Any Idea of Why This Went So Cheaply?

[oldjudge]

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/showitem.pl?itemid=16455

http://www.hickoksports.com/images/radbourn_charles.jpg

[slidekellyslide]

Is $1500 + juice for a cabinet of a guy who may or may not be Radbourn cheap? :D

[barrysloate]

I wasn't convinced it was Hoss Radbourne. Maybe Mark F. can comment further.

[Leon]

It might have been him, I am not a photo expert by any stretch, but it looks like another guy in a suit to me :). Even if it is him!!

[bmarlowe1]

I doubt that it's him. I would need a higher res scan of the photo in question to prove it. If anyone has one - please post. Maybe the folks at Huggins and Scott will help us out. :D

[oldjudge]

Am I imagining it or are the noses entirely different?

[Matt]

The other question is why did SGC authenticate it?

Mark - as you know, I recently submitted a team RPPC to SGC for slabbing with a notation of who was in it. Even knowing the player played for the team in the photo in the year of the photo and looked like the player in the photo and you confirmed the ID, they were very reluctant to slab it as such, until I provided them with further evidence. Unless I'm missing something, this seems to simply be a cabinet of a guy, with no reason to assume he's a baseball player; if they had the policies in place they were using for my submission when this one was submitted, I don't see any way this gets slabbed like that.

[bmarlowe1]

OK - I figured out how to see the H&G photo in Hi-res.

The left ears are similar (more so than I expected) - but they are different - it's not that hard to see. There are other differences (like the nose as pointed out above). The cabinet is not Radbourne.

And yes - why did SGC authenticate this?

[bmarlowe1]

THis reminds me of the phony Barnes:

[oldjudge]

Thanks Mark

[barrysloate]

Matt- I'm with you 100% on this one. Given how careful SGC usually is, often to the extreme, it seems to me they authenticated this with insufficient documentation. And like you said, you were able to offer far more proof and had trouble getting yours slabbed. Wish there was more consistency.

[Jacklitsch]

Matt- I'm with you 100% on this one. Given how careful SGC usually is, often to the extreme, it seems to me they authenticated this with insufficient documentation. And like you said, you were able to offer far more proof and had trouble getting yours slabbed. Wish there was more consistency.

Don't get me started..... :mad:

[barrysloate]

I know Steve, I know...;)

[E93]

Lucky it wasn't PSA that did this.

[Matt]

Upon further review, I believe I've identified the person depicted in the cabinet.

http://www.hotflick.net/flicks/2006_Night_at_the_Museum/006NTM_Robin_Williams_024.jpg

[oldjudge]

Sale cancelled by H&S

[barrysloate]

As well it should be.

[Matt]

Sale cancelled by H&S

That's an easy decision with the sale price falling well short of the consignor's expectations.

[slidekellyslide]

I'd be interested in knowing the origins of this photo. Does SGC keep the records for submissions. I'd also be interested in knowing if the consignor is also the submitter.

If I were a betting man I'd also bet that this was submitted before the All Nations postcard that was purported to be JL Wilkinson...that's when SGC got stricter on photo identification.

[Jacklitsch]

Is this Wilkinson?

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5/jacklitsch1/SGC%20Postcards/WilkinsonSGC.jpg

[slidekellyslide]

I believe it is Wilkinson, but SGC doesn't label it as such. They did label the All Nations card as Wilkinson though and that was a mistake.

[uffda51]

So we're ruling out the possibility that Hoss had a nose job, and that accounts for the apparent nasal difference?;)

[bmarlowe1]

I'd be interested in knowing the origins of this photo. Does SGC keep the records for submissions. I'd also be interested in knowing if the consignor is also the submitter.

If I were a betting man I'd also bet that this was submitted before the All Nations postcard that was purported to be JL Wilkinson...that's when SGC got stricter on photo identification.

Has this photo been on the market before?

[Bicem]

I blame PSA.

[Jim VB]

I blame PSA.

Jeff, we're in Texas. For the remainder of 2009, we're supposed to blame everything on Vinnie Padilla!

[sportscardtheory]

OK - I figured out how to see the H&G photo in Hi-res.

The left ears are similar (more so than I expected) - but they are different - it's not that hard to see. There are other differences (like the nose as pointed out above). The cabinet is not Radbourne.

And yes - why did SGC authenticate this?

That's the same person.

