Query about book of nudes, "Possessions" by J. Hedgecoe (David Hamilton?)

I'm trying to determine who is the photographer and why are the listings so peculiar. Any help greatly appreciated.

Cover title: Possessions by John Hedgecoe (Possessions Hedgecoe--that's just so the correct touchstone would appear); inside title DAVID HAMILTON'S PRIVATE COLLECTION.

Publisher: inside, William Morrow and company, Inc.--but the dustjacket says A&W Publishers Inc., New York. ISBN 0894790234

Library of Congress listing has one "Ian Parsons" as "Other author" but that name doesn't appear anywhere in the book I'm looking at.

The photographs are of nude teenage girls, some looking as young as twelve-ish. They are purportedly (as far as I make out) by David Hamilton: (Wikipedia oage), who is still being challenged for producing child pornography. (If anyone wants my opinion, I agree that's what is in this book.)

Beside the inside title, Hamilton is mentioned several times in the incredibly skeezy and uncredited captions, for example: No smile for the camera, Bambina. Hamilton's camera is for you, Bambina, a mirror. Avert your gaze if you will. Reflections of your immodest innocence, discovered and discovering.

But other than that Hamilton isn't credited at all in library listings.

John Hedgecoe, the man whose name is on the cover and picture on the dustjacket flap, was also a photographer, and not obscure either: his obituary mentions he took the picture of the Queen used on postage stamps.

I'm confused about the following:

-if the photographs are Hamilton's, why is Hedgecoe listed as primary author?

-are the photographs actually Hedgecoe's, "in the style" of David Hamilton?

-did Hedgecoe compose the captions? If not, who did?

-what's the general story behind this book, whose idea was it?

-and, um, can someone clarify what's the case regarding possession (haha) of this book in the UK, NOW? Also Canada.

In 2005, there was a "landmark ruling" of some kind, Hamilton's naked girl shots ruled 'indecent'

Anyone owning one of his coffee-table books now risks being "arrested for possession of indecent photographs", following a ruling at Guildford Crown Court.

but three later (from 2013) links on Hamilton's Wikipedia page talk about overturned decisions (some involving another photographer, Sally Mann).

How do I find out whether it's illegal in the UK or Canada to own this book? It's available on Amazon Canada dirt cheap! Does that mean there's no problem?

I'm not eager to keep it (it came in a box of art books I bought as a box, without going through it), but I also don't feel like putting it back into circulation. I could destroy it, but that would hurt my maniacal archivist streak. And if Library of Congress has a copy, why not I?

They are rubbish as art, by the way, worse than mediocre for a professional photographer.

This may be the same book, but the cover, title and author attribution are different:

http://www.librarything.com/work/5292277

David Hamilton's Private Collection by David Hamilton

No mention of John Hedgecoe in those listings.

There seems to be a puzzle here. My copy of 'Possessions' is unambiguously attributed to Hedgecoe, and there is no mention whatever of David Hamilton anywhere in the volume, although Iain Parsons is indicated as 'Editor'.

Hamilton is almost defined by his portrayal of young females, provocatively attired - the film Bilitis essentially defines his style and young female subject preference. However, my copy of 'Possessions' shows (uniformly) a quite different style, and although some of his subjects might be considered to be 'mammarially challenged', not a single one is clearly pre-pubescent.

Mine seems to be a completely different book from that described by LolaWalser in >1 LolaWalser:. It was published by Michael Beazley Publishers Limited, of London, in 1978, and to my eyes its images are both striking and erotic.

I conclude that we are talking here about two different books altogether, and I suspect some form of cataloguing error, perhaps associated witth somebody's 'Private Collection' listing. I would be very surprised to find that the book which is the subject of this thread has anything to do with Hedgecoe, except possibly that Hedgecoe's work may be a favourite of Hamilton.

>3 CliffordDorset:

I got rid of my book but before that I identified at least one photograph in it as unequivocally by David Hamilton (umm--I think there's a flower in it), as well as one of the models (Mona) he'd been married to at one point. I'd rather not go a-googling in those waters again, but you can probably find the same gallery and auction results I did.

The cover was the same as the one in >1 LolaWalser: and as you can see, John Hedgecoe's name figures prominently--there's also a short bio of his (with picture) on the back flap of the dustjacket.

However, my copy of 'Possessions' shows (uniformly) a quite different style, and although some of his subjects might be considered to be 'mammarially challenged', not a single one is clearly pre-pubescent.

I said nothing about "pre-pubescent"; I said some of them looked like children. There's no reason, IMO, to consider a girl who's menstruating at nine any less of a child than another who starts doing so at twelve or sixteen. As to style, obviously we can't know without comparing the two editions, but, as confusing as things are around this book, I'd say it looks as if we might be talking about the same one, too many points of similarity.

Still, you might be in a better position to find out whether Hedgecoe dabbled in "young girl erotica" or whatever one might call it... From what I found, he wrote a book (among others) about photographing children, but there's no mention anywhere of using them in erotic photography. And he did photograph the Queen! :)

Firstly, an apology for my imprecision in referring to what I meant more simply as 'under age'.

I investigated your clue about a flower being included in one of the images but, although that discriminant doesn't sound particularly exclusive for a book of photographs, I searched my volume reasonably thoroughly without finding a single flower!

Your other clues regarding the cover match well, as you say.

The facts are actually consistent with the possibility that somehow you had acquired an entirely different book, using Hamilton's work, which had erroneously been given the Hedgecoe cover at some point.

