1879 Dubuque Photo -Will the Real Comiskey please stand up or sit down? [Archive]

View Full Version : 1879 Dubuque Photo -Will the Real Comiskey please stand up or sit down?

Directly

02-13-2013, 11:12 PM

Who's the real Comiskey?-- Both photos taken in the Dubuque studio of HA Jordan-one in 1879 the other 1887--Will the real Comiskey with the widows peak hair-line and funny ears please stand up or sit down!

aquarius31

02-14-2013, 07:22 AM

That 1879 photo seems like a cool piece but do you have any solid evidence to indicate that it is indeed Comiskey vs just a town team? Not trying to give you a hard time but a 2006 newspaper article stating that it's Comiskey doesn't seem too definitive.

bmarlowe1

02-14-2013, 10:10 AM

The Dubuque photo is bogus. The Radbourne ID is absurd. The Comiskey ID was dealt with in another thread and is repeated here. He is not in the photo. That is almost certainly not the Dubuque 1879 team.

bmarlowe1

02-14-2013, 10:27 AM

The real Radbourne with Dubuque 1879 is below left. Just a little different, I think. And the uniform isn't quite right, is it?

bmarlowe1

02-14-2013, 10:35 AM

This is a classic case of someone finding a 19thC baseball photo with someone who vaguely resembles a well-known figure (this is easy to do), in this case Comiskey, and then finds a buyer who believes him (also unfortunately easy to do).

This photo also appeared (reproduced microscopically) in the Dec. 2007 issue of Sports Collector's Digest with the same false claims:
http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.com/news/auction-news/readers_share_historic_team_cabinet_cards

Directly

02-14-2013, 08:29 PM

My 18 year old Comiskey compared to a 26 year old Comiskey in the other Dubuque photo. Sorry the ear look the same to me?

bmarlowe1

02-14-2013, 09:07 PM

Really this is pretty much just simple shape matching. Even though you chose an extremely blurry photo for your Comiskey exemplar (below far right), it is still clear enough to see that ear shape is very similar to that of Comiskey (center) and very different than that of of the "Dubuque" guy. Ears remain virtually unchanged during the time span represented by these photos.

So, how do you explain the uniforms, and do you really think that guy front row right looks like Radborune?

What you have is a kid's team. I hope you didn't spend too much money buying it and then blowing it up to massive size.

Directly

02-14-2013, 09:38 PM

Thanks, now your being contructive, but I will be honest, in my opinion your middle photo of Comiskey facial features actually resembles my photo better than my example. Athough studing your comparions the ears still look the same to me in my example on the right. In the book 1919 Commy by GW Axelson its mentioned when Comiskey came to St Louis for a exhibition game their uniform resembled pajamas, so who knows what they had available at different times. Yes I agree a 18 year old is a kid and back then I suppose many young players smoked cigars like Cliff Carrol is holding. Again I believe I have a good case!-the ear appears to have a slight indentation, not perfectly straight!

bmarlowe1

02-14-2013, 09:59 PM

I'm always constructive.

>>>in my opinion your middle photo of Comiskey facial features actually resembles my photo...the ears still look the same to me...

I have no doubt that to you they look alike. However, with all due respect, that means very little when the ear shapes are grossly different. The back edge of Commy's ear is long and fairly straight, the back edge of the Dubuque player's ear is very curved. If you can't see that I can't help you.

Hopefully enough people can distinguish a straight line from a curved line so that if this photo ever comes on the market the demand will be nill (I think that's constructive).

Directly

02-14-2013, 10:55 PM

No problem and thanks again for the opinions, I am posting some later photos of other players I believe are in my photo-any other experts out there??--thanks for looking!--my Comiskeys ear is not curved as can be seen in the better but not hi-res team photo?

bmarlowe1

02-14-2013, 11:14 PM

Your photo of Jack Rowe just above is actually Dave Rowe - that's a known NYPL Spalding Collection error. You can read about it here (page 13):

https://sabr.box.com/shared/static/tiicm39kbulum70lefpk.pdf

So that implies that you are saying Dave Rowe is in your photo. If so, then it's not Dubuque because Dave Rowe was not on the team.

You will not be able to establish that any of those people are in your photo. Yeah, that's just my opinion.

Having blown this photo up to 3 by 4 feet and having already written these names over it, I just don't think you will ever be rational about it. Again, just my opinion.

So - are you the same Tom from the Sports Collectors Digest article (and the above Telegraph Herald article) that "found" this photo?

