Previous news story    Next news story

Rare photos of Rolling Stones emerge from estate sale

By dpreview staff on Nov 17, 2013 at 09:00 GMT
Found: Rolling Stones
1 2 3 4 5 11

Found: Rolling Stones

Photos of the Rolling Stones are not hard to find, but the majority of images from the height of the band's career consist of on-stage performances and posed publicity shots. That's why a stack of photos uncovered at a Southern California estate sale have attracted a lot of attention recently. These candid images show the Stones as they have rarely been seen - relaxing and appearing to enjoy a day out of the limelight. The photos are making their public debut in an exhibition at Dilettante in LA. 

Interestingly, the photographer responsible for the images is unknown. They were captured in Savannah, Georgia and Clearwater, Florida on a 1965 US tour.  

Above: Mick Jagger, 1965.

Comments

Total comments: 106
Camediadude
By Camediadude (5 months ago)

The Stones made incredible music, but looking back they sure seemed like douchebags.

3 upvotes
Kingsgraphic
By Kingsgraphic (5 months ago)

I think these were published in the Stones photo-biog book 'Tour of the Americas' in around 1975. Interestingly the book sells for around $500 if you have one.....

It doesn't explain in the story if the 'photographs' are prints or negs / transparencies. The difference being prints can be 'many of', the tranny or neg is the original image. Affects the price you know.

2 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (5 months ago)

Photo #5 is cool because it shows a blues legend.

2 upvotes
Pete_CSCS
By Pete_CSCS (5 months ago)

Wow! Photos of Brian Jones by a swimming pool? Creepy. Four years before...

0 upvotes
des hill
By des hill (5 months ago)

average uninteresting snapshots, no photographic merit (shame the snapshotter didn't think to turn the camera to portrait format), scraping the barrel to milk the last £ or $ from whoever is silly enough to pay, methinks.

5 upvotes
Slava123
By Slava123 (5 months ago)

it's not about the artistic value, it's about the subject being photographed. I would love to see some boring unprofessional snapshots of Beethoven walking his dog. The crazy fans will be more than happy to see some pics they've never seen. For god's sake I heard that Elvis' barber managed to sell a jar of Elvis' hair, stranger things have happened.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (5 months ago)

Wow, I have a picture book on the Stones that was published in 1977, and these poolside shots are in it. Nice one, DP Review. Let's pehraps define "rare" first. shall we?

5 upvotes
Jon Porter
By Jon Porter (5 months ago)

So who took the photos then?

0 upvotes
Ferling
By Ferling (5 months ago)

Ah yes. The days before digital sharing. When it was easy to forget or misplace photos in a small envelope, (I'm sure that was the case here). Speaking of which, how of many of you have done the same, even finding unprocessed canisters? (raises hand). :)

2 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (5 months ago)

I have some 'rare' photo's of me in college doing the same thing. I may call some auction houses, see what they're worth on the market.

5 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (5 months ago)

Unless you were in a Rolling Stones equivalent band, I don't think you're going to get a reply.

6 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (5 months ago)

Try eBay. Rare works every time on eBay.

2 upvotes
des hill
By des hill (5 months ago)

tongue in cheek mister roboto, tongue in cheek

4 upvotes
deeohuu
By deeohuu (5 months ago)

"Rare photos". What an odd phrase. What is rare about them? Think about it. Any definition that sort of works means that the vast majority of photos are "rare".

5 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (5 months ago)

It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

8 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (5 months ago)

@deeohuu: Don't be so daft...

2 upvotes
Doug
By Doug (5 months ago)

Rare just means you don't have 'them' or see the particular scenario in the photo every time you come out of StarBucks.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (5 months ago)

I think rare means there aren't too many.

0 upvotes
deeohuu
By deeohuu (5 months ago)

so far I'm told it is easy to understand, I'm daft, the particular scenario is not common, or there aren't too many.

I don't understand the 'not too many' comment at all. At least now there are uncounted digital copies. If it means that there is only one original negative then all film based photos are rare.