[bmarlowe1]

Sportscardtheory -

Now that SGC is going to "unauthenticate" the identification - what's your theory?

[sportscardtheory]

Sportscardtheory -

Now that SGC is going to "unauthenticate" the identification - what's your theory?

The first photo looks like a younger version of the guy on the right. Same ears, same nose, same hairline. Just a little older with less hair in the one on the right. The nose simply looks a little different due to angle the photo was taken. Look in his ears to see it's almost certainly the same guy. The inner ear ridges are the same.

[sportscardtheory]

How many years apart could those photos have been taken? It really looks like the same guy, just more "aged" in the right photo.

[bmarlowe1]

>>>Same ears, same nose, same hairline.

No - different ears, different nose, different hairline. If you think otherwise - give Huggins & Scott a call - With the sale wisely cancelled I'll bet you can get a real deal on that photo. It might make sense because surely you'll find someone like yourself to buy it for more than you paid.

The ear thing on this one is simple - the photos are clear enough to see that the outer shape of the left ears are not the same - end of story. The inside of the ears are also very different. If you think they are the same then shape matching is not your strong point.

Sorry I am being so unpleasant on this but you have no idea what you're talking about and you really do represent why so many fraudulently identified photos have been sold over the years.

Shooting from the hip doesn't cut it. There are both scientific articles and articles (and one book that I know of) for the general public on this subject. Either educate yourself or continue to sound foolish. :)

[bmarlowe1]

BTW - the Bodie cabinet is dated 1888. Radbourne was wearing a Boston Jersey in the comparison photo. He was with Boston (NL and PL) 1886-1890. Your explanation for the hairline difference is.....

[sportscardtheory]

>>>Same ears, same nose, same hairline.

No - different ears, different nose, different hairline. If you think otherwise - give Huggins & Scott a call - With the sale wisely cancelled I'll bet you can get a real deal on that photo. It might make sense because surely you'll find someone like yourself to buy it for more than you paid.

The ear thing on this one is simple - the photos are clear enough to see that the outer shape of the left ears are not the same - end of story. The inside of the ears are also very different. If you think they are the same then shape matching is not your strong point.

Sorry I am being so unpleasant on this but you have no idea what you're talking about and you really do represent why so many fraudulently identified photos have been sold over the years.

Shooting from the hip doesn't cut it. There are both scientific articles and articles (and one book that I know of) for the general public on this subject. Either educate yourself or continue to sound foolish. :)

Wow. You are a freaking LOSER. I just posted my opinion, I never claimed to be an expert. You really need to check yourself, there was no need to act like that.

[doug.goodman]

We all have a beer and watch the football game.

And I don't drink beer, or watch football.

Doug

[bmarlowe1]

>>>"I just posted my opinion, I never claimed to be an expert."

I think your statements were a bit stronger than that:

>>>"That's the same person.....The nose simply looks a little different due to angle the photo was taken. Look in his ears to see it's almost certainly the same guy. The inner ear ridges are the same......the same guy, just more "aged" in the right photo"

You didn't just say you think he "looks like" Radbourne - you were persistent in making very specific "expert-like" arguments that were ludicrous - your opinion should be very strongly challenged. What really "set me off" on you is that your line of reasoning and style of language very much mimics what I have seen in fraudulent descriptions for photos selling for high prices (by both sellers and buyers trying to justify their purchase).

Perhaps jumping on your case personally that way was not very tactful (sorry) - but I'm really more concerned about people spending $3000 for $300 photos. It is better when Net54 helps to prevent this, which it often does. Somebody somewhere in the past had already spent way too much on that photo.

Doug --
I second your motion.

[barrysloate]

Sportscardtheory- I would request you refrain from using expletives on this board, especially towards a good poster and member of the Net54 community like Mark. He puts a lot of time an effort into photo identification, and he deserves a little more respect. Thank you.

[benjulmag]

"...while a reverse pencil notation, which confirms the hurler’s identity, factors into the technical assessment."

Such a pencil notation should never be used to confirm identity, only provide further support for what had already been determined. Years ago in the Copeland sale at Sotheby's there was a purported cabinet of Henry Chadwick, an ID confirmed by his alleged autograph on the verso. The image bore as much resemble to Chadwick as this one does to Radbourn (i.e., highly dubious) and needless to say it was later shown to not be him.

