USMC Winchester A5 Springfield Marine Mount Rifle in France 1917

[cplnorton]

First lets post the whole page so people can actually read it. I don't think anyone looking at this would argue that these pics are taken at Random. Or that a pic of the states was just thrown in this group and labeled as taken in France.

Also if I'm following you, you are saying the number 1537 should have been taken earlier than 4337, but then you say I am wrong when I say the pics seem like they are in order? If you are saying that 1537 should have been taken earlier, wouldn't that mean they are in order?

The other thing I don't think you have noticed is that EVERY single one of these has a second number in this group. See how they all have a number in say the 4000 range in this page, but then have a second number in say the 1500 range? They are all have that.

Each picture has BOTH numbers from this group.

I'm not following your logic on why this pic wasn't taken in France. Do you have anything that states that pic was taken in the US as you claim? Or any proof the Actual title is wrong?

The pic is broken up in 3 so it's bigger font.

[cplnorton]

Many, if not most, of the photos have accompanying data that states where the photo was taken, when it was taken, and who is in the photo. In the case of 1537, there is no such accompanying data, and any speculation as to when and where it was taken is just that, pure speculation.

I'm not following. It says it was in France.

[cplnorton]

If I'm following your argument, you are stating that the 1537 number must mean it's earlier. Or taken elsewhere and just put in this book.

EVERY single one of these has that second number, and they are all in order. And many even say the location they were taken in France and the date.

So I'm not following how that 1537 number would mean it was taken in the states and also taken earlier. All of them in this group have that number

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

As I understand it, each photo, if taken in France, will have 2 numbers - an AEF Number, which was applied to the negative in France, usually in the lower left hand corner, and an ID Number, which is assigned by the SG once received in the states. This photo has 3 ID Numbers and 2 AEF numbers. They are all the exact same photo. Since one appears without an AEF Number, it could be a photo taken here in the states, and for whatever reason, assigned an AEF number at a later date, or in this case, two differing AEF Numbers. Why assign two AEF Numbers to the same photo? However, for there to be 2 different AEF Numbers, there had to be a negative that had no AEF Number. Certainly appears to be a big flag that this could have been a stateside photo.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

As for the photos in the catalogue being in chronological order:

3) Caption lists by A.E.F. number- 7 legal size boxes containing volumes which are arranged by AEF "Key" numbers assigned to each volume (A9, G10, S4 etc.), thereunder numerically by AEF photo number (236 A9, 237 A9 etc.). Most of the volumes also list the Signal Corps number assigned to the AEF print. The Signal Corps numbers do not run consecutively from beginning to end of volume, but rather are grouped in the volume by the photographer/photographers which took a particular segment of photographs. Each segment is also in chronological order. Within these segments, the Signal Corps numbers run consecutively.

[cplnorton]

As for the photos in the catalogue being in chronological order:

3) Caption lists by A.E.F. number- 7 legal size boxes containing volumes which are arranged by AEF "Key" numbers assigned to each volume (A9, G10, S4 etc.), thereunder numerically by AEF photo number (236 A9, 237 A9 etc.). Most of the volumes also list the Signal Corps number assigned to the AEF print. The Signal Corps numbers do not run consecutively from beginning to end of volume, but rather are grouped in the volume by the photographer/photographers which took a particular segment of photographs. Each segment is also in chronological order. Within these segments, the Signal Corps numbers run consecutively.

Jim read the next line. As I said this is a group of pictures. In the group they seem to run consecutively. This is a blocks of Marine photos as anyone can see my actually looking at the page. There are blocks of Marine photos, and blocks of Army, and other random blocks.

"But rather are grouped in the volume by the photographer/photographers which took a particular segment of photographs. Each segment is also in chronological order. Within these segments, the Signal Corps numbers run consecutively."

[cplnorton]

Jim all you are doing is speculating.

There is NOTHING in that photo that can in ANYWAY disqualify it as taken in France. If there is anything in that picture that proves it wasn't take in France please point it out.

