Here are two pictures, one is obviously Lucille Ball. The other one, Kathleen Brady claims is also Lucille Ball. It's that artsy photo of a woman who is topless. I personally find nothing offensive about the photograph (even though I've edited it here), but nevertheless, I don't see the resemblance to Lucille Ball. Can someone explain why Kathleen Brady believes this woman is Lucille Ball?

That may not be Lucy, but I can understand why someone would think it is her. The nose is identical, and the whole face profile line is very similar. The eyes could indeed be Lucy's, but it is hard to tell since she is squinting.

Actresses from that era often looked wildly different at different stages of their career, so it is not so outrageous to believe that someone would think this is (perhaps an earlier) photo of Lucy. I've seen stills from Joan Crawford's earliest movies and would never have guessed who it was.

To me, it looks like whoever that is could be transformed into Lucy's twin with the right makeup. But, come to think of it, she also looks a bit like Myrna Loy.

Maybe you could post the uncensored photo so we can get a better idea........ just kidding!.

Can someone explain why Kathleen Brady believes this woman is Lucille Ball?

Because if she says that she'll sale more copies of her book.

I also noticed the similarity in the nose, though my impression was that the nose on the woman in the photo seems a bit more pointed on the end than Lucy's. Of course, it's very difficult to make these comparisons when all you have are two dimensional photos to compare. But what about the ear lobes? Lucille Ball had a nice set of ear lobes, which served her great for hanging those big, dangling earrings. But in that topless photo, the ear lobes seem tiny. And what about the cheek bones? Lucille Ball had great, very pronounced cheek bones. But I don't see them in this photo.

I do recognize that actresses from that period had widely varying looks through the years. And Lucille Ball was no exception to that. However, certain of her features were so distinctive, I've always been able to make her out in a photo. I've seen pictures of her as a teenager and could easily tell it was her. I've seen pictures of her from her early Goldwyn days, including ones where she's in the middle of a crowd of other Goldwyn Girls. And even in those pictures, I've always able to instantly pick Lucy out of the crowd. This topless photo, however, is the only adult photo allegedly of her that has ever left me scratching my head, trying to find a resemblance to the Lucy I'm familiar with. It just leaves me perplexed. Frankly, I find the woman in that photo kind of homely. So if it is Lucille Ball, who I think was one of the most beautiful women of all time, that photographer somehow managed to make a gorgeous woman look rather unattractive.

That may not be Lucy, but I can understand why someone would think it is her. The nose is identical, and the whole face profile line is very similar. The eyes could indeed be Lucy's, but it is hard to tell since she is squinting.

Actresses from that era often looked wildly different at different stages of their career, so it is not so outrageous to believe that someone would think this is (perhaps an earlier) photo of Lucy. I've seen stills from Joan Crawford's earliest movies and would never have guessed who it was.

To me, it looks like whoever that is could be transformed into Lucy's twin with the right makeup. But, come to think of it, she also looks a bit like Myrna Loy.

Maybe you could post the uncensored photo so we can get a better idea........ just kidding!.

Jane -

I can see what you mean about the unattractiveness. You make good points about the earlobe and cheekbone but that pretty fuzzy photo apparently in bright sunlight makes it hard to tell what is really there.

Everybody has good and bad days, there are good and bad photos and photographers; makeup or lack of it influences our perception a lot.

The topless photo is fuzzy enough to leave me with the conclusion that I just can't tell. But since you have seen many more photos of Lucy than I, I will agree that in all likelihood it is not Lucy. I can't deny the resemblance though.

Thanks for bringing up an interesting topic.

I have to agree with you there. The lighting and angle make it impossible to tell for sure one way or the other. I didn't buy Kathleen Brady's book, mainly because, from glancing through it, it seemed to me more gossipy than a serious attempt to understand Lucille Ball -- almost to the level of a tabloid --and I tend not to like books like that. But because I didn't buy it, I dont' know whether she explains her evidence in establishing that this is indeed Lucille Ball, if there is any. I haven't heard that she did provide any, so I remain skeptical. Nevertheless, whatever the answer is, maybe too big a deal has been made over this photo because it's not the least bit sexual. It's just an artistic photo celebrating the female human form, which is a far different thing from a photo that's meant to be sexually stimulating.

