steve with an s

Somewhat annoying that she just deleted the account. The only reason I had signed up for Twitter was because she is a favorite and I wanted to add my support. She could at least have given the "I realized I'm too busy with work/family to continue with Twitter. Thanks and good luck everyone" so-long. One thing about her "tweets", though, is that I didn't think that Twitter was a good venue for what she had to say (or I don't understand Twitter). Her "tweets" were friendly, conversational things. "What television shows do you like to watch?" And things like that. They weren't "What are you doing right now?", and she was asking conversational things but never updating with replies. I actually liked the things she posted more, but anyway. I bet it's hard to be a celebrity, and offer that kind of direct, personal access to your (occasionally obsessed) fans, though.

Thanks, Punk. I think that's her mother on the right, isn't it (in the third pic)?

Thanks very much in advance. All from New York Magazine. Issues and page numbers in flienames! __________1993:__________ 01 02 - Marie-Sophie Wilson-Carr 03 - Christy Turlington? 04 - basia milewicz 0506 070809 1011 12 - Megan Douglas 1314 15 - Helena Barquilla 16 - Meghan Douglas 17 - Helena Christensen __________1989:__________ 18 - Helena Christensen 1920 2122 23 - yasmeen ghauri 24 - Christina Piaget 25 26 - yasmeen ghauri 27 -Marie Sophie Wilson Carr 2829 30 - Anna Getenah

^ Thanks for updating your post.

I am trying to ID the model in this ad, and I wondered if it was Naomi: VOGUE IS New York Magazine 11 Sep 1989 p 29 ph Demarchelier

You mean #15? the Calvin Klein Obsession ad, right? That is Josie Borain. http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features...w200804?slide=4 That page also ID's the photographer: Bruce Weber! I thought so too, except ... this ... nagging ... thought ... that this model seemed a little too skinny (in every dimension) to be Naomi. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll fish the ad in Naomi's thread, and see what bites. I keep thinking I know the model in #22. I look at the ad and think, wait, wait, that is ... that is ... It is ... it is ... it is on the tip of my tongue. And her name is ... her name is ... BooBoo HaHa.

Thanks very much! It certainly does (especially the first pic). Here is the ad we were talking about: Tuscany per Donna New York Magazine 19 Apr 1993 p 55 I think it's a good ID.

Thank you again for your help. I really appreciate it. Based on just looks, I thought it looked like a good ID. But I don't think Dorota is feasible. That DIOR POISON ad is from 1986. I double-checked, and here is the page from NYM: http://books.google.com/books?id=QOcCAAAAM...;q=&f=false The ad is from 1986. So I think the dates are wrong for it to be Dorota. She would have to be born no later than about 1970, and would be about 40 years old now. The two birth dates I have seen for her are 1979 and 1985, which make more sense if she did runway work as late as 2005. bwgreyscale has this exact ad ID'd as Dorota, but I think the dates just don't match. What do you think? Did I convince you it is not her?

Oh, that's great. Thank you both. I don't know Stephanie at all. Thanks for the ID. Here is her page at Marlowe's site, if anyone is interested: http://www.modelscomposites.com/getlist.ph...ov&year=all I also found this post from AngelLover on tFS, which suggest the other GUCCI ad is Stephanie too. http://forums.thefashionspot.com/showpost....mp;postcount=89 The ads are from March and then April 1993, so they are very close date-wise, and I think it's a solid ID. What a coincidence! I had just been looking at Cindy for another possible picture ID. This is another tough one for me. There isn't a lot I can find on her, even just text-wise to identify her with an ad. From Marlowe's site, this is grab of Cindy, next to a different copy of the ad (from eBay): What do you think? According to Cindy's comp card, eye color and hair color and dates are all okay for her as an ID for this ad. Still, I'm leaning towards a "No". What do you think? Good suggestion, and thank you. I didn't know those models at all. Thank you very much for the IDs. Oh, yes, of course. Korravai is going to me.

Wow, those are huge! Those must be scans from studio publicity shots. Those are huge! Here are two more screencaps from the film, plus a trivia question: ******************************************************* Carole Bouquet trivia question: In the 1981 film For Your Eyes Only, how long was Carole's hair? Answer: ******************************************************* Carole Bouquet for Guy Laroche:

How about this one: New York Magazine Apr 18, 1988 p 5 BARNEYS NEW YORK Linda?

I think it's a function of youth, and sincere interests or fascinations. I was quite the little hobbyist-boardgamer and model-builder (plastic tanks, not waifs) when I was a teen. I can still remember all sorts of (absurd, useless) rules for those boardgames and could still tell you every model car, tank and plane kit I ever put together, and which ones I painted which color-schemes. But high school history, chemistry ... that's all a loss. And I keep forgetting to buy sour cream when I get to the grocery store.

Many thanks in advance. Seriously, thank you for your help (and indulgence). Issues, dates, page numbers in filenames! 1.2.3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Yeah, I don't see it as Linda either. On three different websites that had the edit (or parts), each site had it as Mme. Evangelista. Sarah O'Hare?

I'm having trouble with this ID. It's been suggested it might be Linda. It's from the 1996 editorial in US Vogue, A Feast for the Eyes, shot by Meisel. What do you think?

Oh, welcome back, Phil!

Did you mean ... Kristen Bronson?

Thank you again. Using "Meisel" (thank you), I tracked this down: US Vogue December 1996 A Feast for the Eyes It seems it's Lacroix. http://guineverevanseenus.blogspot.com/200...t-for-eyes.html I got 2 out of 9 with 2 wrong. You get 8 out of 9. But, get this: 3 different sites ID the last model as Linda Evangelista! I wonder if it's a case of one internet site giving the ID and everyone else following. ? Not seeing that as Linda ...

Thanks very much in advance. This one is sort of badly organized. Sorry about that. Nicole Miller: ************************************************** Comme des Garçons: 1, 2, 3 ************************************************** probably Ralph Lauren: 1, 2 ************************************************** 1980s Lacroix (8 models but #4, 5, 6 probably hopeless): ************************************************** designer unknown: 1, 2 ************************************************** designer unknown: (9 models) 1. Elsa ?, 2. Amber ?, 3. Naomi, 4. Claudia, and ?

Oh that's great! Thank you. I don't know Donna at all. Here is her page on Marlowe's site, if anyone is interested: http://www.modelscomposites.com/getlist.ph...te&year=all Her GLAMOUR cover I think is really nice. I thought so too!

Hey, I added a poll! Thrilling! My first ever poll on BZ. (I'm voting "YES"!)

I wondered if this ad might be Bridget: Ellen Tracy in New York Magazine Mar 9 1992 p 21

You know my first impulse was Patricia van Ryckeghem, but then I decided "No". ? Oh, you're right! She would be 21 (about) in that picture. Here's a cover of her, same year (courtesy eBay): Can't find any confirmation about Bridget ever doing Ellen Tracy. I'll fish the Ellen Tracy ad in Bridget's thread, and see what bites.

For Oldham? The one in the middle?

Okay, thank you. The shape of the face seems quite similar to me, especially around the chin. There's another mark against it being Kim, though this is a different kind of argument. This ad seems too small-time to me, for it to be her. She has the Ralph Lauren campaign (and an affair with Lauren), though I don't know exactly where the dates are or what the overlap is. This fur ad is Dec '87. She's doing the Safari ads at least by '88, I believe. So this ad just seems a little small-time for her/for this business to pay for a top model like her. Though I don't know when this fur ad was first shot. And of course you just never know.