This came to my attention today, while perusing the Lombard group page on Facebook. I found an item headlined by this illustration (double-click to view it at full size):
Here's the copy that accompanied the entry:
Never seen in over 70 years! Painted in the 1930's this is Carol Lombard's illustration from her first movie with Clark Gable! Here she is daydreaming of him in her smoke dreams! Look carefully. This was used by studios and later by advertisers in magazines, this rare original was found by Danny V of Vanguard Gallery and released as a limited edition print for the first time. Only 125 pieces plus proofs. Interested? Please just ask Danny Vancas.
Okay, the face certainly looks Lombardic, so it could very well be her...and the image as a whole is beautiful. But there are questions here, and they go beyond the lack of an "e" in Lombard's first name.
* "...her first movie with Clark Gable." Any fan of either Clark or Carole should know they made only one film together, "No Man Of Her Own." And since it was issued at the end of 1932, during the pre-Code era, an image of Lombard in lingerie and stockings could well have been made (although, at the time, her hair was a lighter shade of blonde).
* "...here she is daydreaming of [Gable] in her smoke dreams! Look carefully." Is there supposed to be some subliminal, smoky image of Gable? If so, I don't see it; could someone point it out for me? (And, of course, this would have been her character daydreaming of the character Gable portrayed; the actors themselves weren't in a relationship until 1936.)
* "This was used by studios and later by advertisers in magazines." I've been viewing Lombard memorabilia for a number of years, and have never seen that image, whether it be to promote "No Man Of Her Own" (by Paramount, which made the film when Gable was loaned out by his home studio of MGM) or for anything else. And a Google image search of "Clark Gable Carole Lombard No Man Of Her Own" (I used that so it would not be confused with the unrelated 1950 Barbara Stanwyck film of the same name) failed to find it...and I searched for 30 pages! If it actually was used, I'd like to see concrete evidence.
So please understand, I am not criticizing the image for artistic reasons; it's rather stunning. But some of the comments in the copy raise red flags. Until they can be answered, please pardon my skepticism (or cynicism).