Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2002 10:26 pm
Petr McCormack wrote , in part, "Larry: I will give the photo to which you refer a good look under magnification. **snip**Your comment about photos not lying is an interesting one. While they may not deliberately mislead, photos of black intstruments are subject to a number of lighting conditions that sometimes fool the eye."
Ive had a good look at the pic and I find the evidence inconclusive. It is not *obviously* a Ric. It MAY be but then it may be a 3 pu anything else. (unless of course ric was the only 3 pu guitar of the period)
Wishful thinking can also fool the eye.
I can recall any amount of gigs where there were 2 or 3 bands on the bill and someone would want a smoke break, the guitars would be left onstage and a couple of guys would get up from another band and do stuff so, its not even conclusive that anyone in the pic or associated with THE Beatles even owned the guitar in the background
Sorry guys , in the face of the evidence , "Not Proven"
John
Ive had a good look at the pic and I find the evidence inconclusive. It is not *obviously* a Ric. It MAY be but then it may be a 3 pu anything else. (unless of course ric was the only 3 pu guitar of the period)
Wishful thinking can also fool the eye.
I can recall any amount of gigs where there were 2 or 3 bands on the bill and someone would want a smoke break, the guitars would be left onstage and a couple of guys would get up from another band and do stuff so, its not even conclusive that anyone in the pic or associated with THE Beatles even owned the guitar in the background
Sorry guys , in the face of the evidence , "Not Proven"
John