Any of you guys good at recognizing statues

[mtnman]

mountian man use your fancy interwebz tricks to compare the columbia lion statue with the original would ya? 

Lots different with that one too.

[MiloMorai]

mtnman, in your image of the OP's photo, it would appear that it is another soldier mounting the lion. Just above where your line changes from the straight and angles down to the right, there is what appears to be a boot.

What is seen is the lower leg and knee. This appears to be the same olor as the soldier below.

Chalenge, none of your posted images come even close to the OPs lion.

[mtnman]

I already told you that the setting has changed (the opera house was rebuilt/remodelled in the 1990s) and the statues from 1944 were different statues in order to protect the originals. Yes you can find "Lyric Opera" in many cities across Italy and Europe as a whole. Even Paris and some southern French cities have the same statue but by different artisans. You dont hire a sculptor from Italy to make a statue in France any more than you hire one from Palermo to make a statue in Celano.

I haven't mentioned the setting yet, have I?

And your story is simply a little plausible; not nearly proven.  I'm somewhat familiar with that history as well.

Can you offer any proof (at all) that the particular statue in the OP's photo played any part of the great protection swap?  Or are you just making an assumption?

One way to do that would be to find photos of the old opera house (lion or no lion) so that we can compare it to the building behind the original photo.  If it wasn't remodeled until the '90's, there are probably photos of the old building around?

You may very well be correct in your assumption.  I'm not arguing that.  I'd love to see you prove it.  But assumption and absence of proof does not make fact.  All you've shown so far is that there's currently a lion statue with a gal on it at Palermo.  You haven't even shown that there's a gal on the original photo.

It's hard to take you at your word.  I'm skeptical.

... find another statue that matches the photo from the OP.

Uh, hello...

That's what we're trying to do...

[mtnman]

What is seen is the lower leg and knee. This appears to be the same olor as the soldier below.

This is my guess as well.

But it's just a guess at this point.  I haven't been able to conclusively ID either the building or the statue yet.

[RTHolmes]

as far as I can tell challenge is suggesting that during the war, to protect the existing statues, the entire approach to the theatre was removed and replaced by a completely different design where the steps finish at the base of the statues rather than 20yards further back at the entrance, and the new statues (which are much smaller) were placed on raised plinths rather than the existing ledges which ran level all the way back to the entrance. then after the war the whole lot (a coupla hundred tonnes of masonry, sculpture and rubble infill) were removed and it was all returned to the original design.

sounds plausible

[100Coogn]

I'm curious as to why some folks think this is a woman on a lion.
Really can't see too much in the OP's photo to depict that.

Coogan

[RTHolmes]

because there is something on the lion's back, about where a rider would be positioned. there are statues of men standing next to lions with their right arm resting across the lion's back, but there doesnt appear to be enough space behind 1pluss's grandfather for the man's legs to be hidden completely.

a rider makes most sense because lions arent really pack animals. if it were a man riding, you would expect to see his right leg extending down the right side. which leaves 2 likely possibilities: someone (man or woman) sitting facing sideways to the left, or someone riding sidesaddle and traditionally its women who ride sidesaddle.

its by no means certain, but it looks like the most likely explanation.

[Chalenge]

Can you offer any proof (at all) that...

mtnman your over blown sense of self-importance is getting out of hand here. I merely came up with the most likely answer to the OPs question. If you have a more plausible solution post it. Im not here to prove anything.

Fact is... 1944 was a long time ago. You dont seem to be coming up with answers here but you are acting the total jerk with all this "Its hard to take you at your word" junk. Find another answer if your so full of information.

[megadud]

DRAMA!!! 

[zack1234]

Did they have "Photoshop" in the 1940's?

[mtnman]

mtnman your over blown sense of self-importance is getting out of hand here. I merely came up with the most likely answer to the OPs question. If you have a more plausible solution post it. Im not here to prove anything.

Don't mistake the fact that I've pointed out the miss-identification of the statue (and supported that fact with visual evidence) with the idea that I feel more important than you or anyone else here.

What you came up with is obviously not "the most likely answer to the OPs question".  It appears to be a guess based on circumstantial, incomplete and unsupported information.

If you can't ID the statue and its location, there's no shame in that.  Nobody else can either at this point.

Fact is... 1944 was a long time ago.

I've been working on it.  But you're correct, it was a long time ago.