Absent further corroborating information not disclosed in the lot description, I think it was very irresponsible of Huggins & Scott to identify this image as being as being of Radbourn. And I think the low price is a reflection of the market's skeptism it is him.

[GaryPassamonte]

Mark,
I agree completely with you regarding the " Barnes " CdV. It is not Ross Barnes.

[oldjudge]

Mark did a great job proving this image not to be Radbourn. I'm not sure who sportscardtheory is, but I believe he should have looked at the evidence carefully before challenging Mark.
As for Huggins and Scott, as soon as it was pointed out that the image was not Radbourn they called and cancelled the sale. Well done guys!
This lot had been part of the Halper collection and apparently Barry believed it was Radbourn. Too bad he didn't have someone as sharp as Mark checking his items.

[sportscardtheory]

Sportscardtheory- I would request you refrain from using expletives on this board, especially towards a good poster and member of the Net54 community like Mark. He puts a lot of time an effort into photo identification, and he deserves a little more respect. Thank you.

Sorry, I didn't realize Net54 was some special club that if you are considered a "good poster" you can walk all over and be rude to anyone who simply posts there opinion on something. My bad.

[sportscardtheory]

Mark did a great job proving this image not to be Radbourn. I'm not sure who sportscardtheory is, but I believe he should have looked at the evidence carefully before challenging Mark.
As for Huggins and Scott, as soon as it was pointed out that the image was not Radbourn they called and cancelled the sale. Well done guys!
This lot had been part of the Halper collection and apparently Barry believed it was Radbourn. Too bad he didn't have someone as sharp as Mark checking his items.

All I said was it looks like the same guy... not at all a challenge. I think you take yourself and this Mark dude a LITTLE too seriously.

[Jim VB]

All I said was it looks like the same guy... not at all a challenge. I think you take yourself and this Mark dude a LITTLE too seriously.

That's not what you said. Your post omitted the "looks like" part. Your exact quote was: "That's the same person."


Had you said, "Gee, that looks like the same person.", then Mark's response would have been different.


And no, Net54 isn't some kind of "special club." Everyone can post, but you have to learn that some posters have special areas of expertise. In this case, Mark is well know and well respected in the field of vintage photo identification. (Although, I think he has a bit of an ear fetish. I'm just saying...) And you challenged him in his area of expertise.


You're not a new member, by any means, but you don't post often, so you have to recognize that this isn't your normal message board. The members here are ALL a little fanatical about something or other.

[sportscardtheory]

That's not what you said. Your post omitted the "looks like" part. Your exact quote was: "That's the same person."


Had you said, "Gee, that looks like the same person.", then Mark's response would have been different.


And no, Net54 isn't some kind of "special club." Everyone can post, but you have to learn that some posters have special areas of expertise. In this case, Mark is well know and well respected in the field of vintage photo identification. (Although, I think he has a bit of an ear fetish. I'm just saying...) And you challenged him in his area of expertise.


You're not a new member, by any means,so you should recognize that this isn't your normal message board. The members here are ALL a little fanatical about something or other.

Oh, don't worry. I'll be walking on egg shells and wording any post I make specifically to appease the uptight and fragile Net54 wonder-kids. Or not post at all. Good day.

[Rob D.]

Oh, don't worry. I'll be walking on egg shells and wording any post I make specifically to appease the uptight and fragile Net54 wonder-kids. Or not post at all. Good day.

Never mind. Not worth it.

[barrysloate]

Sportscardtheory- I asked you not to use an expletive on the board. Calling Mark an A**hole because he disagrees with you is inappropriate. Please don't twist my words.

[sportscardtheory]

Sportscardtheory- I asked you not to use an expletive on the board. Calling Mark an A**hole because he disagrees with you is inappropriate. Please don't twist my words.

Just give it up. The guy was EXTREMELY rude to me when all I did was post my opinion on the photos. There was no need for it. Don't sit here and tell me I have to listen to some a-hole disrespect me and I can't say anything back. Mind your own business.

[barrysloate]

I expected that would be the tenor of your reply. By the way, you can't be anonymous on this board and call people a**holes. How about identifying yourself since everybody else did? My name is Barry Sloate- please share yours.

[sportscardtheory]

I expected that would be the tenor of your reply. By the way, you can't be anonymous on this board and call people a**holes. How about identifying yourself since everybody else did? My name is Barry Sloate- please share yours.