If an unusual scenario makes them rare then the majority of photos are still rare and going rarer all the time. (And I DO have them now, so does the publication of the article end their rarity?)

Perhaps rare is meant to meant to mean they are noteworthy because of the significance of the subject. That is a sloppy use of language and there are many photos that are even rarer based on that definition but we don't see them promoted like this.

Telling me I'm daft or that it's easy to grasp doesn't really help without giving a clear explanation. Please help me in my daftness.

Probably what was really meant was 'unknown' or 'little known'.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (5 months ago)

It was an attempt at humor as the term rare, which was always vague, is now meaningless.

0 upvotes
Brian Todd Photography
By Brian Todd Photography (5 months ago)

Your comment is pointlessly negative. I feel sorry for someone like yourself who spends their life in a "glass is half empty" state all the time. Try looking at the point of the article and the photos instead of beating up the author over semantics.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
cainn24
By cainn24 (5 months ago)

The article in question has already qualified it's use of the term "rare". And I would submit that it has been done to the satisfaction of the vast majority of readers. Here:

"Photos of the Rolling Stones are not hard to find, but the majority of images from the height of the band's career consist of on-stage performances and posed publicity shots. That's why a stack of photos uncovered at a Southern California estate sale have attracted a lot of attention recently. These candid images show the Stones as they have rarely been seen - relaxing and appearing to enjoy a day out of the limelight."

The sense in which they are using the term "rare" here is quite clear. You know, the vast majority of shots of the stones are in one context, but these few are in another.

Further, they are prints, not digital images that can and will be duplicated thousands of times due to the nature of the internet. Prints. Reasonably old prints too.

Time to move on I'd say.

1 upvote
Wodheila
By Wodheila (5 months ago)

Great to see pics of Brian Jones. Although the band obviously generated great music post Brian, I always felt the "Stones" as we had grown up with, died with him.

0 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (5 months ago)

When I saw Jagger singing with Carrie Underwood the word "sellout" came to mind. Sooner or later they all do it.

Photos are interesting (to some) because of the subject matter. Photos done the exact same way of Aunt Edna would be worthless.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
1 upvote
KodaChrome25
By KodaChrome25 (5 months ago)

They all sell out? Did Neil Young sellout?

0 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (5 months ago)

Yes.

1 upvote
KodaChrome25
By KodaChrome25 (5 months ago)

Proof?

0 upvotes
KodaChrome25
By KodaChrome25 (5 months ago)

* crickets * crickets *...

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (5 months ago)

Someone should ask Stanley Booth when he thinks these were taken. He'd probably know.
His "True Adventures of the Rolling Stones" is probably one of the very best written and most interesting books about rock'n'roll ever written.

0 upvotes
Michael Ma
By Michael Ma (5 months ago)

Great pics. The photog definitely is talented. But it's not like he's dead and these are like finding a Picaso hanging on the wall. For every famous person in history, there must be hundreds of pictures of them doing normal stuff. Maybe not captured with great composition like these.

2 upvotes
Battersea
By Battersea (5 months ago)

I love photos from the 60s. To me it was a time that the technology had really matured, society was providing great source material and the girls were the prettiest ever. I missed the 60s, glad there are photos like these to enjoy.

3 upvotes
grock
By grock (5 months ago)

I was kind of curious to see this pictures, but I mostly clicked on this article to see all the complaints about this post. And you guys did not disappoint. I never understand who bothers to take the time to write a comment just to say "who cares?" or "this is old news." I know there's no talk of megapixels and dials in these photos, and they're only interesting if you like photography and pop culture history, but if you don't want to look at them, why do you want to comment about how much you don't want to look at them?

23 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (5 months ago)

Yeah. The disgruntled go to an awful lot of effort just to write "Meh".

4 upvotes
calking
By calking (5 months ago)

There's little point in commenting about those types, because they post their drivel and run. They don't come back to read who responded to "meh".

0 upvotes
EDWARD ARTISTE
By EDWARD ARTISTE (5 months ago)

i admit i did the same thing. Its sad that this forum community has become so horrible that we've come to expect this.

