You don't see too many grinning type photos from this era. I wonder if the subject had better than average chompers and was happy to show them off.

I don't think those bold brows would have looked out of place on Myrna Loy or a young Joan Crawford. And to my eyes, her smile looks refreshingly natural and unrestrained for the era. This is a dame I think I'd have liked to pal around with.

Her brows may be a little thicker than the "ideal," but they are the correct shape. If she had brows anything like mine, I can see how she might want to leave them a bit fuller -- it'd be a full-time job getting them plucked down to a tiny little line! It was probably a good move on her part -- she has a rather high forehead and a long nose, and the brows help balance things out a bit. A good choice for both reasons, I think.

What I'm most amazed about is how she can smile like that without an identity. Her fortitude is almost incomprehensible. Mrs. W.C. Bullock indeed!

The strap on that dress defies gravity. Why hasn't it slipped down to her elbow by now? Also, it looks like it was ripped from another dress and quickly stitched onto this one.

More than you wanted to know about Mrs. B's hairdo:

http://www.1920-30.com/fashion/hairstyles/marcel-wave.html

Lady Celia, I think your husband is up on the Promenade Deck palling around with Lady Julia... You might want to check...

Everything about this picture is uncomfortable and unbalanced. The forced smile, the hairdo, the brows, the curve of her back, the interlacing of the fingers, the hang of the dress.

I can't tell if she was just naturally stiff or the photographer pushed her into it. In either case, the picture makes me itch.

Notice how she is highlighting her ring. She should take that ring and go out and buy a pair of lips.

CHOPPERS!

Finally, a smiling socialite.

Satin evening gown, diamante straps--very chic. But the eyebrows, while nicely shaped, are much heavier than you'd expect to see in a fashionable woman of 1933. They should be much, much thinner.