Thursday, May 16, 2024


I am confused by the image of the man on the right.  Is that a fault in the photo, or was he badly burned at some time?  Either way, I find him appealing for a reason I can't explain.  He's got major low hangers, and the other guy is big on bush.  Quite a juxtaposition.



  1. A photo blemish or perhaps a burn wound from a kerosene lamp. Injuries from oil lamps were common in Europe at that time when most houses did not have gas, electricity or running water.
    Hopefully it’s just a photo blemish and not a bad scar….:)

  2. I looked at the .tif version of image. The "side" view shows part of the "thing" on his chest. Not sure if odd hair growth or what. The front part has white patches, and they have the same level of contrast as the rest of chest, so likely part of image as opposed to scratches on the plate. More notable: guy is missing his right nipple, and has a darm "blemish" well below where it should be. Photoshop did not exist back then, so unlikely this photo was manipulated.

    Of you look at his right left (left leg on image), you see what appears to be some rather long hair that is attached on belly which is why I have the impression the "thing" is hair that grow weirdly. Also note that "normal" pubic hair grows higher on his left side than right side where there are those long hairs.

    1. You make some good points. Whatever the source or nature of the "blemish," it apparently didn't disqualify him from military service.