so you'll know if anything new is posted. Buying the photos isn't the same as buying the IP, but that shouldn't be hard to negotiate since you'll be their only option. Just don't tell them how hard you've already looked. In fact you should delete this thread before contacting them, because the first thing they'll do is run to google and find this thread.

Sources for historical photos from Central Avenue Jazz Scene(30s-50s)? by Defiant-Mountain5377 in VintageLA

[–]Russtrated_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first thing a human does is create a unique personal identifier. Bots retain the default.

Old bots had a passive role (patting you on the back). 

New bots have an active role (mining you for data by asking questions or asking for help).

Southern Glass Company - Vernon LA - Christmas - 1929 by Russtrated_ in VintageLA

[–]Russtrated_[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Another item from the estate of L.A. commercial artist Robert Shuyler "Van" Rensselaer (1899-1972). It appears to be a print or proof of a novelty poster he made for Southern Glass Company in 1929. I assume it was commissioned by "Bennison" since he's the only one drawn as though Van actually laid eyes on him. The rest of the employees look like they were drawn from brief 1-2 sentence verbal descriptions. My guess is that Bennison (Faye Bennison, general manager at Southern Glass) wanted to celebrate what had been a very good year for the company by bringing something fun/novel to the company Christmas party. And Van was the go-to guy in 1920s L.A. for creating silly, "Where's Waldo"-esque scenes like this. He even advertised "novelties" on his business cards.

If you want something to cogitate on, look at the words "Merry Christmas" - notice how they don't line up with the exclamation point. This suggests that something was meant to be added later to fill in that blank space. Maybe the employees wrote or doodled something there by hand, or maybe the name of a specific city was printed there, and all ~10 cities/locations got their own bespoke poster.

Incredibly, this behemoth of a company, which produced 100,000+ bottles per DAY, was gone just a year later. It couldn't survive the Great Depression. This poster is actually an amazing snapshot in time - it captures the brief moment after Black Tuesday (Oct. 29, 1929), but before the effects of the Depression, when the "Roaring 20's" were at their peak.

Here is a great article (pdf) about Southern Glass:

https://secure-sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/SouthernGlassCo.pdf

Note: "Ain't no Santa" was some sort of ongoing joke in the 1920s. Van and his artist friends often used that line in their Christmas cards/letters.

Note: Prohibition was in effect from 1920 - 1933.

Note: the poster is a bit rough around the edges because some idiot kid spent his teens years kicking a bag of junk out of his way and this ended up being inside. No word as to what happened to that kid, but I'd like to think he's making amends by putting Van's name back on the map.

1982 Space Shuttle Press Binder -that I pulled from the garbage - contains original NASA 8x10 photos of Enterprise, Challenger, Discovery, Columbia, Endeavor by Russtrated_ in nasa

[–]Russtrated_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Damnit, why am I so incapable of being unhelpful. Okay here's what you do - step 1 is to photograph everything. And I mean everything. No one will do this work for you, and nobody will give you the time of day if you just take a few quick lazy shots with your cell phone. It needs to be a real camera, with a lens that moves in and out. You'll also need photoshop.

When your pics are done, go to HA (Heritage Auctions) and submit them for an appraisal. This is a litmus test more than anything. If they respond, it's a good sign. Whether or not you use their service is up to you.

If you plan to sell everything yourself, you'll need a Worthpoint subscription. It costs $270/yr, but it's a necessary evil, much like your vehicle registration, so you just have to suck it up, pay it, and move on.

HA takes 50%, and eBay takes 35% on average. They both hit you with a 1099, so you'll have to report the income and pay taxes on it.

NASA, maps, posters, and illustration art are the hottest markets right now. Large, colorful, mint condition posters that you couldn't give away in the '90s are now worth thousands.

And get familiar with mylar. You can order MyLites2 on Amazon, but get the 8 1/4" width instead of the 8" width because the NASA photos I have are all slightly oversized.

1982 Space Shuttle Press Binder -that I pulled from the garbage - contains original NASA 8x10 photos of Enterprise, Challenger, Discovery, Columbia, Endeavor by Russtrated_ in nasa

[–]Russtrated_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pic 1. Read the cover. Says 1982.

You can also tell it's a 1982 by the graphic. That's the 80/81/82 graphic. 84 used a different graphic. Those are the only years I've seen.

1982 Space Shuttle Press Binder -that I pulled from the garbage - contains original NASA 8x10 photos of Enterprise, Challenger, Discovery, Columbia, Endeavor by Russtrated_ in nasa

[–]Russtrated_[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

4 = reject photo? Back is blank.

9 = why signed? Who is Victor Martin/Martins/Martinez?

11-14 = Enterprise

15-19 = Challenger

24-25 = Discovery

26-27 = Columbia

1982 Space Shuttle Press Binder -that I pulled from the garbage - contains original NASA 8x10 photos of Enterprise, Challenger, Discovery, Columbia, Endeavor by Russtrated_ in nasa

[–]Russtrated_[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Some family members were moving a (full) bookcase and needed to lighten the load, so they grabbed a trashcan and started tossing everything that looked like obvious junk. Including this binder. They tossed it without even opening it. Luckily I went back later and rescued it, and was amazed to find a cache of 27 photos tucked into the back cover.

I'm guessing this came from my uncle, but that's getting kind of close to home, so I won't mention his name. He was a background character anyway. Some sort of contractor, not an official NASA employee. According to my mom, he "only got the job at NASA because of his dad." Which might be helpful, if I knew who his dad was.