Jane -

I can see what you mean about the unattractiveness. You make good points about the earlobe and cheekbone but that pretty fuzzy photo apparently in bright sunlight makes it hard to tell what is really there.

Everybody has good and bad days, there are good and bad photos and photographers; makeup or lack of it influences our perception a lot.

The topless photo is fuzzy enough to leave me with the conclusion that I just can't tell. But since you have seen many more photos of Lucy than I, I will agree that in all likelihood it is not Lucy. I can't deny the resemblance though.

Thanks for bringing up an interesting topic.

Here are two pictures, one is obviously Lucille Ball. The other one, Kathleen Brady claims is also Lucille Ball. It's that artsy photo of a woman who is topless. I personally find nothing offensive about the photograph (even though I've edited it here), but nevertheless, I don't see the resemblance to Lucille Ball. Can someone explain why Kathleen Brady believes this woman is Lucille Ball?
That is Lucy. No doubt about it. The profiles are EXACTLY the same. Who cares if she posed nude. From the sounds of it, that group did everything and anything with everyone and anyone. No big deal, but that's Lucy.

well, I cant be as certain as Brian but, it deffinately looks like pics on the "BEAUTIFUL" thread of Lucy as a young model......also, I cant think of anyone else I know, besides Lucy, who did her eyebrows that way; but, the young model has the SAME eyes & brows......I'd say its at least an 80% chance that it is a pic of Lucy from the 1930s :cow: yup yup

:rofl: Brian.

Mikado, what's with the cow pic? :lol:

As I look at the ears of the topless woman, it appears to NOT match Lucy's ear. The lobe area is different and the topless woman's ear seems smaller.

:rofl: Brian.

Mikado, what's with the cow pic? :lol:

As I look at the ears of the topless woman, it appears to NOT match Lucy's ear. The lobe area is different and the topless woman's ear seems smaller.
Lucy must have had a lobe job. Kind of like the lube job I have on my car. :lol: I noticed Mikado's into the cow thing. It's funny and sort of an identity thing. yup yup :cow:

I think of Billy Boy Thornton's character in Sling Blade whenever I read that.

Lucy must have had a lobe job. Kind of like the lube job I have on my car. :lol: I noticed Mikado's into the cow thing. It's funny and sort of an identity thing. yup yup :cow:

I think of Billy Boy Thornton's character in Sling Blade whenever I read that.
Lobe job...:brent OMG Didn't see that one coming.


I am so out of the loop, as Janice would say. I never seen Slingblade and I have seen the :cow: and YUP YUP on the boards. I feel so left out. :(

It does sort of look like Lucy. Not that their's anything wrong with that.

The ladies like the woman in the topless photo came from an era where they sometimes all looked the same, the shaved eyebrows, painted on eyebrows, light skin and dark lips. Hell, that photo can be anyone. :rofl: She somewhat resembles Jean Harlowe.

I just found and old pic of Lucy with her head tilted the same way as yhe topless one and I'm 98% convinced now... Basically, to my eyes, the ears are identical...earlobes actually never stop growing (its fact, look it up), so the 45 yr old Lucy would have larger lobes than a 15-20 yr old

ps the cow seems to be nodding "yes" so, shes saying "yup yup" , to me :D

I just found and old pic of Lucy with her head tilted the same way as yhe topless one and I'm 98% convinced now... Basically, to my eyes, the ears are identical...earlobes actually never stop growing (its fact, look it up), so the 45 yr old Lucy would have larger lobes than a 15-20 yr old

ps the cow seems to be nodding "yes" so, shes saying "yup yup" , to me :D
:lol: We got Mikey on the case. That's good detective work. It sure is an awful good resemblence to her.

I just found and old pic of Lucy with her head tilted the same way as yhe topless one and I'm 98% convinced now... Basically, to my eyes, the ears are identical...earlobes actually never stop growing (its fact, look it up), so the 45 yr old Lucy would have larger lobes than a 15-20 yr old

ps the cow seems to be nodding "yes" so, shes saying "yup yup" , to me :D
What an excellent researcher you are Mikey. WHOO HOO :cheer:

Damn, that is uncanny. :eek: LUCY IS TOPLESS :D :cool:

I just found and old pic of Lucy with her head tilted the same way as yhe topless one and I'm 98% convinced now... Basically, to my eyes, the ears are identical...earlobes actually never stop growing (its fact, look it up), so the 45 yr old Lucy would have larger lobes than a 15-20 yr old

ps the cow seems to be nodding "yes" so, shes saying "yup yup" , to me :D
Thanks. Now I want to see the rest of the picture. NO FAIR!!

