I couldn't find a date for this photo. It could easily be from the 1940s--definitely not the '30s--Charlie looks too old. The reason I put the '50s is that Charlie has those noticeable age spots and he just appears older here to me.
Charlie didn't age well but I feel like he didn't get the old man look until the late 1960's. It was like he went from looking like his typical self, just a little older, to boom looking like a much older, almost feeble looking man. You almost don't recognize him during the 60's and 70's. Sorry, I was looking at older photos of him yesterday and noticed it.
Mind you, I am not trying to sound superficial either just stating an observation.
I agree with you. Charlie seemed to age drastically in the late 1960s. If I remember correctly, I think he had suffered a small stroke sometime around then which may have contributed to his suddenly looking much older.
The art curator looking dude doesn't look like he's from the 1950's. More like two decades earlier. Chuckle. Nice quality pic. Europe or USA.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't find a date for this photo. It could easily be from the 1940s--definitely not the '30s--Charlie looks too old. The reason I put the '50s is that Charlie has those noticeable age spots and he just appears older here to me.
DeleteCharlie didn't age well but I feel like he didn't get the old man look until the late 1960's. It was like he went from looking like his typical self, just a little older, to boom looking like a much older, almost feeble looking man. You almost don't recognize him during the 60's and 70's. Sorry, I was looking at older photos of him yesterday and noticed it.
ReplyDeleteMind you, I am not trying to sound superficial either just stating an observation.
I agree with you. Charlie seemed to age drastically in the late 1960s. If I remember correctly, I think he had suffered a small stroke sometime around then which may have contributed to his suddenly looking much older.
Delete