Directly

02-15-2013, 02:51 AM

Thats OK-I'm here for the help and appreciate any other help or constructive imput --Jack and Dave Rowe both played for Rockford in the North Western League. I will be rational and I'm here for the wise. It's just the odds of a very old Dubuque cabinet photo found in St Louis with a young player thats a spitting image of Comiskey astronomical--anyone have a copy of his Old Judge Baseball card, the one showing him sliding I believe says World Champions?--let me know--thanks again

Note: Both Jack Rowe and Carroll joined Ted Sullivan in Dubuque around 1879, so yes they knew Comiskey.

bmarlowe1

02-15-2013, 08:56 AM

Thats OK-I'm here for the help and appreciate any other help or constructive input ----- It's just the odds of a very old Dubuque cabinet photo found in St Louis with a young player thats a spitting image of Comiskey astronomical-

Tom,
You edited your 11:55 PM post where you had originally asked for other opinions "for the love of the game." Really? - I am guessing it has more to do with you having tried to sell this piece fairly recently.

You are very confused about the issue of probability. As far as spitting image - no, some resemblance, yes. If you were going though a lot of old baseball photos specifically looking for someone that resembled Comiskey - that would certainly take some time but the odds of finding one would not at all be astronomical. Of course, it is the odds of the player actually being Comiskey that would be astronomically against you.

If you instead go through a lot of old baseball photos looking for a player who resembles any prominent 19thC player with some connection to Missouri - that is actually very easy to find. Again, the chance of the ID being correct would be very small.

Directly

02-16-2013, 09:55 AM

Mr. Jordan the Dubuque photographer who made this image was in business until around 1890. We know Mr Jordan and Mr Comiskey knew each other. So I own a Dubuque Cabinet photo found in St Louis, with a player who with his distictive widow peak haircut "resembles" Comiskey during a period when Comiskey would have been playing ball in Dubuque. I am pleased the
discussion has elevated from not even close, and no comparison to resembles. I am very open to more serious research and any upper level discussion!

I have seen tests and discussions with other important baseball images where they do all kinds tests with lines across, up and down and around and around, etc-etc. A more complete complex computer proportion evaluation.

A brief history of my photograph: About twenty years ago while browsing through a St Louis Antique Shop I found this photo in a stack of other Cabinet photographs. I purchased it and took it home and put it in a box. Thats where it rested for another eight years until one evening while reading The Offical Encyclopedia of Baseball I happened to come acoss the article about Ted Sullivan forming the NW League which included Loftus, Comiskey and Radbourn. I remembered the baseball Photo I purchased was stamped HA Jordan- Dubuque. Of course I went to find and retreive the photo. Around that same time I had purchased a substantial Brooklyn Dodger collection. When a buyer drove down from Michigan to look, he purchased the entire collection. He asked if there was anything else I would be interested in selling. I showed him the photo and he asked if it would be OK to take it back with him-Sure no problem-. I quess around two months later he returned and bought my beautifully signed 1950's snow white Brooklyn Dodger baseball and returned the photo with the reasoning none of the players sported mustaches.-Sure no problem-, so again I took the photo home and again put it away in a box.
About year later I came across the St Louis Browns photo I had purchased in the early 1980's from a shop in Ste Geneiveve Missouri. When viewing that photo is when it hit me--most importantly it showed Comiskey not wearing a cap. It took me a little while to locate my cabinet photo which I finally found at the bottom of a box. I then contacted and sent photocopies of both images to a authority on sports memorabilia and autographs. After studing the two photographs in his opinion -quote- "I can't see how anyone can say it isn't Comiskey " and put a value on the photograph at that time around $1500.00.

I hope this clears up any intentions I intended to fabricate some fictitous silly get rich quick scheme. I will continue to research avenues of authentication when I have the time. So for now this will conclude and end my discussions. Someday I will attend another National Sports convention or the Chicago Sun show with the actual photograph. I do appreciate the response + the contructive discussion. I can be contacted by email tsc@mvp.net-- Thanks again. Tom

sdkammeyer

02-16-2013, 09:58 AM

Are you sure thats not Ty Cobbs? It looks like Cobbs to me :D

bmarlowe1

02-16-2013, 10:31 AM

>>I am pleased the discussion has elevated from not even close, and no comparison to resembles.

You remain completely confused. Resembles + ear mismatch means that we know with certainty it is not Comiskey.

>>I have seen tests and discussions with other important baseball images where they do all kinds tests with lines across, up and down and around and around, etc-etc.

Most likely, they were written by me. In your case, the ear mismatch is all we need.

>>I then contacted and sent photocopies of both images to a authority on sports memorabilia and autographs. After studing the two photographs in his opinion -quote- "I can't see how anyone can say it isn't Comiskey "

First - who was he? Second, "authoriies" on sports memorabilia and autographs are almost never authorities on facial comparison. Third, why don't you tell us about when you tried to consign this photo - what happened?

>> So I own a Dubuque Cabinet photo found in St Louis, with a player who with his distictive widow peak haircut "resembles" Comiskey during a period when Comiskey

Below is the real Comiskey in a Dubuque uniform - not a widows peak. In any case, a lot of people have them. As far as the value of your own judgments about all this, see post #4 above.

thecatspajamas

02-16-2013, 11:13 AM

any upper level discussion!