What? This is a message board, I don't have to tell anyone my name. But just for you, my name is Bradd. And apparently you didn't read the insulting, rude and downright nasty reply that guy gave me when all I did was voice my opinion on a couple photos. Because if you did, you would have no reason to keep on me for calling him a "bad name".

[Al C.risafulli]

I think it's really easy to get riled up over stuff that's written on message boards, because there's no TONE involved - just words. Something somebody writes quickly and posts can easily be perceived as being more rude than it was meant to be, because you can't see the person's facial expressions or hear their tone when you read it an hour after they posted it.

That said, when you post something on a message board, "mind your own business" no longer applies, does it? Because you post it in a thread where everyone else can post, and where everyone else can read what you posted. If you want your business to remain your business and not be subjected to the responses of everyone, I'd suggest using the board's private message function. This way, nobody else can read it, except for the person you're addressing.

My opinion is that the photo is not Radbourne. My opinion is also that this may have been one of those cases where I made a run at something based on the authentication and the low price. H&S did a service by cancelling the sale when faced with evidence. Mistakes happen all the time in authentication; I think the important distinction to make is not that a mistake happened, but how the offending party responds to the mistake. When faced with issues like this, some companies stand their ground or run in the opposite direction, and others own up to the mistake and make the appropriate restitution.

That's not just in sports memorabilia, by the way, its in the identification of any type of historically important memorabilia. I can't imagine that mistakes aren't made when identifying unsigned sketches, handwritten letters, photos, locks of hair, etc.

It really does illuminate one of the challenges and risks of being a collector of historical memorabilia of any kind. I own precisely one cabinet photo of a player not wearing a uniform; it's Eddie Collins, who is pretty easily identified by the giant wings on either side of his head.

-Al

Edited to add: My sentence above makes it appear as if I DID make a run at the cabinet. I did not. I didn't bid. I meant to imply that this might have been one of those items I made a run at - IF I HAD ANY MONEY TO SPEND ON CARDS RIGHT NOW. Which I don't. :)

[sportscardtheory]

And who calls themselves some kind of photograph specialist and doesn't use any comparative photos. I'm no expert, so who is the guy on the right if he's not the same guy. Show us another photo of both players so we can see if those also differ. I'm just curious.

Edit - So it's the guy on the left that is in question? Like I stated, I'm no expert and was just comparing the two photos. The one on the right IS Radbourne and the one on the left was "supposedly" Radbourne and later changed?

[sportscardtheory]

I understand now. The guy on the left, the auction that was closed, is of someone that "looks" like Radbourn, and that is what is in question. My original assessment was based ONLY on looking at the two photos and forming an opinion based on if they were the same person. Given the details, it seems like if it were the same person, the photo on the left would have to of been taken many years before the other for there to even be a chance. That or Rabourn had all his head and facial hair cut down. I don't really care what someone tells me, they have eerily similar noses, ears and hair-lines. That is clear as day. That's probably what caused the initial mix-up.

[bmarlowe1]

>>>all I did was voice my opinion on a couple photos..

No you did not. Please re-read my response just after you blew up, and also Jim VB's reply - this time s-l-o-w-l-y. The re-read your initial posts, again s-l-o-w-l-y.

Along with photos, you seem to have a problem with word usage and the plain meaning of language.

>>>Show us another photo of both players...

Huh? There are many photos of Radbourne, I posted for comparison one of the best that we know of, which happens to be at an angle that is at least similar to the head of the guy in the Bodie cabinet.

The guy in civies in the Bodie cabinet is unknown - hence we don't have any other photos of him. Get it Bradd?

>>>they have eerily similar noses, ears and hair-lines.

The real Radbourne has clear, obvious hair loss on his left side in the area above the ear. The guy in the Bodie cabinet does not.

-------------------------------

Thanks to all for the support. I was actually harder on Nashville Jeremy a couple of weeks ago, but it all slid off of him like water off of a ducks back. Like faces, people are all different - some more than others.

[bmarlowe1]

>>> That's probably what caused the initial mix-up.

No Bradd, what caused the mix-up was sometime in the past some fraudulent theif wrote Radbourne on the back.

[sportscardtheory]

>>>all I did was voice my opinion on a couple photos..

No you did not. Please re-read my response just after you blew up, and also Jim VB's reply - this time s-l-o-w-l-y. The re-read your initial posts, again s-l-o-w-l-y.