I do care what other photogs think, but these debbie downers on dpreview mostly make me not even care.

0 upvotes
Jon Ingram
By Jon Ingram (5 months ago)

Amazing Candids, a great find

0 upvotes
Uri Ben
By Uri Ben (5 months ago)

Who cares...

5 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (5 months ago)

I do.

10 upvotes
Amnon G
By Amnon G (5 months ago)

Any reasons why this is on a website with a D as the first letter of its name?
Digital Photography Review?
I don't get the connection.

2 upvotes
OfcrMike
By OfcrMike (5 months ago)

"Photography", Amnon; that's the connection.
Surprised you missed it, as it comes right after "Digital" in the full name of the website.
Now, before someone posts a snarky reply about analog vs digital, consider that "digital" refers to computerized capture, storage, and transmission of data, the very means by which we recieve DPR, which then is simply a computerised review of photography-related subject matter... oh! that's this article - and all others like it. Wow! that's why it's on DPR!

14 upvotes
Joe Braun
By Joe Braun (5 months ago)

Because DPreview does about one full camera review every six months and one lens review every two years. So they have to fill in the air with fluffy Buzzfeed-type articles like this.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (5 months ago)

@ Joe - not true at all, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

7 upvotes
Ferling
By Ferling (5 months ago)

Uhm. The photos were "D"igtally scanned in lieu of posting here? :)

1 upvote
Joe Braun
By Joe Braun (5 months ago)

I figured staff would reply. My comment was hyperbole. Nevertheless, I would love to see more reviews.

1 upvote
thx1138
By thx1138 (5 months ago)

I'll bet none of these photos were covered in moss.

2 upvotes
MikeRe
By MikeRe (5 months ago)

That Instagram fad has to die already

2 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (5 months ago)

Where's the negs?

.

2 upvotes
obeythebeagle
By obeythebeagle (5 months ago)

These were recently shot with a Hasseblad Lunar, which has the ability to let you go back in time, like Mr. Peabody's Way Back Machine. Hasselbald now rules with the most bitchin' technology (oh, wait a minute, its a Sony).

0 upvotes
GGD
By GGD (5 months ago)

who gives a raats tail.....

2 upvotes
Holger Drallmeyer
By Holger Drallmeyer (5 months ago)

You are an Idiot!

22 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (5 months ago)

Five words and five periods tending to indicate an ignorance for many photographers and others alike that will find these very interesting. At very least, they add to the archive of Stones photographs, and that is something. And, as is referred to in the explanatory text, candids tend to be less representative in the whole body of photographs of the band. And these are candids that are well done. I haven't seen many others that capture the same tone.

9 upvotes
Gary Martin
By Gary Martin (5 months ago)

No likey? No clickey!

6 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (5 months ago)

Nothing like personal attacks to make the forum the best it can be.

2 upvotes
racketman
By racketman (5 months ago)

even if they were not famous there are definitely five keepers in there from a compositional point of view.

2 upvotes
flysurfer
By flysurfer (5 months ago)

I remember seeing these photos printed in a magazine or on a website several years ago, so those images are hardly "emerging" these days.

1 upvote
kixigvaq
By kixigvaq (5 months ago)

A rare photo of Stu! Funny to think of the Rolling Stones, almost royalty these days, cavorting around a motel swimming pool. No screaming fans!

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (5 months ago)

I noticed the Stu pic too. Poor guy. Too ugly to be a "full" band member he was relegated to keyboard/tour manager even though he was one of the original members, and he took it all in stride.

2 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (5 months ago)

Nobody is/was too ugly to be a member of the Rolling Stones.

4 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (5 months ago)

Read up on it sometime. Stu wasn't considered hip or attractive enough because he was older and kind of large, so Oldham basically told him to stay behind the scenes.