Translation: Affirmation from anyone who agrees with me.

You discount the simple "ear test" that Mark has presented, which compares distinct features which cannot be altered, choosing instead to lean on the hairstyle the guy is sporting? A feature that could be altered at whim? Do you seriously think that Comiskey was the only guy sporting a widow's peak in that area/time?

Here's the thing about comparing photographs of people to determine identity: all it takes is 1 feature that doesn't match up to render any number of similarities moot. If 1 guy's ears are lower on the head than the other's, it's not the same guy. If 1 guy's eyes are closer together than the other's, it's not the same guy. Same goes for location of nose on the face, jaw structure, eye color, etc. And yes, shape of the ears as well. It doesn't matter if the rest of the facial features appear to match up completely, if there is 1 unalterable feature that DOESN'T match, it's not the same guy. You couldn't change the spacing of your eyes, or move the location of your nose on your face, or change the color of your eyes (in that day and time, at least). And unless you are suggesting that the gentleman in your photograph sheared off the lower part of his ear between photographs, he couldn't have changed the shape of his ear so drastically either.

Think of it like you're on the jury for a murder case in court: You look at all the evidence presented, and make your determination based on that evidence. If there is 1 factor that introduces reasonable doubt, you don't find the defendent guilty. If all the evidence matches up except that the defendent is on surveilance video in Phoenix at the time the guy was murdered in DC, you don't say, "well, I still think he looks like a killer, so I'll say he's guilty." It doesn't matter how many people concluded he was guilty prior to that one key piece of evidence being presented. If they, like you, made their judgement in absence of that key piece of evidence, they made the wrong judgement. It's not a comment on the intelligence or expertise of those who made faulty judgements before (well, depending on how obvious the new evidence is), but cases are overturned all the time based on the introduction of new evidence.

I don't know who the other "authority on sports memorabilia and autographs" was that you consulted, but I would not be so quick to discount Mark's very simple and thorough presentation of new evidence. When the opinions of two authorities differ, you then have to look at why they differ. Mark has explained very clearly why his opinion differs from your authority's. The ears are something that I too have often overlooked when comparing photos, but that was through my own neglect, not because they are unimportant. If your authority has an explanation for the difference of the shapes of the ears other than "I hadn't considered that factor," I'm sure we would all be glad to hear it.

Directly

02-16-2013, 06:14 PM

Notice the two darker spots in the ear of each photo--they are identicial. Also if you have the ability to drag the photos over each other try it --its amazing--I will be happy to email the photos to anyone if you would like to try it--thanks again

When ask to consign my Dubuque photo--the auction house mentioned "NO" Reserve--I SAID NO WAY--SORRY, I REJECTED THEIR OFFER TO CONSIGN!

bmarlowe1

02-16-2013, 06:33 PM

Geez - I thought you said you were done. What people should know is that Tom recently tried to consign this photo (at least once) for sale as an image of Comiskey and it was rejected. My guess is that he will continue to try and strike out.

Due to the blurryness and slight difference in head angle of both photos just above, overlaying them is essentially worthless. If you want them to seem alike badly enough - they will seem to be alike. This is not responsive to any of the points made (by me or Lance).

The dark spot near the top of the ears is what nearly everyone will have when lit from above due to the overhang of the helix. The other spot is the opening to the inner ear - don't you have one (actually two)? If you actually look carefully at post #7, you will see that the dark spots are not identical. In any case, none of this addresses the major ear difference shown in post #7. Try reading Lance's post again.

Top eight constructive things to watch out for when a big name is claimed to be in a 19thC baseball photo:
(1) Owner thinks he has a great find
(2) ID primarily based on owner’s subjective impression
(3) Similarities are pointed out while significant differences are ignored
(4) Owner has a bad track record for face ID (e.g see Radbourn claim above)
(5) Identification of other players who should be in the photo seems to be very difficult
(6) Not in known uniform
(7) No provenance
(8) Owner presses on undeterred even when some claims are shown to be ludicrous (see jack Rowe/Dave Rowe issue above).

slidekellyslide

02-16-2013, 07:52 PM

Notice the two darker spots in the ear of each photo--they are identicial. Also if you have the ability to drag the photos over each other try it --its amazing--I will be happy to email the photos to anyone if you would like to try it--thanks again

You do realize that the person you are disagreeing with on this photo is pretty much the foremost expert on baseball player photo identification don't you? That's not to say that he's above questioning, but you're just plain wrong here. That's not Comiskey.

barrysloate

02-17-2013, 04:49 AM

I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen someone who found a 19th century photograph, and was certain there was a Hall of Famer in it. And roughly 95% of the time, the identification has been wrong. Everybody wants to make a great find, and believe they were just a little smarter or a little luckier than everyone else. Or that they were in the right place at the right time when they stumbled into that antique store. This is yet another example of it. I say it's not Comiskey.

bigfish

02-17-2013, 07:34 AM

Mark is a photo identification expert. Not to mention the others who have weighed in. I think this one is dead in the water.

