tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8251043500092242623.post2085400568528447055..comments2024-03-25T03:31:09.538-04:00Comments on markrothmansblog: Mr. New Orleans.mark rothmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06577361966051927102noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8251043500092242623.post-11153691084445442892016-08-09T11:39:11.032-04:002016-08-09T11:39:11.032-04:00Semi-off-topic:
My long-standing rule for obituar...Semi-off-topic:<br /><br />My long-standing rule for obituary-reading is that when you read obits that give two different ages for the decedent, the oldest one is likely the correct one.<br /><br />A while back, when Charles Lane passed on, the official obits had him at 101.<br />When I got into film buffery as a teenager, I started getting reference books - big, weighty ones, way more expensive than I could afford at the time.<br />In nearly all the ones that came out before the '80s, Charles Lane's year of birth was given as 1899.<br />When Charles Lane appeared on David Letterman's NBC show, Dave asked his age, and Lane<br />answered that he was somewhere in his 80s; with the '99 birthdate, he would have been past 90 at that point.<br />I nodded; even then, performers had a long tradition of revising their birthdates downward in order to prolong their shelf lives.<br />But that info stuck with me.<br />If the 1899 DOB for Charles Lane is the right one, that means when Lane passed on, he would have been 107.<br />I guess ageism never ends ...<br /><br />Off-topic, but I just thought I'd pass it along ...<br /><br />(I loved Pete Fountain too ...)Mike Dorannoreply@blogger.com