1 upvote
mailman88
By mailman88 (5 months ago)

Kodak moments that are worth something!
Let me check my Kodak archives, "maybe a diamond in the rough"

0 upvotes
D Gold
By D Gold (5 months ago)

A nice find for sure. Certainly early stuff with Brian Jones being included.

0 upvotes
aguirre2013
By aguirre2013 (5 months ago)

Can someone tell the focal length of these photos? I would guess 35mm. What do you think?

0 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (5 months ago)

Pretty tight. Feels like a 50.

Edit, maybe even longer?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (5 months ago)

i would also say 50-85 its pretty compressed for beeing that near to the subject

0 upvotes
Kelton Sweet
By Kelton Sweet (5 months ago)

Love these... and I'm surprised that they are staying in such a mundane type hotel/motel. Some are average type shots, but most are MUCH better than the average photos taken by joe-public.

I wonder if they were yet rolling in the $$$$ in 1965.

Dan W (above) stayed in the same hotel as the Stones in '66??? wow!

I'm not a Stones fan, but I appreciate their era of pop history.

2 upvotes
Dan W
By Dan W (5 months ago)

It's true. This was no motel, though. My father booked a stay at the Kahala Hilton, a very nice place.

My father confirmed the reservations for 2 rooms before we left from Los Angeles but when we arrived, they had only one room for us. They blamed it on the Stones, saying they (and their entourage, I suppose) stayed longer than they had originally planned. Who could blame them, the place was beautiful. We "suffered" with one room for a night until the hotel found another room for us.

I remember seeing the Stones on the beach. They didn't look especially attractive but they had lots of girls with them. I was envious.

We also visited 3 other Hawaiian islands. It was a fantastic trip.

2 upvotes
Dan W
By Dan W (5 months ago)

My family went to Hawaii in 1966. We stayed at the same hotel in Honolulu as the Stones. I remember seeing them, even rode in an elevator with one of them. I didn't know who he was, I just knew he was not Mick Jagger.

I should have taken photos.

3 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (5 months ago)

That Kodachrome.. sigh.

Other than that, pretty portraits I would say? Very decent, I think whoever made them knew rather well what they are doing. They have certain "something" indicating that it wasnt just "any photographer". Somehow familiar style, just cant remember where I saw something like that..

Nice discovery anyway.

1 upvote
Mark Smith
By Mark Smith (5 months ago)

Doesn't look like Kodachrome, they look like prints to me. Of course they could be prints from Kodachrome hard to tell though as they seem to have faded...

5 upvotes
kixigvaq
By kixigvaq (5 months ago)

I'm sure these are from Kodak color negative film. Vericolor? Is that what they were calling it back then? The camera was probably one of the bigger Instamatics.

0 upvotes
Jon Porter
By Jon Porter (5 months ago)

The film is likely Kodacolor-X. And judging by how close the photographer is to the lads, I'm guessing they were taken by one of the band's girlfriends. Linda Eastman was photographing the Stones around that time, but I doubt she would leave uncredited work lying around unless they were outtakes.

1 upvote
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (5 months ago)

probably someone took the photos or they where developed after the band left, and no one cared to send the pics

0 upvotes
mikiev
By mikiev (5 months ago)

Love the "Motor Lodge" sign in the background of #6.

4 upvotes
clicstudio
By clicstudio (5 months ago)

The next update of Instagram will have a "Stones '65" look... Pfffffff

2 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (5 months ago)

Instagram lash out; such ground breaking contribution to a photo dialog.

0 upvotes
Frank C.
By Frank C. (5 months ago)

dpr turned tabloid......

3 upvotes
reginalddwight
By reginalddwight (5 months ago)

These photos are a welcome archive of days past and long forgotten.

The Stones probably don't remember much from the '60s because they were really there.

Nor the '70s, '80s, '90s....

2 upvotes
clicstudio
By clicstudio (5 months ago)

I remember Ozzy saying he didn't remember recording a whole album in the 70's...

2 upvotes
Rowbear
By Rowbear (5 months ago)

Robin Williams once said "if you remember the '70s, you missed the whole thing :)

1 upvote
mcshan
By mcshan (5 months ago)

Many people have cracked that joke but George Carlin said it first.