Along with photos, you seem to have a problem with word usage and the plain meaning of language.

>>>Show us another photo of both players...

Huh? There are many photos of Radbourne, I posted for comparison one of the best that we know of, which happens to be at an angle that is at least similar to the head of the guy in the Bodie cabinet.

The guy in civies in the Bodie cabinet is unknown - hence we don't have any other photos of him. Get it Bradd?

>>>they have eerily similar noses, ears and hair-lines.

The real Radbourne has clear, obvious hair loss on his left side in the are above the ear. The guy in the Bodie cabinet does not.

-------------------------------

Thanks to all for the support. I was actually harder on Nashville Jeremy a couple of weeks ago, but it all slid off of him like water off of a ducks back. Like faces, people are all different - some more than others.

I do get it, and I apologize for hastily responding to your response to my post. A cooler head would have been a better option. I still find the response rude and quite insulting, but I'm over it. To the topic at hand, I say they are eerily similar in facial features and hair can be cut. I'm certainly not saying this is the same man, but to say they have no similarities is crazy talk. I'll stand by my original assessment that they have nearly identical noses, ears and hair-lines. If in the photo of Radbourn he was facing the camera, it would be much harder to dismiss them as the same person.

[Leon]

What? This is a message board, I don't have to tell anyone my name. But just for you, my name is Bradd. And apparently you didn't read the insulting, rude and downright nasty reply that guy gave me when all I did was voice my opinion on a couple photos. Because if you did, you would have no reason to keep on me for calling him a "bad name".

So Bradd, here's my take on it. On this message board you don't have to tell anyone your name, HOWEVER, if you get into a pissing match with someone then I feel they have a right to know who they are (hopefully amicably) arguing with. I am not going to expose your identity at this point because I feel Al nailed it. I think you just got a little sideways with the tone of the conversation, as you and Mark started discussing this picture.

Also, Jim nailed it too. We all have our own areas of expertise and when someone treads into that area they better darned well know what they are talking about and be able to back it up with definitive proof/facts. I get calls from advanced collectors, dealers and grading companies very frequently. (several this week already). They call because they know I study some things more than almost anyone else. This week it was on M101-4/5 Sporting News backs and E94 Overprints. If you jump into those areas, in a discussion with me, you better make sure you have your facts straight as I study the intricacies of those sets (especially the backs) quite a bit. Most folks know I collect very rare and esoteric type cards. I am far from a "know it all" but do have very good knowledge in those areas, so if you go there, just have your facts straight. I love good discussions and debates and have changed my view many times after listening to good arguments. At the Philly show I was asked questions by several folks concerning thoughts on different issues. You don't get those folks asking questions without them knowing you have a good idea of what they are asking about.

All this being said almost all members on the board are valuable in one way or another. Just be cordial to each other, have respect for their expertise, and all will be good. Many times it's the "way" something is phrased that sets people off on a chat board. Re-phrasing something can often quell confrontations and make for a much friendlier discussion. Best regards and happy holidays

ps...Huggins and Scott did the right thing on this cabinet. The good guys almost always do the right thing in these situations....that's why they are the "good guys". :)

[Orioles1954]

My name is James Feagin and I'm the Senior Writer for Huggins & Scott Auctions :):)

[bmarlowe1]

Bradd,

Repeating what I said after you blew up: "Perhaps jumping on your case personally that way was not very tactful (sorry)".

>>>and hair can be cut....

In all of Radbourne's capless photos from his playing days - this area lacks hair. This is a pretty weird haricut you are postulating.

If this is important enough to you that you want to get better at it - I would be happy to provide references for you via private message.

I should add that this photo has all the earmarks of a fradulent past -
- alleged 19thC HoF'er
- not in uniform
- not grouped with other known players
- name penciled in somewhere on the photo
- no provenance

--------------

Hi James from H&S. Yes Leon - we should be cordial - I will try.:D

[sportscardtheory]

So Bradd, here's my take on it. On this message board you don't have to tell anyone your name, HOWEVER, if you get into a pissing match with someone then I feel they have a right to know who they are (hopefully amicably) arguing with. I am not going to expose your identity at this point because I feel Al nailed it. I think you just got a little sideways with the tone of the conversation, as you and Mark started discussing this picture.