Directly

02-17-2013, 10:57 AM

Let me be clear, I respect all opinions and I understand the powers to be. I did expect the skepticism and denials, but don't blame me, its not my fault, I just found the 134 year old photo.

First it was the ears, I showed they can match, just as I can show they don't. Then I dragged my photo image over the image showing Comiskey taken at Dubuque for comparison and its a proportioned match, yes the eyes, nose, mouth, chin, especially the widows peak (a extremely unique human characteristic) all match. (: Try it :) I'm then advised that procedure isn't exceptable, although just last week on national TV (Fox News) that same computer technique was used for a 1865 baseball Photo, the photo was dragged over another copy?

Fact: Mr. Jordan the photographer was in business when Comiskey was playing baseball at Dubuque.

Fact: Mr. Comiskey knew the photographer

Fact: The photograph is stamped "DUBUQUE" It is dim, so one must have hands on to see it, but its there. Jordan is easier to see. This is all from age + whoever owned the relic must have been very proud to display the photo.

Fact: The Dubuque photo ended up in St Louis,Mo. is this more than just a coincidence. Example: William Gleason later became a Fireman in St Louis. Sullivan, Loftus and Comiskey all played baseball there.

Fact: If the origin would have NOT been stamped or was stamped other city say as one example Marshalltown Iowa, I would NOT be having this discussion.

Fact: I'm not the only one that believe it's Comiskey.

Fact: There are dealers on here that asked to sell my photo?

Fact: It ain't over till its over --

------Now you can all go at it-----

I appreciate my chance to present my card and I hope this hasn't damaged or caused any hard feelings, its been a pleasure ,and God bless!

bmarlowe1

02-17-2013, 11:08 AM

>>>Fact: The Dubuque photo ended up in St Louis,Mo. is this more than just a coincidence. Example: William Gleason later became a Fireman in St Louis. Sullivan, Loftus and Comiskey all played baseball there.

So what? None of these people are in your photo. Anyone who lived, worked, or played ball in Dubuque at any level could easily later move to St. Louis or send the photo to friends or relatives there.

For any rational person, nothing you have said comes close to proving that this is what you claim it to be. No, you did not show that the ears can match. Good luck finding a major auction house willing to sell this as Comiskey. It's already been rejected. After this thread it probably won't be so easy to find a smaller AH to willing to take it.

The photos overlayed on Fox were virtually the same photo (two sides of a stereo pair of team photos) - this has nothing to do with facial comparison. It is very common for the faces of two different persons to have similar proportions. Given the extremely poor quality of the photo you used for comparison, detailed matching is not possible. Your judgment on these kind of things is demonstrably bad. Did you try the overlay method for Radbourn?

Which one of these is not like the others?

ksfarmboy

02-17-2013, 11:22 AM

The guy on the left has blue eyes and the other three have brown eyes.

slidekellyslide

02-17-2013, 12:49 PM

One of them is actually Lee Harvey Oswald.

packs

02-17-2013, 01:07 PM

Your photo features distinctly different uniforms from the confirmed Dubuque team photos with Comiskey or any other confirmed player. How do you explain this disparity? Everyone has a different uniform on. It looks like a town team.

Even if it is stamped Dubuque, that doesn't make it the Dubuque team. There were lots of teams from New York City who weren't the Giants.

Lordstan

02-17-2013, 01:57 PM

It's been a while since I posted as I just got busy with life, but I am amazed by this thread.

The OP comes on asking the question "Who's the real Comiskey?" He gets an answer he doesn't like and then refuses to believe it. Hmm.
By the initial question, it seems clear to me that he sees there obvious differences between the 2 players pictured. Is there a similarity? Sure, but as Lance very clearly explained, if one difference exists then it isn't the same person.
The grouping of facts is interesting. The first five certainly do show that it is possible for Charles Comsikey to be in this picture, but those items do not prove in any way that it is in fact Comiskey pictured. The last 2 don't prove anything either. Many people thought the earth was flat until they found out it wasn't.

Am I some known picture expert? No
Can I see clearly what is laid in front of me? Yes. The OP's inability to see the difference between the straight line of Comiskey's ear and the curved line of the guy in his picture is somewhat surprising.

I've added a couple of pictures, hopefully, to help the OP out.

I added the red line to show the extra piece of ear the OP cut out in his attempt to compare ears.
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=229&pictureid=10063http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=229&pictureid=10062

Next, I added something to Mark's comparison pictures that I noticed about the inner ear shape. I added the Blue lines to show how the shape of Comiskey's inner ear arches up and back. The unknown player's inner ear tissue projects forward and downward.
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=229&pictureid=10060

Best,
Mark

ctownboy

02-17-2013, 02:05 PM

At this point, I think the OP should get in contact with Cobb and Edwards and see who they had to test the paper of their "T206 Wagner". Next, he should get Mike O'Keefe and ESPN involved. Then, he should see if the new CNBC TV show has any interest in doing a segment on this piece. Finally, he and Cobb and Edwards should go on a road tour with their "famous" baseball items.