1 upvote
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (5 months ago)

I got as far as number 7 before deciding that if I'd taken them they would have gone into the bin and never been seen by anyone!

3 upvotes
threeOh
By threeOh (5 months ago)

You're missing the point. Composition and subject matter far outweigh pixel peeping technical perfection in most people's eyes. Go to a photography museum some day. You might cringe at the technical aspects of some of the pics. How many of your shots are in display in museums?

21 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (5 months ago)

Then you'd only waste a chance to have your shots appreciated 48 yrs later.

4 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (5 months ago)

I'm not really missing the point. If I had taken them I would have binned them. I've got better photo's of bands I've played in that I decided to keep. That's my point, just because it's of someone famous doesn't make it a good photo. Comprende?

1 upvote
inframan
By inframan (5 months ago)

Another snotty self-serving comment. You only keep pics of bands you pay in? But you're not famous, are you?

10 upvotes
pfzt
By pfzt (5 months ago)

what are you talking about? these are great pics, very nice close framing and wonderful colors.

let's see your pics then… oh, your dog in the garden and some overprocessed HDRs from an uninteresting church? Aha…

10 upvotes
alexzn
By alexzn (5 months ago)

Pixel-peep much? What do you not understand about history and the value of candid pictures taken by someone who probably was close to the band. Go back to taking photos of your cats...

1 upvote
backayonder
By backayonder (5 months ago)

Sad sad people is it just photographers or are other hobbyists just as bitchy?

0 upvotes
Le Kilt
By Le Kilt (5 months ago)

To Hugo808 : I get your point, but when you keep old snapshots of people and they later become world-famous, how cool!

0 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (5 months ago)

backayonder, it is a trait of many across all disciplines, but photographers, hobbiest and otherwise, can bring a color of bitterness that makes them the ones at the BBQ that nobody wants to hang around with.

0 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (5 months ago)

The subject makes them of interest to some people. The photos look like any other snapshots from that time period.

0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (5 months ago)

That's what makes them rare - similar shots taken by others were binned long ago ...

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (5 months ago)

wow hugo, so mature.. youre so great

0 upvotes
Hugo First
By Hugo First (5 months ago)

fascinating cultural artifacts, both for who the snaps depict, but also as reminders of the US south during the '60s.

1 upvote
mandophoto
By mandophoto (5 months ago)

Absolutely. A Rolling Stones member and an African American porter in uniform, and both going about doing their thing in the same picture. A cultural moment from a not too distant past.

1 upvote
mcshan
By mcshan (5 months ago)

Porter? I posted already that it is a blues legend from another news story.

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (5 months ago)

Real nsaps with the 60's look and feel, I have some just like those on family albums. Nice candids. Must have been someone close to them then.

2 upvotes
Mahmoud Mousef
By Mahmoud Mousef (5 months ago)

Why did it take this long for the boys to start using Instagram?
Oh wait...

7 upvotes
rb59020
By rb59020 (5 months ago)

Is that an Edsel in the background in picture number one?

0 upvotes
gusda9
By gusda9 (5 months ago)

Very nice love the 60's vib the portraits r especially nice & the colors classic vintage rocking it out

0 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (5 months ago)

You have to admit, the photos themselves are average, but the rarity and subject makes them special!

I haven't had enough coffee today to find deeper meaning in that.

9 upvotes
PowerG9atBlackForest
By PowerG9atBlackForest (5 months ago)

Well, quite good anyway for without coffee. What else more could one say?

1 upvote
mike kobal
By mike kobal (5 months ago)

lol +1

1 upvote
inframan
By inframan (5 months ago)

Average is a whole lot better than pretentious or derivative though, ain't it?

2 upvotes
LensLineup
By LensLineup (5 months ago)

um, wasn't this news about 6 months ago?

3 upvotes
88SAL
By 88SAL (5 months ago)

Classy boys! Love the 60's colour.

4 upvotes
Total comments: 106