Thanks. Now I want to see the rest of the picture. NO FAIR!!
Maybe Mikey can find the pic for us???? :D Mikey is now the official SITCOMSONLINE DETECTIVE. ;)

LUCY IS TOPLESS :D :cool:
"I was young and broke. I had to pay my rent" The trick in Hollywood is finding someone who didn't pose nude. :lol:

"I was young and broke. I had to pay my rent" The trick in Hollywood is finding someone who didn't pose nude. :lol:
:lol:

You used the word "trick" and "Hollywood" in the same sentence. If you didn't pose topless, tricking was the second option. :rofl:

Now I want to see the rest of the picture. NO FAIR!!
:yeahthat :lol:

"I was young and broke. I had to pay my rent" The trick in Hollywood is finding someone who didn't pose nude. :lol:
Oh my God, this is scary, we actually agree on something, LOL!:lol:

:lol:

You used the word "trick" and "Hollywood" in the same sentence. If you didn't pose topless, tricking was the second option. :rofl:
:lol:

Thanks. Now I want to see the rest of the picture. NO FAIR!!
Scroll down to number #62. The pic is small but there it is:

http://www.fake-detective.com/wanted/history/posthist.html

You might find yourself awe-struck on this website for a long while. ;) :lol:


When I google "young Lucille Ball topless" and click images, you will see two pics there. But when I click on the pics, I don't see it.

Here are two pictures, one is obviously Lucille Ball. The other one, Kathleen Brady claims is also Lucille Ball. It's that artsy photo of a woman who is topless. I personally find nothing offensive about the photograph (even though I've edited it here), but nevertheless, I don't see the resemblance to Lucille Ball. Can someone explain why Kathleen Brady believes this woman is Lucille Ball?
I'm not saying that it's not Lucille Ball, but I don't think I'm as convinced as you guys. I think the nose is definitely different...If you look back at the two photos in the first post, look at the bridge of the nose, the artsy one has a curved bridge while the Lucy we know in the second pic has a straight bridge. The foreheads are different too...the artsy one has a straight, flat forehead while the second pic and in Mikado's pic we can see Lucy has a curvature to her forehead. There's some differences around the chin too, and under the bottom lip. I know makeup can make things look different, but bone structure is usually undeniable. I dunno...can't decide if I believe it's her or not.

I just found and old pic of Lucy with her head tilted the same way as yhe topless one and I'm 98% convinced now... Basically, to my eyes, the ears are identical...earlobes actually never stop growing (its fact, look it up), so the 45 yr old Lucy would have larger lobes than a 15-20 yr old

ps the cow seems to be nodding "yes" so, shes saying "yup yup" , to me :D
That picture sealed it for me. It's Lucy. Any subtle differences, and they are few can be attributed to facial changes that accompany age. Interesting to note that in the new picture you showed us of Lucy, she looks just as plain as in the original myster photo. Good work, Mikado. Really, that was fantastic detective work. You solved the mystery.
yup yup :cow:

You're right about how ear lobes keep growing. Look at a real elderly person, especially a man, and their lobes are so long.

Thx ..... I can't say its 100% certain but, 98% is good enough for me :)

Oh my God, this is scary, we actually agree on something, LOL!:lol:
*pop the champagne* :cheers:

:lol:

Scroll down to number #62. The pic is small but there it is:

http://www.fake-detective.com/wanted/history/posthist.html

You might find yourself awe-struck on this website for a long while. ;) :lol:


When I google "young Lucille Ball topless" and click images, you will see two pics there. But when I click on the pics, I don't see it.
"Wanted Poster #62 was withdrawn when the picture proved to be real. We the picture in a book called "The Life of Lucille Ball" by Kathleen Brady (1994). The only comment about it that we noticed in the book was the caption for the photograph: "Struggling to survive in New York, Lucille posed topless". Apparently she was hoping to get a job with the Ziegfield Follies at that time."<<<<Well, the guy who specialises in this stuff says its real, so, looks irrefutable!

I guess I'm the only person who thinks that the woman looks nothing like Lucy. I just don't see it.