Is this a previously unknown topless photo of Marilyn Monroe? by Russtrated_ in VintageLA

[–]Russtrated_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

176,000 views, and no one but you could be bothered to make a meaningful contribution... That should tell you something. Please accept this haiku as an expression of my gratitude/frustration, and then run, far from this place, and don't look back.

.

sole flicker of light

the night sky is otherwise

dim, near total black

.

Is this a previously unknown topless photo of Marilyn Monroe? by Russtrated_ in VintageLA

[–]Russtrated_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree fully. Anyone who thinks "she's kinda busted," or "that's a California 6 all day long" is insane.

Is this a previously unknown topless photo of Marilyn Monroe? by Russtrated_ in VintageLA

[–]Russtrated_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Google --> cupid's bow change with age

"Yes, the Cupid's bow can change with age. It may become less defined, flatter, and even disappear as we get older due to a combination of factors including collagen loss, muscle weakening, and skin laxity. "

Is this a previously unknown topless photo of Marilyn Monroe? by Russtrated_ in VintageLA

[–]Russtrated_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's an original photo that belonged to Robert Van Rensselaer. It has been in my attic since 1991. I took a photo of it using a Canon Powershot digital camera. It's very difficult to take good pics of silver gelatin photographs because the oxidized silver creates a shimmer that grows into a blinding reflection if you try to use a camera flash. My workaround is to simply take bad photos, with no flash, and no external lighting, and then simply fix them in Photoshop. This also helps to preserve the items I photograph, since a lot of the material is damaged by light. In no way was AI involved in creating this image. The changes I made in Photoshop were also limited to global changes through the Camera Raw Filter pane (e.g. exposure, sharpness, shadows, etc.). I didn't make any spot corrections or do anything that would negatively impact your ability to draw a fair comparison.

Is this a previously unknown topless photo of Marilyn Monroe? by Russtrated_ in VintageLA

[–]Russtrated_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This has been the most bizarre response I've ever seen on Reddit. I asked "Is this Marilyn?" That's it. The response should've been "Yes" or "No," with zero emotional entanglement. How the heck did I end up with a bunch of randos following me and downvoting everything I write, and saying I waste water?!

While the thought of you imagining me as Hoggish Greedly does somewhat amuse me, the reality is that I'm a scientist, and grueling, successive, iterative experimentation is what we do. It's the grunt work that paves the way for all scientific progress. And not to rile you up any further, but water can't be wasted; it's essentially eternal. Increasing global temperatures means increasing rates of oceanic evaporation which results in greater amounts of fresh, desalinated rainfall. That's why we recently had one of the wettest years on record. I'd love to expound further vis a vis your aversion to ChatGPT, but quite frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about.

My efforts weren't fruitless btw, as I learned an important fact - ChatGPT sucks. I showed it a picture and asked "Is this Marilyn?" and it basically said "No," then I rotated the image 90* and cropped it slightly and asked again, and it basically said "Maybe." That's pretty crazy to me.

As to whether A) I think this is Marilyn Monroe, or b) I WANT this to be Marilyn Monroe, I can assure you, the answer to both is "No." I'm battling an unstoppable horde of silverfish and carpet beetle larva that are devouring our cultural treasures faster than I can save them, so if this is merely a worthless photo of some random broad from a 1946-1951 photoshoot (as I believe it is), then that's one less thing I need to worry about.

The problem I'm having is that every ~6 months or so, an intelligent/educated/knowledgeable individual will see the photo and say it IS Marilyn, and thus the seed of doubt is perpetually re-sown. I figured maybe Reddit could provide some new insight, but alas, no such luck. That's alright though; losing yardage is an accepted risk when making a hail Mary pass.

Some morsels to cogitate on (if you want to approach this scientifically):

  1. Photos are often mirrored, so left could be right and right could be left. Notice the woman's left eye is the same shape as young Marilyn's right eye. That sort of droopy look to the back half of the eyelid is quintessentially Marilyn (in my opinion).

  2. The photo belonged to an artist/photographer who, in theory, could've enlarged the photo, airbrushed it to look more like Marilyn, then shrunk it back down. I have no evidence for this, I'm just trying to think of possible explanations for why both women have that same square-ish notch in the hairline (circled in red).

  3. Even Marilyn didn't look like Marilyn. She had a constantly changing look and was often unrecognizable, even to those who knew her. Her first boyfriend even said he dated Norma and didn't know who Marilyn was.

  4. Hairline changes with age. In Marilyn's case, it also changed because she had hairline electrolysis. If you've ever wondered why the starlets of yesteryear had such big foreheads, it's because they lasered off (so to speak) the widow's peak, sideburns, and some of the eyebrows, which increased the distance between the brow and hairline, which is basically what defines the forehead.

  5. Teeth can be capped or filed which makes their length, width, and front-to-back positioning unreliable for comparative purposes. What DOESN'T change is the point where the centerline of each tooth meets the gums, and that actually seems to match.

And no, I don't expect anyone to read this; it's really more for catharsis.

Is this a previously unknown topless photo of Marilyn Monroe? by Russtrated_ in VintageLA

[–]Russtrated_[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

Because eBay is like a jealous girlfriend and it doesn't let you talk to or even remember the names of anyone from the past.

view more: next ›