This theory would of course be negated if your copy had contained a short opening text, presumably by Iain Parsons, telling how Hedgecoe was given access to the British stately homes he used as mises-en-scene. Mine does have this. The cover doesn't quite convey the opulence that is evident in the collection. Do you recall whether your copy contained this text?

>5 CliffordDorset:

No, there was nothing like that, nor any mention of Iain Parsons in the book. Rereading my OP, I see I don't mention whether Hedgecoe's name appears anywhere inside the book and at this point I don't remember. However, the cover photograph is definitely in the book. Otherwise I might have suspected exchanged dustjackets; although--the dustjacket fit perfectly, if that means anything--is it possible that there exist two books by two different photographers of young girl nudes, of exactly similar dimensions so that the dustjackets are interchangeable?

Are the captions I quoted present in yours?

Do you KNOW that Hedgecoe produced erotic photography? I couldn't find anything about that.

Um--when I said flower--I should have specified NOT a botanical specimen--an embroidery on a see-through slip. Unmissable if you see it.

I'm sending you a PM with links to a few photographs I remember were in the book. If yours doesn't have them then we do seem to be dealing with two different books or at least selections.

John Hedgecoe's iconic postage stamp photo of the Queen:

There are no captions at all in my copy. Simply none. And the only words apart from the obligatory publishing data are those I mentioned, presumably by Parsons.

None of the pictures in your PM appear in my copy. In fact I don't think they would fit in well, as they don't relate well to the 'Possessions' theme of Hedgecoe. The use of the title word relates to the opulence of the houses shown, which in an important sense embraces the women they contain as subjects. The examples you've presented have no such scenery.

So I'm still puzzled. Perhaps the resolution lies in the difference in our respective publishers. Perhaps there was some kind of copyright dispute. Another possibility is that your copy is a bootleg. I'm given confidence in the provenance of mine by its listing by amazon.co.uk.

None of the pictures in your PM appear in my copy. In fact I don't think they would fit in well, as they don't relate well to the 'Possessions' theme of Hedgecoe. The use of the title word relates to the opulence of the houses shown, which in an important sense embraces the women they contain as subjects. The examples you've presented have no such scenery.

I'm not sure what you mean by scenery (grounds, architecture, furniture...?), but in the book I had it is plain that the "possessions" are women.

I just remembered I had copied a few other things from the dustjacket elsewhere, to wit:

On the back cover, full text (note that although the text is marked as a quotation it does not appear inside the book):

"...these women are possessions. They are the beautiful, expensive objects that furnish a rich man's life and amuse him during the long hours of his leisure. They are passing shadows, never meaning too much or staying too long in one man's life: when their beauty has ceased to please, they are replaced by other jewelled butterflies..."

On the front dustjacket flap (...):

John Hedgecoe's superb collection of photographs explores the rich man's world--a world where everything is shrouded in luxury, cushioned with money, where nothing is unpleasing to the eye and no desires are unfulfilled. His women are expensive objects, collected like paintings: they are sensuous, beautiful and desirable, there to please, amuse and arouse, to satisfy his desires or stimulate his jaded palate. They are his possessions, and if the role leaves the women bored and unsatisfied for a large part of their idle days, they make no attempt to shake off the golden chains which bind them to his world. Beauty is the only means of survival for them: they flaunt it, glory in it, use it. Their beauty is reserved for that select group of men who can afford it: this book captures their most intimate moments.

From the above it is clear that even if there's a different book with Hedgecoe's photographs, its theme is women as possessions and not, say, armchairs or horses.

William Morrow is a known publisher, I don't see them concocting bootlegs... could someone at the printers have mixed up a few Hedgecoe's and Hamilton's photos because of similar subject? Both books seem to feature a lot of naked women on "luxurious" bedspreads etc.

Oh, well. It's just a curiosity. The simplest thing for me is to decide I am wrong about the cover photograph appearing inside and that someone put the dj from Hedgecoe's book onto Hamilton's (David Hamilton's private collection). ;)

But do tell. Does the Queen not know her photographer published nudie girl books, or is she hipper than I thought?

By 'scenery' I meant all of the image that isn't the subject (the 'possession'). I was avoiding mise-en-scene!

As far as I can tell from what you write, your dustjacket is exactly the same as mine. However, the book itself in your case is quite different, containing the occasional Hedgecoe photograph - captioned - while mine is 100% Hedgecoe, without captions - or even page numbers.

I stand my by theory that yours is a quite different book, which for some reason has been supplied with the Hedgecoe dustjacket. If you had it still, I feel that the ISBN of your book (not the cover) would allow its true title/author etc. to be established. The bootleg possibility this becomes irrelevant.

It is tempting to remove a dustjacket while using its book, and my guess is that one of the owners of your example did this to (at least) two different books, and then when preparing the two for sale erroneously transposed their covers.

I suspect that's as close as we'll get!

On your second question, relating to how much interest our dear old monarch takes in the uses made of her image, in the philately world the stamps you show are known as 'Machins', after their designer Arnold Machin. His design has been in use since 1967. However, even though when younger I took an interest in UK stamps I was unaware until this correspondence that Hedgecoe took the snap, and I am unlikely to be the only ignorant in this. H took his picture in 1966, and it is quite possible that his interest in publishing nudes started later. Incidentally, Her Majesty has followed the royal tradition of stamp collecting, so perhaps she has followed Hedgecoe's career.