Dear John,
I agree with David that this is not Kipling. The much weaker chin, the small
mouth, and the close cropped hair are just not Kipling and I have never seen
a picture of him wearing a pince-nez as shown in this picture. Pictures of
him in a bowler do exist (see attached) but, if anything, they tend to
highlight the difference between the two faces, particularly in Kipling's
luxuriant eyebrows.
Yours Roger
Roger Ayers
Membership Secretary
The Kipling Society
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Page" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: Kipling photo
> Dear John
>
> I am sorry but my conclusion is that this is not
> Kipling. Based on comparisons with other photos, my
> reasons are:
>
> 1. I can't detect any sign of the cleft in RK's chin
> which is very evident in all the other full-face
> drawings and paintings.
>
> 2. The creases running from the nose to the ends of
> the mouth are not quite as pronounced as in other RK
> photos
>
> 3. The moustache and eyebrows don't look quite as
> luxuriant.
>
> 4. Although wireframe, the spectacles are not
> absolutely circular, and the bridge is at the top
> rather than in line with the mid-point of the lenses.
>
> 5. I have seen photos of RK wearing a Topper, a Trilby
> or a Homburg, but never a Bowler.
>
> With all best wishes for the New Year
>
> Yours, David
>
> --- John Radcliffe <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Many apologies for sending the wrong picture last
>> night. A festive moment.
>>
>> Here is the correct one.
>>
>> All good wishes for 2006
>>
>> John R
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
> Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
>
|