Also, Jim nailed it too. We all have our own areas of expertise and when someone treads into that area they better darned well know what they are talking about and be able to back it up with definitive proof/facts. I get calls from advanced collectors, dealers and grading companies very frequently. (several this week already). They call because they know I study some things more than almost anyone else. This week it was on M101-4/5 Sporting News backs and E94 Overprints. If you jump into those areas, in a discussion with me, you better make sure you have your facts straight as I study the intricacies of those sets (especially the backs) quite a bit. Most folks know I collect very rare and esoteric type cards. I am far from a "know it all" but do have very good knowledge in those areas, so if you go there, just have your facts straight. I love good discussions and debates and have changed my view many times after listening to good arguments. At the Philly show I was asked questions by several folks concerning thoughts on different issues. You don't get those folks asking questions without them knowing you have a good idea of what they are asking about.

All this being said almost all members on the board are valuable in one way or another. Just be cordial to each other, have respect for their expertise, and all will be good. Many times it's the "way" something is phrased that sets people off on a chat board. Re-phrasing something can often quell confrontations and make for a much friendlier discussion. Best regards and happy holidays

ps...Huggins and Scott did the right thing on this cabinet. The good guys almost always do the right thing in these situations....that's why they are the "good guys". :)

Thank you for the response. I do apologize for the wordage I used. I simply don't take being disrespected well, I guess. I simply formed an opinion on the two photos without knowing the backround well enough. I appreciate boards like this because I can find help if I ever need it when it comes to pre-war cards. Sorry if I offended anyone.

[barrysloate]

Apology accepted!

[sportscardtheory]

Bradd,

Repeating what I said after you blew up: "Perhaps jumping on your case personally that way was not very tactful (sorry)".

>>>and hair can be cut....

In all of Radbourne's capless photos from his playing days - this area lacks hair. This is a pretty weird haricut you are postulating.

If this is important enough to you that you want to get better at it - I would be happy to provide references for you via private message.

I should add that this photo has all the earmarks of a fradulent past -
- alleged 19thC HoF'er
- not in uniform
- not grouped with other known players
- name penciled in somewhere on the photo
- no provenance

--------------

Hi James from H&S. Yes Leon - we should be cordial - I will try.:D

I appreciate the offer, but I'm "not there" yet when it comes to pre-war or 19th century stuff. I'm a newbie in this field. I am only at post-war graded HOF RCs, but I am working my way backwards, so I'll be here someday. I'm kind of just here browsing and soaking in info at a slow pace. Thanks again.

[19cbb]

I should add that this photo has all the earmarks of a fradulent past -
- alleged 19thC HoF'er
- not in uniform
- not grouped with other known players
- name penciled in somewhere on the photo
- no provenance

--------------


I concur :)

[birdman42]

The good guys almost always do the right thing in these situations....that's why they are the "good guys". :)

Much better to be known as a "good guy" than as a "great guy."

Bill

[bmarlowe1]

For Bradd:

It should be obvious that these ears are not the same. There is no way that the small difference in head angle for the 2 photos would make one shape "morph" into the other.

[sportscardtheory]

For Bradd:

It should be obvious that these ears are not the same. There is no way that the small difference in head angle for the 2 photos would make one shape "morph" into the other.

I couldn't see that closely before. They do look different.

[Leon]

I couldn't see that closely before. They do look different.

I think I feel the urge for a group hug coming on......Everybody take cover quickly :).

[Matt]

I think I feel the urge for a group hug coming on......Everybody take cover quickly :).

kumbaya

[D. Bergin]

For the record, I don't think this is Radbourne.

I AM curious as to Mark's use of the ears as a definitive "fingerprint", so to speak, to make or disprove of identifications.

Coming at it as a boxing enthusiast, a fighters ears can change significantly throughout the course of their career. Hell, if you go up to the Boxing Hall of Fame in Canastota, New York for the yearly inductions.........some of the old timers have nubs on the side of their heads you'd have a hard time even identifying as ears anymore.

Of course there's the obvious signs like "attatched", "unattatched", "lobes", "no lobes". However, the interior structure of the ear can change significantly as a fighter ages, depending on cartilage damage, swelling, etc.. Even the overall shape of the outside of the ear can change.

Now, being we are talking about turn of the century baseball players, I imagine many of these guys were of the rough and tumble type and got into their own share of scraps and scrapes throughout the years. Also the general conditions were much worse then they are today. I imagine there weren't a lot of ears that went through life unscathed during this era.

