Can you date the fedoras and suits in this photo?

[Espee]

This photo was on the pay site Trainorders, after being given to the the Union Pacific Railroad's archive. A western movie or TV show was being made [EDIT: it would seem] and some railroad officials joined the actors.
Some claim the lady in the dress is Jane Russell, and the movie would be "Montana Belle" from 1952.
Others say she's Dorothy Comingore, so therefore the movie could be "Pioneers of the Frontier" from 1940.
I think the R.R. officials look more like 1950-era... and the girl in the shorts (who may be just a model, not even part of the actual story) fits that time period better too.
But I'm not necessarily convinced that's Jane Russell. Too bad no contemporary autos (or even box cars or engines) show up in the background.

 

[The Good]

I can see this one being the 1950s. I'm not exactly sure why, but if I'd guess, it's because the one man that isn't wearing a hat has a tie that strikes me as mid-1950s. The rest of the ties don't look all that wide either. The hat styles of the people standing closest to the photographer seem as if they'd come out of the early or mid '50s as well. I could be wrong...

 

[Tomasso]

The men in the foreground are wearing 40's garb......but that's not to say that the photo was not taken in the 50's.

And that doesn't look like Jane Russell.

 

[scotrace]

50's. Probably later in the decade.

 

[Fletch]

I'd buy the 1952 date because of the 2 gents on the left with the (relatively) skinny long ties and matching lapels.

Jane Russell, tho, I dunno. Here's her pubstill for Montana Belle.

I am not getting that come-and-get-it vibe from the gal in the middle of the pic. Hell, I'm not even getting a Jane Russell vibe.

 

[DougC]

Does that bicycle on the right side of the picture help anyone?

 

[Fletch]

Dorothy Comingore, mentioned upthread, isn't likely either. She was brought before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1951, refused to answer questions, and never worked again.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I'm going to say 50's going by the 'western' clothes the actors are wearing and the shorts the girl is wearing, plus her hairstyle. Though the DB suit looks very 40's, the rest look early to mid 50's to me.

 

[Espee]

"Dorothy Comingore, mentioned upthread, isn't likely either. She was brought before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1951, refused to answer questions, and never worked again."
===== But the Comingore theory is based on a 1940 film.
Jane Russell had a nice girl side too-- she was in a gospel singing group. But for "Montana Belle" I think she was doing her "Outlaw" and "Paleface" sort of character.
I thought of the TV series "Death Valley Days" which was an anthology of stories set in the Old West-- and if they ever had a cross-sponsorship with Nair hair remover, the girl in shorts would have been perfect.

 

[danofarlington]

I say 1948. I can't say why, it's just my guess.

 

[Fletch]

If so, the guy 2d from L is a time traveler from 1952. lol

 

[RBH]

1953

 

[Jabos]

That guy second from left front row looks so familiar. Isn't he an actor? I thought he looked like actor Edward Winter, but Winter is too young for that photo. I say '55.

 

[Widebrim]

Does that bicycle on the right side of the picture help anyone?

I was looking at that, too, as well as two hatless men way in the background on the right. The width and (two) designs of the ties, and the medium-sized lapels, speak at least early '50s to me, as do the western outfits. The hats appear to be post-WWII, but only one (third man from the right) looks like it might be from the Mr. T period. [huh]

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Look at the picture enlarged - it's definitely NOT Jane Russell. She's who I initially thought it was. The guy on the engine on the far right - like a secondary male lead in a few pictures, maybe in a few B movie roles. Fairly quiet and subdued - I can picture him, but his name or movie names are escaping me at the moment. Never made it big. I'm guessing, like others, maybe a mid-50s TV series. Third guy from the left, between the Edgar Winter lookalike and Jane Russell (sort of) lookalike - plaid shirt and no tie. Seems to fit the mid-50s era, and definitely not 40s.

 

[Espee]

Can ya really pin things down based on the male actors' "period" western costumes?
I realize the perspective on that period changes-- for instance, they got to be rather tall men in the Gary Cooper/ John Wayne period.

 

[scottyrocks]

I say its the '50s just by the film stock, and whatever else makes the quality of a photo look the way it does.

 

[Sam Craig]

It looks like a centennial event ... out West somewhere .... likely in the 50s.
That is NOT Jane Russell and the guy on top of the train and to the right is NOT Guy Madison of Wild Bill Hickok TV show fame, though he is clearly dressed like it and is even wearing his pistol backwards, as Madison did.
They guy in the sports shirt and suit behind "Jane" and to her right, is NOT Robert Montgomery, though he looks it.
Also, the guy in the double brested suit is NOT Lyndon Johnson.
Nor is the fellow in the coveralls Charles Lane, who played the Petticoat Junction and Beverly Hillbillies villain, Homer Bedloe!
Oh, yes, that is NOT Janet Leigh in the shorts, either.
My, what a lot of look alikes!

Sam

 

[Espee]

As a couple others have suggested, it might not be from any production at all-- just stock western characters who may have done a series of poses with the locomotive. A deputy, a dandy, a gunslinger, an engineer, the new schoolmarm, and the not-trying-to-be-true-to-period cheesecake starlet. And for this one, the railroad officials wanted to get in on it too.

 

[John in Covina]

I'd say early 50's because of the hat less guy's suit, tie, lapels. While the other suits are more 40's not everyone discarded their old suits just because of a fashion change.

I think of it as similar to cars. In a picture of public streets with cars in it, the car of the latest model year tells you it can't be earlier than that year. It can be later since there is no rule that the actual year's model must be included. Here though we can only give some general terms as say what the evidence points towards.