After that, maybe they can get ESPN to do a LIVE auction of their famous pieces....

David

Directly

02-21-2013, 03:34 PM

Huge difference comparing the 1879 Dubuque town population to New York City for local baseball teams--don't you think?

Will the real comiskey please stand-up--please stay tuned---thanks!

packs

02-21-2013, 03:56 PM

Can you please address these questions?

Your photo features distinctly different uniforms from the confirmed Dubuque team photos with Comiskey or any other confirmed player. How do you explain this disparity? Everyone has a different uniform on. It looks like a town team.

Directly

02-24-2013, 09:08 AM

Some are asking me to compare my original 1879 Dubuque baseball photo with another composite type baseball Dubuque team
Photo?

Please don't.----This has always been my major point--?--- Why ?--Because my photo shows Comiskey posed with a couple different "Northwestern League" baseball players from the time. ( hence the different uniforms )

I will admit as mentioned, my example was rather grainy ( that was my bad, since I used a copy) so I have tried to post a better scanned image from the original photo.

A short history of the 1879 Northwestern League:

#1--( Special to the 1910 "Sporting Life" Tom Loftus Dead ) In 1879 Thomas J. Loftus along with Radbourn, Jack Rowe, Jack and Bill Gleason & Cliff Carroll all transferred from Peoria, Illinois (Peoria Reds) to Dubuque to become teammate with "Comiskey" under the management of Ted Sullivan.

The Northwestern league organized Jan 2, 1879 consisted of four different baseball teams, Dubuque, Rockford, who had Jack Rowe & Dave Rowe, Davenport and Omaha. This league lasted only two years.

Can we agree one of these players once owned this rare photo? Both Gleason Brothers were born and died in St Louis, so it's probable this photograph once belong to one of the Gleason Bros. ( hence my referral to William Gleason who later became a career Fireman in St Louis)--his daughter also lived and died in St Louis, its possible there could be relatives
still residing in St Louis. Note: The Gleason Bro. both were born in St louis, played baseball there, worked there and Died in St Louis--see his daughter photo--(Find a Grave Site:Mrs Kathryne Loretta "Kitty" Gleason Riley)

Now back to a Comiskey ear comparisons. I have attached for study another Comiskey photo, showing his head slightly tilted down. Please carefully observe my 19 years old Comiskey photo. In this another example of Comiskey if we could slightly tilt the head back to more of a level position,The ear structures match.
Also Comiskeys other ear in my photo is more vertically straight due to the position of his head and our line of sight. If a computer program could be used to simulate a small head turn , I believe we would see the straight line
ears begin to appear as shown with the other examples with my Comiskey.

Another important point, if several different Comiskey pictures are used for comparison must we not take into account age difference? My 1879 Dubuque photo image of Comiskey shows a lanky 19 year teenage youth. My later 1887Dubuque photo for example he would have been around 27 years old, and with the 1890 era example's he would have been in the 30 plus year range.

Why the no rational to even consider while Comiskey was playing baseball in Dubuque he and his teammates along with Cliff Carroll and Jack Rowe from the Northwestern circuit went to Jordan's Studio to have this 1879 photograph taken?

#2--(-St Louis Globe Democrat Oct 8 1885-) Charles A. Comiskey is the youngest field captain probably of any professional team, and has no superior. He is a good coach and a favorite with his men. He is a native of Chicago, 24 years of age, and took his first lessons in ball-playing as a boy on the vacant lots around the city. His first professional engagement was
with the Dubuque Club, where he played first base with Radbourn, the Gleason brothers, Carroll and other noted players.
This club won the Northwestern League pennant in 1879, and in the same year beat every team that visited Dubuque. Comiskey remained with the club until 1882, when he came to St. Louis. As a first baseman he has few superiors, is a good, free, hard hitter, and an excellent base runner. Under his captaincy the discipline of the Browns has been excellent, and petty
jealousies are unknown.

FACTS:--I have documented #1 a 1910 article, Carroll and Jack Rowe had joined Comiskey and #2 another 1885 article documenting Carroll had played baseball with Comiskey.

Now my question?: Why doesn't the other composite photo show Carroll and Rowe in the photograph--its well documented they were Comiskey's teammate and played baseball with him, especially infielder Ted Sullivan he was on the 1879 team?

This authentic relic of baseball history shows valid facts & points adding up to deserve a thorough " hands on " critique.

Thanks again for your patience to my persistence.--Until.

packs

02-24-2013, 02:08 PM

You're rationale isn't clicking with me. You're saying because the Gleason brothers lived in St Louis, they probably owned this photo. How could anyone agree with that?

