steve with an s

Sanchez throws a no-hitter! He was just an infielder's fielding error away from a perfect game: no hits, no walks, 11K. Sweeeet!

I'm sorry, but I didn't recognize any of the models. I really like the "atomic sparkle" shot. That's cute!

Yes, agree. Thanks for the link. There is one thing about that article, and articles like it, that bothers me, though: the "anonymous" author. It cheapens or weakens whatever observations she (or possibly, he, I suppose) makes, and whatever larger point she would like to make. I don't necessarily doubt the contents of the article, but it would be such a stronger piece if it was by an "actual" person whose career and capacity for accurate observation and information could be verified.

There was actually an entertaining article in today's paper about the Giants' new starter. If you like baseball, you might enjoy the article (whether or not you like the Giants). Check out the stat box at the end of the column. Talk about night-and-day! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../SP2N18J0RP.DTL

No nudity, but it might not be safe for work. I think the caption was "Waiting for pizza." Poor guy.

Yes, agree. Pierre was excellent. And the Dodgers did much better than expected in the absence of Ramirez. Impressive season so far. Didn't think they would have the pitching to be #1 in the entire NL. As for surprises, I'll say the Giants. The team has the second-best record in the National League, and were supposed to be light-hitting (they are) and also-rans (they're not). The team might send 3 players to the All-Star game. To replace their ineffective fifth starter, they called up what was "supposed" to be a spot-starter, and if I remember correctly, he wasn't even on their 40-man, with some speculation that he was picked-up mostly because he was expected to get through waivers when he was sent back. He's unscored on in two appearance, and has thrown 13 consecutive shutout innings now. Surprising team!

"Francy" with an "r". http://www.bellazon.com/main/index.php?showuser=17367

a sure-lock, red-headed ID league award Wow, that comment was so obtuse that even I didn't understand what-in-the-hell it meant. And I wrote it. Somewhat recently, too. But that model-ID reminded me of sluethish Sherlock Holmes ("sure-lock", as in "lock of red hair"), who solved the mysterious case of the Red-Headed League.

Oh, that's excellent! The PLYMOUTH ads have been at the top of my list! Thank you!

Oh, that's great! Thanks very much!

Yes, agree. Especially as those are candids.

Wow! missparker! Almost all of those were new to me. What a treat! Thank you so much for taking the time to do all that. The editorial you mentioned as a favorite (new to me): I realized that Niki has one that is a little bit similar. Do you remember it? A classic American car (convertibles, too -- Krissy's is a Thunderbird, and Niki's a 1950s Corvette), at the beach. Clothes are not the same style, but the editorial is at Jalou Gallery: I think this will be the correct link to the whole issue (see page 94): http://patrimoine.jalougallery.com/loffici...ail-13-791.html I see a similarity too. (And from the thumbnail, I thought of Krissy straight away.) But I don't think it's Niki or Krissy. Also, I don't know what year that picture is from, but there are no ankle tattoos. (missparker, you still have one of my favorite model-ID answers. That picture I thought might be Renee, you knew was not because you knew the hair length was wrong for that year! That was really good. )

I haven't seen a really good article about Farrah and her career, but I thought this one was okay: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../DDN3178515.DTL

I'm not exactly a lady, but can I still say thanks?! Sheila, you have such a nice collection of early Claudia! So many of those were totally new to me, and that one in particular is a real treat! Classic Corvette with classic Claudia!

Oh, Silvy, that's fine! You do not need to apologize. And, also, it is not a "rule". You can do it however you want. It's your post, and you should have fun. But it really is very helpful to include a little information with the picture. Then anyone can find that picture very conveniently by using "search" (as missparker said!). It has happened to me frequently. Someone asks about a picture that I absolutely know was already posted, but since the post was not recent, I have to go back and read 25 pages (or more). And that takes a lot of time. But if the original poster has included a little description ("1988 GRAZIA") with the picture, it takes 1 minute.

AGREE.

You're welcome! (I had a quick look just now at hulu.com, which seems to have full episodes of the original series, but not the remake. I don't know if the remake is even available on DVD.)

Hello. I believe this is Karen Graham (it's certainly ESTEE LAUDER): http://books.google.com/books?id=ItgBAAAAM...cad=0_0#PPA6,M1 Not exactly HQ, but anyway. I believe, since the date of this is 1983, that the photograph would also be by Skrebneski. Do you know if that is correct?

Yes to your suggestion for #3. You convinced me.

Yes, I know!!! I saw the series when it originally aired, and that was my introduction to Joan. I tried for fourteen consecutive months to get those episodes through Blockbuster's online service. While I had my subscription, I rented more than 120 DVDs, and had Joan's Wiseguy episodes at the top of my queue most weeks. I could never get the episodes and they never advanced from "very long wait". I guess they are popular.

And, he does! Joan was a star in the series remake of the original The Love Boat. The series was called The Love Boat: The Next Wave. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0143050/ Robert Urich (who was "Dan Tanna" in the series Vega$) was the captain, and Joan was the "security chief".

Hi silvana, First of all, Welcome to Bellazon! And, second, wow!, that's a great picture and a really nice scan! Glad you joined!

can anybody help me with this ad? From which mag is it and when is it dated? Thanks Sheila http://www.herfamedgoodlooks.com/hfgl/Clau...2_123_535lo.htm

Currently, your thread title is much too clear, and your signature is much too tasteful. Let me know if you'd like some tips on that.

Is this Renee? It's from 1983, so I think the year is okay. New York Magazine 23 May 1983 p 17