What interests me about this whole discussion is how much we're reading into it based on our own prejudices and assumptions.
The woman in the headscarf could just as easily be saying, "This jacket? I got it at Thudpucker's, on Eighth Avenue."
But as I've posted here before, often our reaction to photographs is based more on what we know, or think we know, or are told about them, than on what's actually in the photograph itself. This can be tricky. Remember how disappointed most of us were when we learned that Doisneau's famous photo of the couple kissing in Paris was made with hired models as part of a stock-shooting session? And many people prefer to just flat refuse to believe that Eugene Smith heavily retouched and composited many of the photos in his Pittsburgh essay, despite the excellent documentation now available.
I try to tell myself that it doesn't matter, that we simply need to accept that the photograph itself is something separate from what we prefer to assume or believe about it. And yet I was still a bit let-down when I saw the original print in the Hall collection, and learned that O. Winston Link had composited together his photo of the steam train passing the drive-in theater at night...