There are only two valid arguments I see to this photo, to something I have said in this post. Either the photo could be a couple weeks later than my original date of around December 1917. Or someone could make the very real argument that it was in fact earlier by possibly a few months in 1917.

Actually if someone made the argument that it was earlier in 1917, I could concede that is a valid argument. Because it could have been. As I'm basing the date around the block.

But arguing this picture was not taken in France, when there is nothing in this photo that can disqualify it as taken in France and there is nothing document wise that provides any evidence to the contrary is all speculation.

If you have any evidence please provide it.

[cplnorton]

As I understand it, each photo, if taken in France, will have 2 numbers - an AEF Number, which was applied to the negative in France, usually in the lower left hand corner, and an ID Number, which is assigned by the SG once received in the states. This photo has 3 ID Numbers and 2 AEF numbers. They are all the exact same photo. Since one appears without an AEF Number, it could be a photo taken here in the states, and for whatever reason, assigned an AEF number at a later date, or in this case, two differing AEF Numbers. Why assign two AEF Numbers to the same photo? However, for there to be 2 different AEF Numbers, there had to be a negative that had no AEF Number. Certainly appears to be a big flag that this could have been a stateside photo.

4337 and 4338 are two different pictures. Look at them closely. Even though it's of the same guy. It's indeed two different photos. I would imagine taken back to back while he was posing for the camera.

Again if you have anything in the photo that can disqualify this as actually taken in France, or if you have any actual documents that detail this as being taken in the states. Please provide it. Otherwise all you are doing is speculating.

[cplnorton]

Why assign two AEF Numbers to the same photo? However, for there to be 2 different AEF Numbers, there had to be a negative that had no AEF Number. Certainly appears to be a big flag that this could have been a stateside photo.

I have studied these pictures for more hours than I ever care to admit. It's NOT in anyway the same photo. 4337 and 4338 are indeed different pics.

Look at the rope I put arrows next to. There are also other differences in the pics as well. That is why two different numbers. There isn't a red flag here. It's just two different pics. You just didn't look at them close enough.

4337 on top, 4338 on bottom.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

We are down to two photos, one with no AEF number and one with an AEF number. The problem didn't go away. The photo with no AEF number had to precede the one without an AEF number.

If you have anything in the photo that can qualify this as actually taken in France, or if you have any actual documents that detail this as being taken in France, please provide it. Otherwise, all you are doing is speculating.



Afterthought:
Can you believe two adults could prolong such a silly argument this long? Someone throw a joke in here. We all need some relief.

[cplnorton]

If you have anything in the photo that can qualify this as actually taken in France, or if you have any actual documents that detail this as being taken in France, please provide it. Otherwise, all you are doing is speculating.

1) Marines wore those exact Marine Unfiorms with Campaign Covers and leggings early on in France. Marines also lived in those exact tents early on in France. And I can document those rifles in France. So there is nothing in that photo that says that it couldn't have been taken in France.

2) Literally EVERY document says it was taken in France.


You keep on saying it's not taken in France, but I can't follow any of your explanations on why you think that.

[cplnorton]

We are down to two photos, one with no AEF number and one with an AEF number. The problem didn't go away. The photo with no AEF number had to precede the one without an AEF number.

I honestly don't know what you are talking about here. Both photos have TWO numbers. So what do you even mean?

[Mike D]

Let's concentrate on identifying the grass. Is it American grass or French grass? Personally, I prefer Mexican grass, but that likely won't help solve this debate, or would it???

Mike

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Let's concentrate on identifying the grass. Is it American grass or French grass? Personally, I prefer Mexican grass, but that likely won't help solve this debate, or would it???

Mike

Please don't plant that seed. Lol

[cplnorton]

I'm honestly lost guys.

1) There is nothing in that pic that disqualifies it as being taken in France.

2) Jim doesn't have ANY documents that state this photograph was taken in the states. His only evidence he has provided says "Marines in France."


So on what grounds do you even state this picture was not taken in France? Anyone else lost in this all? I can't even follow half of his arguments as they don't make sense.