For what it's worth, I've been researching it from the direction you alluded to.  I've been looking into the history of the theater and whether the explanation you give could possibly be correct.  I haven't found anything to support it yet, but I'm not finished either.  If nothing else, I'd like to see if I can ID the building in the photo as part of the original theater.

You dont seem to be coming up with answers here but you are acting the total jerk with all this "Its hard to take you at your word" junk. Find another answer if your so full of information.

Don't be so sensitive, and don't take it as a personal attack on you or your credibility.  I could have probably left off the "hard to take you at your word" part, but then again, that's all I had to go on, and it's hard to just go on that when the statues obviously aren't the same.  Persisting with the claim that the ID was correct was annoying (I thought it was jerk-like, myself).  I guess I'm kind of sorry about that wording, but not totally?

And pointing out the differences between the statues is something anyone who looks at them can do.  I don't claim to be "full of information" when it comes to that.  I may have more training in it than some, but it's just visual evidence that anyone can see if they take more than a passing glance.

Getting a positive ID may take a long time; and it's obviously not an easy task or we'd have it solved by now.  It could take years, or even be impossible at this point.  The statue may not even exist anymore.  It may have been moved more than once, for more than one reason.  Who knows? 

[mtnman]

because there is something on the lion's back, about where a rider would be positioned. there are statues of men standing next to lions with their right arm resting across the lion's back, but there doesnt appear to be enough space behind 1pluss's grandfather for the man's legs to be hidden completely.

a rider makes most sense because lions arent really pack animals. if it were a man riding, you would expect to see his right leg extending down the right side. which leaves 2 likely possibilities: someone (man or woman) sitting facing sideways to the left, or someone riding sidesaddle and traditionally its women who ride sidesaddle.

its by no means certain, but it looks like the most likely explanation.

It's a good possibility.  And if the object is part of the statue, it's most likely a rider.

I agree that it's highly unlikely that the object is a person standing with their arm resting on the lions back, for the reasons you've stated.

But, I think another (and possibly more likely) explanation is that the object on the lion isn't part of the statue at all.  I think it's possible it was just a duffel (or other soft object) that this (or another) soldier was carrying and happened to have plunked over the lions back for a few minutes.  Maybe he then turned around and someone took his photo?  The photo has a pretty casual "snap-shot" type feel, so maybe they didn't bother (or care enough?) to make sure the background was cleaned up?

Or maybe it is a rider?  But maybe still not part of the statue?  Could it just be another soldier who was screwing around and climbed up on the lions back from the other side?  And what we see is his right knee in front, with his right ankle still on the left side of the lions spine?  And maybe that's why that part of the picture has been cut off?  The fold and texture of the object look very similar to the texture of the soldier's shirt in the armpit area to me (but I'm speculating), and less like the texturing done to the lions mane and face. 

The texturing/folds on that object seem too "sharp" to me, to be part of the lion.  Then again, the texturing around the lions lower rear legs is also very sharp/crisp...  Maybe that's due to the focusing of the camera?  Or maybe the leg was been protected from weathering somehow?  It doesn't seem as weathered as the lion's face.

Who knows?

[Nathan60]

mtnman your over blown sense of self-importance is getting out of hand here. I merely came up with the most likely answer to the OPs question. If you have a more plausible solution post it. Im not here to prove anything.
Fact is... 1944 was a long time ago. You dont seem to be coming up with answers here but you are acting the total jerk with all this "Its hard to take you at your word" junk. Find another answer if your so full of information.

Actually I think MtNman has supported his argument pretty well and not in a egomaniacal way at all. If Krusty was here hed straighten all of this out. 

[ToeTag]

His boots look shiny and his soles unworn...any possibility that this was taken before he shipped out? say in America or England?

[1pLUs44]

His boots look shiny and his soles unworn...any possibility that this was taken before he shipped out? say in America or England?

There's always a possibility, I still have yet to find anything. Somewhere earlier in this thread (I think it was Masherbrum who caught my attention to this) there was the mention of the type of statue that this is. Ironically, when I searched it, I found exact models (tail position, everything) to the actual statue itself. But I couldn't find the statue itself. 

Also, I thought I'd share some more images that I think are pretty cool as well.





To anybody else who is curious, we also have about 2 dozen war letters on the computer that we've been scanning (out of a huge stack of about 200)