Saturday was the postcard show.


Things are drying up, my friends. It’s as if everyone already has all the postcards they want. In ten years there will be a great die-off of collectors, and the items will flood back into the Great Stream - but will there be anyone to want them?

The reasonably-priced motel postcards were scant, and I’m here to tell you that I got nothing for 2027. But there’s still time.

I bought a lot of paper, because the postcard show seems to be tilting slightly in that direction. Less cards, more paper. And by “paper” I mean just that, assorted paper. This could be calendars or playbills or brochures or ads or money or blotters. Basically, it’s flat and rectangular.

These aren't rare, but they're increasingly scarce. They were handed out by the BILLIONS. No one used them. They fell over. Maybe you'd use it through March.

Couldn’t pass up an inexpensive sleeve of negatives. I thought they’d be older than they are. They’re 1950s family shots, what appears to be the Ducommuns, based on one note. It’s always startling to look at the original scan . . .

Then pop it into life with simple inversion.

From the same batch, many scenes of a bygone Christmas.

As ever, I wonder why these are floating in the Great Stream. Well, no, you know why; someone cast them off. Someone looked at the negatives and didn’t know what to do with them or didn’t care or both. This sunders the images from the only meaning they ever had. I wanted to rescue them, I guess. Ridiculous but there it is.

I mean, who’s this?

Oh, let's give her a little color.

The back of the picture says “Me 1924.” A hundred years ago. You could probably have a fairly long conversation with her about many subjects. Could she have carried on a long chat about mutual issues with someone from 1824? Perhaps if they both came from farms, but she’d probably know a thing or two about tractors.

Ration books: can’t resist a few coupons I haven’t seen before.


Celebrating another meaningless event that gave the kleptocrats an excuse to have a party and sign thick sheaves of paper and feel important and philanthropic.

Back to the photos: they were 10 for a dollar. I couldn’t resist saving this candid moment of a girl and her dog, having fun.

This meant a lot to someone. It might mean a lot to someone today.

A 1929 Minneapolis theater program was a great source of ads:

No quaint little eatery on the spot today - massive hotel and parking ramp.

Couldn’t resist a National Wildlife Federation fundraiser letter, intact, with all the colorful stamps they sent out - free! FREE! To any kid who sent away.

Saving our natural resources, the letter said, was patriotic.

I wonder when they dumped that claim because people rolled their eyes. Yeah, you know who else thought that?

Teddy Roosevelt, progressive advocate for national parks?

No - uh, Hit -

Oh shut up.

Anyway. Tons of stuff at a good price, coming soon - well, eventually - to a website near you, which happens to be this one



"Yes, of course we did"








It’s a minor, minor, minor little thriller, barely enough for a TV show. The ident for the producers is more interesting.

Nice work:

Nat Cohen and Stuart Levy.


Nat Cohen (23 December 1905 – 10 February 1988) was a British film producer and executive. For over four decades he was one of the most significant figures in the British film industry, particularly in his capacity as head of Anglo-Amalgamated and EMI Films; he helped finance the first Carry On movies and early work of filmmakers such as Ken Loach, John Schlesinger, Alan Parker and David Puttnam. In the early 1970s while head of EMI Films he was called the most powerful man in the British film industry.

Yes, Anglo-Amalgamated. Not the most streamlined, easy-to-remember name.

Our movie is . . .

That’s creative.

Born Solomon Schwartz, in Whitechapel. Quite a distinguished career.

Well, here it is. A young couple is house-shopping, and finds this place. It’s listed for something like fourteen pounds. Okay, more than that, but it’s such a bargain there must be a reason it’s going so cheap, and has sat on the market forever.

The old housekeeper tells the tale. She's a bit ominous, no?

It’s not a bloody movie. It’s not a horror film. I mean, at one point there’s an apparition from the land of the dead, and we’re supposed to jump in shock.


It’s short! And you can watch here. Can you guess the shocking ending? Give it a go, as they say over there.

The YouTube page says the conclusion is SHOCKING.

Now two ways to chip in!

That'll do: off on another week of stuff, and I hope you enjoy it.




blog comments powered by Disqus