Let me be clear.........I'm not making a run at Mark or anybody else. Just curious as to the method. I've mis-identified my own share of boxers throughout the years and have relied on other historians/collectors to correct and inform me when necessary, and I am always grateful for their input.

Thanks.

- Dave

[perezfan]

I believe the practice of ear identification first became popular among Star Trek Collectors. There was a fraudulent Mr. Spock photo floating around, in which the ears measured 1/16" short. It was Leonard Nimoy himself, who identified the photo as a fake.

Seriously, I think Mark's "ear identification" practice is sound. The structure and placement of the ears is intricate, and is probably the best identifier on a person's face. When used in combination with all other facial characteristics, I bet Mark's method works over 99% of the time.

As for players' ears changing over the years... probably "not so much" with baseball players. The basic structure of the ear would not change significantly over the years unless they were "beaned" over and over again.

[bmarlowe1]

Dave -

Let's first start with ears as "fingerprints" absent severe injury - yes it is valid to use them as such. There is very little change in them until about age 70 - of course that is an average age. What is most noticeable is that for people with large lobes, they start to droop in old age. Even so, you can still compare old guy to young guy ears, but you have to keep the droop in mind.

Of course injury can change the appearance. Boxers are a perfect example. It has occurred to me a number of times that I am glad my interest is in early baseball images, not boxing images.

After looking closely at thousands of Deaball Era and 19thC baseball faces, I see little evidence of "cauliflower ear". Boxer's are repeatedly hit in the ear. A ballplayer may occasionally get a ball in the ear, or get into a fight and get hit in the ear, but I have not seen an example of this type of permanant gross deforming injury in early ballplayers. Of course, there may be some that I haven't come across yet.

I have seen what look more like smaller deformaties - like Tom Tido Daly's left earlobe (see Okkonen's Baseball Memories 1900-1909, p.97). I haven't seen an image of him where this is not present. (His right side looks normal). An injury? a birth defect? - I dunno.

Mark

edited to add: - I agree with Perezfan - our posts overlapped in time.

[D. Bergin]

Thanks for the responses guys.

[slidekellyslide]

Knowing what we now know about the fake Radbourn should we assume that the Roger Connor in this lot was not really Connor? I don't have the Halper auction catalogs (Note to my brother if he's reading this - Send me those catalogs!!! :D ) so I'm wondering how many dubious photos like this were in that collection?

[barrysloate]

Dan- I remember that the large cabinet group in the Halper sale was one that I catalogued. That was the lot that had the 1890 Cy Young cabinet. I don't recall that Roger Connor however. Are you saying that it was in the big lot? From the small picture you provided it doesn't look like him. Many of the Halper cabinets were generic. It's been over ten years so I may be forgetting some things.

[slidekellyslide]

Barry, I don't have the Halper Catalog so I can't say what lot the Connor was in, but the above picture is from a lot in an REA auction and it is attributed to the Halper Collection.

[barrysloate]

I just don't remember it. There was a big lot of around 38 cabinets, and we were pretty careful with the photo i.d.'s. Maybe the so-called Connor was sold individually or was in a different lot. Again, too much time has passed.

[slidekellyslide]

You're off the hook Barry. :D

This is stuff that Halper kept and was later sold after he passed away. The above lot was sold in the 2007 REA auction.

[19cbb]

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/983.html

[barrysloate]

Thanks Dan, whew...I knew it didn't look familiar. That big cabinet group from the sale was really extraordinary. I certainly remember how much I liked it.

[bmarlowe1]

As to Connor - the scan on REA's site is not too good - but I don't like the hairline nor the chin. If anyone has a good scan, we could be sure.

Dan - I do have the Halper catalogue if you ever need a scan of anything.

[JK]

Is it just my computer or did six pages of this thread just disappear?

[Fred]

Wow, an end of the year "controversial" thread.

Interstingly enough, didn't we just have a thread about "provenance" and what it means to us? Someone mentioned that the cabinet came from the Halper collection. If that's the case that would have been a lot of "provenance" in itself. Maybe SGC encapsulated this cabinet based on its "provenance".

Personally, unless I knew the subject really well I'd have a difficult time determining if the subject in different photos is the same person especially if the photos were taken at a different times (even 6 months difference) and at a different angles.

I can't remember who said it, but I agree -

It's PSAs fault... :p

[Leon]

Is it just my computer or did six pages of this thread just disappear?

