Tags: ,

15 Responses to “67 PORTRAIT:”

  1. BLJ says:

    Love this pose, I have never seen this photo before. Great Picture.

  2. Don Percy says:

    Another great newbie. From the ‘no-one-can-afford-this’ Henry Grossman book…?

  3. JD says:

    Quite possibly from the $500 dollar book – yes. Such a shame that most people will not get to see the majority of the photos from the publication apart from the photo’s that have been made available for promotion, or indeed ones that those who have the book are prepared to share…

  4. Kwai Chang says:

    Cooler than Whitaker?
    Maybe not…but, at least they’re trying to texturize the abstract direction that they were ‘headed’. I think John is straight up into it…
    (wasn’t the Revolver cover symbolic of the Beatles are now into their own heads?) this could be similar statement…
    and as always, I want some of what they’ve got

  5. Lizzie says:

    wow! new one for me too – i looooove photos from 1967, because i remember them looking like this so much…

  6. Pete F. says:

    Nice, never seen this one before. It’s an outtake from the cover shoot of the July 1967 Asian edition of LIFE magazine.

    See that LIFE cover here:

  7. Ishie says:

    I just love outtake photos. It’s always fun to see the ones that didn’t “make the cut” so to speak. Sometimes they are more revealing and playful than the ones chosen.
    Thanks for sharing them with us …

  8. Michael says:

    Odd… looks more like a pose from ’63 or ’64. A great new one for me. Thanks!

  9. Imagine says:

    I’ve scene alot of pictures from this session but this particular pose is new to me. The Beatles look dashing as they did throughout their Sgt Pepper period.

  10. Kevin says:

    @ Michael; ’63 or ’64??? There were no mustaches or colorful clothes in that period? And John NEVER wore his granny glasses in photos until ’67. He had black-rimmed glasses in ’63 and ’64.

  11. Mark says:

    Awesome. Love to see new pics from this period.

    @ Pete F: good call about LIFE magazine. In the USA, the “New Far-Out Beatles” article appeared in the June 16, 1967 edition. But here, the cover of that edition featured an article about the Six-Day War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War) My guess is that The Beatles were bumped from being the cover story because of that. Apparently, the same thing happened the following year when The Doors were supposed to be on the cover of LIFE, but then Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated.

  12. JD says:

    I think what Michael is trying to say is the pose looks like ’63/’64 not the clothes or hairstyles.

  13. Don Percy says:

    Yes, Michael means it’s the kind of fun arrangement they’d have done in 63/64 – like all those ‘looking around the door’ poses. Sorry Kev’ – didn’t mean to ‘gang up’ on you…! :)

  14. Lizzie says:

    of course i also think it’s a shame that most of us can’t afford the henry grossman book. i thought of skipping a few payments on my health insurance and buying it, but somehow at almost 62 it sort of didn’t seem like such a good idea… what we have to realize it that it costs a FORTUNE to buy the rights for each and every one of those 1.000 photos. i know it for a fact since i co-own a small publishing company (we haven’t published anything in years), we published 11 books and i know how much money i’ve had to pay for the rights to use photos in our books. plus this is not a regular book, it;s a work of art. i have the “kaleidoscope eyes” book (which they sent me since they used 3 photos of me and mentioned my name) and it’s just BEAUTIFUL, extremely well made, comes with white cotton gloves for handling it, i just can’t stress enough how much curvebender goes out of its way to make a beautiful product. i never bought any of the genesis books either. it’s just too much for a secretary’s salary like mine, but i’m glad they have been made, otherwise no one would get to see all these photos.

  15. Nick says:

    It is a shame that us regular folk cannot afford these book. One can only dream…..

Leave a Reply