You say this is a grouping of players from different teams. The men you've identified as belonging to the same team, are wearing different uniforms even amongst themselves.

Lastly, why haven't you used the 1879 composite of the known players in their known uniforms as a source of photo matching?

bmarlowe1

02-24-2013, 04:41 PM

Correctly executed ear comparison for Comiskey using photos from similar angle - see post #3 above.

Radbourn comparison - see post #4 above. This one is of course ludicrous.

>> Now back to a Comiskey ear comparisons.....

Your lack of skill in evaluating what you see in a photo is made clear by your ID of Radbourn.

>> Why doesn't the other composite photo show Carroll and Rowe in the photograph

Your photo shows neither.

Runscott

02-24-2013, 05:47 PM

It doesn't resemble Comiskey to me, other than both players have heads.

But what's up with your drawing an outline over this guy's ear, that doesn't follow the shape of his ear? Why don't you just paste the real Comiskey's image over your photo?

I'm baffled by this discussion - it's almost as ludicrous as the 'TY COBBS' thread.

http://net54baseball.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=88197&stc=1&d=1361063307

thecatspajamas

02-24-2013, 07:15 PM

Can we agree one of these players once owned this rare photo? Both Gleason Brothers were born and died in St Louis, so it's probable this photograph once belong to one of the Gleason Bros. ( hence my referral to William Gleason who later became a career Fireman in St Louis)--his daughter also lived and died in St Louis, its possible there could be relatives
still residing in St Louis.

NO, we CANNOT agree on that, not based on the "evidence" you have provided. That one or all of the players later moved to St. Louis, where you found the photo, proves nothing. I have thousands of photographs of ballplayers from other states, none of whom have ever lived in Tennessee. You do realize that these things move by other means than just the back of the family's moving truck, don't you? If you had purchased the photo at an estate sale from someone with the last name Gleason, then you might have a connection, but you would still have to research to be sure that it is the same Gleason family. But you didn't. You purchased it in an antique shop in St. Louis. What city/state you picked the photo up in, (some 115 years after it was produced), has no substantial bearing on its provenance. Pickers have been buying and relocating cabinet photos from their place of origin since loooong before the 1990's.

I was really hoping that your "stay tuned" announcement would produce something in the way of a reasoned argument, but all you have done is re-hash what you said previously and add some name tags to the guys in your photos. Show the photos you are using to compare to yours to arrive at the other ID's, show the "overlay" technique you're supposed to have used, show any other "evidence" you have, show something besides dogged determination, please.

Directly

03-03-2013, 05:44 PM

I did paste my Comiskey image with the other 1887 Comiskey Dubuque image-- They match???

1879 Dubuque Nortwestern League photograph with William Gleason and later in 1884. (The Gleason Brothers were both born in ST Louis, played baseball there, worked there and both died there.)

William Gleason was born in St Louis May 12 1858. He began his baseball career in Peoria Illinois (Peoria Reds) along with Tom Loftus, Charles Radbourn, brother Jack Gleason, Cliff Carroll and Jack Rowe. These players transferred early in 1879 to Dubuque to join Charles Comiskey.William Gleason was born in St Louis May 12, 1858 and died there July 21, 1932.

Sitting in both Dubuque Photos first we find the 20 year old little William Gleason with Comiskey for their 1879 Northwestern players Photo and again nine years later as major league players in 1884.

1887 was the last year on record Gleason played with Comiskeys St Louis team batting .336 In 1889 he ended his playing career with Louisville batting .216.

He played 8 years in 795 games with a .275 a lifetime batting average.

Runscott

03-03-2013, 05:50 PM

Gleason was 5'8", Comiskey was 6'0".

You have lost your mind.

sayhey24

03-03-2013, 05:55 PM

Oh my, this just keeps getting funnier and funnier.
How can you compare heights when in one photo the people are sitting and in the other they are standing?

Also how did "Gleason" in the 1879 photo go from looking like a 14 year old boy to a very mature looking man in the span of just five years?

Greg

thecatspajamas

03-03-2013, 06:03 PM

Oh my, this just keeps getting funnier and funnier.
How can you compare heights when in one photo the people are sitting and in the other they are standing?

Not only that, but they're not sitting at the same level! Is Gleason is also standing in a hole in the photo you showed? Because in your photo, your "Gleason" is seated on something lower than your "Comiskey", as evidenced by comparing their belt lines...

Directly

03-03-2013, 06:22 PM

+++ Now we have my 1879 Minor league Gleason who resembles Gleason in his St Louis major League 1884 photo--WOW+++
Several have looked at the two different ---DUBUQUE-- photos.They believe the two 1879 Comiskey photos indeed are the same player---thanks this is getting good.

So if Gleason is actually sitting lower thats a great point, meaning he is taller than the photo suggest.