Nothing disappeared that I am aware of. Sometimes if you don't login the settings revert back to automatic/static ones and that can mess stuff up a little bit (not completely gone though). Otherwise, it's your computer...

[bmarlowe1]

Fred: "Personally, unless I knew the subject really well I'd have a difficult time determining if the subject in different photos is the same person especially if the photos were taken at a different times (even 6 months difference)"
_____________________________

You may have difficulty making that determination, but it can be done with certainty with clear photos, and over the past year there have been a number of good threads explaining how to do so (including this one). Ears will not change in 6 months.

As to provenance, we know that the Candy Cummings photo sold in the Halper Collection was bogus.

[Fred]

Mark,

The Halper collection was so extensive that I'm sure that there are probably many pieces that weren't what they appeared to be. I can think of another as I post this.

Regarding the provenance statement I was thinking that SGC took the past ownership of the cabinet into consideration when they slabbed it.

Personally, I couldn't make a definite determination of whether or not that is Radbourn in the cabinet. I'm going to guess that the ears and nose may not look the same because of the different angles from which the photos were taken.

It'd be difficult to have someone convince me that it wasn't Radbourn. I guess unless someone can come up with better provenance we'll never know for sure. Who knows, maybe Halper picked this up from a Radbourn family member or from someone that knew Radbourn personally. That would be a greater form of provenance but we'll probably never know. For now it'll live on in a debate in cyberspace.

[bmarlowe1]

Fred:"I'm going to guess that the ears and nose may not look the same because of the different angles from which the photos were taken. '

-------------------------------------------

Really Fred that is nonsense - take a photo of your ear, the turn your head about 5 degrees and take another photo of your ear - then tell me how different they look.

Now - gather all the really verified Radbourne photos - they are all at at least somewhat different angles - yet his ears always compare very well. Only in this photo does his left ear look entirely different.

I guess this requires the application of some common sense as well as some inate ability to understand that 3-D objects don't magically morph into something else when they are turned a few degrees (the difference in angles of the 2 photos is quite small). Also, if you take the time to carefully study a few thousand photos of faces, you may learn to understand what happens to ears/noses/etc. when they are turned more than a few degrees.

In the 1880's you can be certain that there were very many Americans who looked similar to Radbourne.

I would add that in the unlikely event that Halper got this from the Radbourne family, the "provenance" would be simply a falsehood passed down thru the generations - a common occurence. Or maybe they wrote "Radbourn" on the photo so they wouldn't forget their last name.

[Fred]

Mark,

Tone on a public board is tough to figure out.

I have common sense (well at least I think I do) and upon occassion I use it. Perhaps not here though. I was merely stating that looking at a few photos of an ear shot from different angles would not lead me to believe that this is not Radbourn.

As far as the Radbourn family reference it wasn't the only possible provenance factor I brought up. It could have been a family member or friend. I suppose I shouldn't have brought that up unless I was willing to open myself up to debate and/or ridicule. I wish I was always right (like some people on this board) but I know better. Have a happy new year!

There's that tone thing again.

[slidekellyslide]

Dan - I do have the Halper catalogue if you ever need a scan of anything.

Thanks Mark...I actually do have it, but my brother is in possession of it on the other side of the country.

[bmarlowe1]

>>>There's that tone thing again.

The Cumbaya season is over.

I never said you lacked common sense. You may be better than me at any numbers of things - picking stocks, hitting a curve ball, other major life decisions, whatever. I did say you were not applying it here.

>>>I was merely stating that looking at a few photos of an ear shot from different angles would not lead me to believe that this is not Radbourn.

The problem with "merely stating...." is that this is a serious subject, and one that has caused a substantial amount of fraud. There has been a lot of effort in recent decades to find methods for correctly identifying people in photos. (This is critically important in natl security/intelligence fields as well as criminal investigation.) There is some accessable literature on the subject. "A few photos (even just one) of an ear shot from slightly different angles" is exactly enough to tell you it's not Radbourne.

If you don't buy any of this, then your challange is to find 2 photos of any famous individual you like (try Cobb, J Jackson, Jackie Robinson - anybody), taken at very slightly different angles like the ones discussed here, in which the ears look different.

You can also consider why H&S pulled the item from the auction and why SGC is "un-authenticating" the photo - just to make my Holiday Season brighter? (there's some tone for ya).

Happy New Year