HRBAKER

03-03-2013, 07:18 PM

Theatre of the Absurd!
It's been good for a while now.

Runscott

03-03-2013, 07:37 PM

03-03-2013, 07:40 PM

This is turning out to be what we call on the poker forums a "level" (ie. to post something which is intentionally deceptive, typically with the hope of eliciting a certain predictable reaction).

It is entertaining, I'll give him that.

Runscott

03-03-2013, 07:54 PM

slidekellyslide

03-03-2013, 07:57 PM

thecatspajamas

03-03-2013, 08:05 PM

Guys, this is really freaking me out, but I just realized.....

I AM CHARLES COMISKEY!!!!! :eek::eek::eek:

I was only a kid at the time, and had no idea, but now it's all creeping back into my consciousness, and it's tough. Someone please help.

Yup, head's exactly the same size. We have a match!

Wait, do you live in St. Louis...?

HRBAKER

03-03-2013, 08:08 PM

Guys, this is really freaking me out, but I just realized.....

I AM CHARLES COMISKEY!!!!! :eek::eek::eek:

I was only a kid at the time, and had no idea, but now it's all creeping back into my consciousness, and it's tough. Someone please help.

Always thought you were a hot dog Scott. Which one are you in the picture?

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s172/hrbaker/Decorated%20images/dubuque_zpsad9fc1ee.jpg

bmarlowe1

03-03-2013, 09:18 PM

Several have looked at the two different ---DUBUQUE-- photos.They believe the two 1879 Comiskey photos indeed are the same player

We don't know who "they" are, and in any case as anyone who is actually knowledgable about this subject will tell you, that means very little. Finding a person in an old photos that (to some) resembles a famous person is a very common occurrence. You certainly have succeeded in taking it to an absurd level.

Directly

03-03-2013, 10:54 PM

Next lets discuss the Radbourn comparison--unfortunately the hat hides the hair-line.--Is there any photo existing showing Radbourn without his mustache for comparisons?

Just recently on 60 minutes they interviewed the soldier that killed the most wanted man in the world. The soldier said he was trained with photographs to study the facial features to identify his target. He went on to say when he confronted the man in Pakistan, BL appearance had changed, he had changed his beard,etc--There was only one facial feature that CONFIRMED his man--do you know what it was???---

Directly

03-03-2013, 11:10 PM

Later I will compare Loftus and Carroll--that would make five Northwestern baseball players---until!--

dgo71

03-03-2013, 11:16 PM

Just recently on 60 minutes they interviewed the soldier that killed the most wanted man in the world. The soldier said he was trained with photographs to study the facial features to identify his target. He went on to say when he confronted the man in Pakistan, BL appearance had changed, he had changed his beard,etc--There was only one facial feature that CONFIRMED his man--do you know what it was???---

You are masterful at providing "evidence" that could only be even vaguely described as somewhat circumstancial.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

thecatspajamas

03-03-2013, 11:20 PM

Later I will compare Loftus and Carroll--that would make five Northwestern baseball players---until!--

Can't wait. Just keep on plodding along with your blinders up and your fingers in your ears.

sayhey24

03-04-2013, 07:00 AM

Next lets discuss the Radbourn comparison--unfortunately the hat hides the hair-line.

Just recently on 60 minutes they interviewed the soldier that killed the most wanted man in the world. The soldier said he was trained with photographs to study the facial features to identify his target. He went on to say when he confronted the man in Pakistan, BL appearance had changed, he had changed his beard,etc--There was only one facial feature that CONFIRMED his man--do you know what it was???---

I'm not sure what this obsession is with hairlines, since that's a feature that changes over time. But since hair was mentioned, notice how the hair in the fake Radbourn is a medium shade, leaning toward light, while the hair that can be seen in the photo of the real Radbourn is jet black (although the photo quality is poor). In a recent post in another thread here in the memorabilia section, artist Graig Kreindler also portrays Radbourn with black hair, and I believe he bases his paintings on period photographs.

Greg

slidekellyslide

03-04-2013, 07:47 AM

Runscott

03-04-2013, 09:50 AM

Who needs hairline analysis? I'm fairly sure that you could use simple algebra to prove that Radbourn's grandson is Comiskey’s grandfather and that Comiskey is the ghost of his own father.

(they used to do this all the time)

ctownboy

03-04-2013, 11:56 AM

If the OP continues at this rate, he will also find Pud Galvin, Willie Keeler, John Clarkson and King Kelly in the photo.....

In my opinion, I think two things should now happen:

1) The OP should stop with his sales pitches here and just see if any major auction house will accept this piece.

2) Everybody should just stop responding to whatever the OP writes. It is obvious the OP wont listen to anything people are saying and just "KNOWS" what he has is real and has Comiskey in it. So lets just stop wasting our time with him and let him continue down the Cobb/Edwards road....

David

bmarlowe1

03-04-2013, 12:13 PM

Comparing the "Dubuque" player claimed to be Radbourne c1879 (left) to the real Radbourn in 1882 (right), we can see how far delusion can carry a photo owner.

The exposure on this thread will hopefully make this item very hard to sell.

One major auction house has already rejected it.

ctownboy

03-04-2013, 01:03 PM

Bmarlowe1,

"One major auction house has already rejected it.".

That is my point. If the OP is wanting to sell this piece and REALLY thought Comiskey was in the picture, he wouldn't be spending so much time on this board trying to convince us Comiskey was in the picture but would, instead, be spending that time talking to different auction houses seeing what the best deal on consignment fees he could get.

Since he wasn't doing that, I came to the conclusion that he had already been rejected by an auction house and was on here fishing to see if he could come up with a person who had experience in this area of photo identification to back him up. Once he had that, I assumed he would disappear.

David

Directly

03-04-2013, 07:37 PM

Sorry its news to me and to the best of my knowledge my Dubuque Comiskey photo has never been offered for sale with any major auction house! I'm definitely not interested in a no reserve auction which has been discussed.--I did reject a offer to consign my photo without a RESERVE----sorry!

Tom Loftus was born in St Louis in 1856 and died in Dubuque in 1910--he played for St Louis in 1977 and again in 1883 but was best known as a manager. My Player resemblance number four-- Tom loftus.

perezfan

03-04-2013, 08:19 PM

Directly

03-04-2013, 09:01 PM

Samuel (Cliff) Carroll was born 1859 in Clay Grove, Iowa died 1923 in Portland, Oregan. He played for several different ball clubs in his eleven year career and played for St Louis one year in 1892. He transfered in 1879 from Peoria to Dubuque along with the Gleason Brothers, Lofton, Rowe and Radbourn.

Player resemblance number five--Cliff Carroll---(not to mention Ted Sullivan =6 )

Yea, just brush it under the rug--and it will all go away--Sorry it wasn't me that brought all this up --

Runscott

03-04-2013, 09:06 PM

This guy doesn't believe in these phony IDs any more than we do... He's simply trying to get a rise out of you (his on-line version of Punk'd.)

If everyone can just refrain from responding, this thread will quickly drop off the front page, and die a swift/necessary death.

Mark, He's not going away. I have no idea what his goal here is, as he's presented this to experts and is getting ridiculed, so all this thread is serving to do, is to document how absurd his premise is; i.e-this thread is negative advertising for his piece, and certainly for him as well. I can't imagine anyone considering anything he's selling after reading this thread.

Runscott

03-04-2013, 09:07 PM

--Sorry it wasn't me that brought all this up --

Have you lost your mind? (rhetorical question) - did your child steal your i.d. and start this thread?

bmarlowe1

03-04-2013, 09:44 PM

Sorry its news to me and to the best of my knowledge my Dubuque Comiskey photo has never been offered for sale with any major auction house! I'm definitely not interested in a no reserve auction which has been discussed.

Really - I've had a hi-res scan of your photo since 2011 - that is what I used to create the face comparisons I've posted on this thread. So, how did I get it?

thecatspajamas

03-04-2013, 09:56 PM

Sorry its news to me and to the best of my knowledge my Dubuque Comiskey photo has never been offered for sale with any major auction house! I'm definitely not interested in a no reserve auction which has been discussed.

Technically he's right. Since it was rejected by the auction house, it "has never been offered for sale with any major auction house."

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, he insisted that the AH market it as a photo with Comiskey in it, and include a reserve commensurate with such, and the AH (rightly) refused to take it on those terms and sent him and his photo packing. Had he dropped the whole Comiskey shenanigans, there are plenty of places that would sell the photo for what it actually is, but it's not going to bring the retirement money that he's looking for. By continuing this charade though, he's reducing his chances of anyone wanting the photo under any terms.

Directly

03-06-2013, 02:07 AM

WOW--a HI-RES SCAN--where it the world did you find that--??????--I never posted a scan of the original--???

Fact: For over one hundred years my Comiskey Dubuque Photograph was lost.--I rejected a consignment offer to sell without a reserve--sorry--again!

Should we ignore all the facts and forget the photo it exist , or is there something else at stake here?--Hair-line is very important, Why--because match is perfect--

slidekellyslide

03-06-2013, 06:23 AM

Fact: For over one hundred years my Comiskey Dubuque Photograph was lost.

Should we ignore all the facts and forget the photo it exist , or is there something else at stake here?

Showing us pictures that you think match are not facts. Sorry. What else would be at stake here? Do you think this is a conspiracy by Net54 to lower the value of your photograph? Do you think if one of us owned it that the verdict on this photo would be any different?

Directly

03-06-2013, 08:14 PM

I own the Comiskey photo so let me retort the chain of events in the order they transpired twenty years ago.

1)Fact:--True, I had a hunch since my photo was from Dubuque.

2)Fact:--True, In 1992 I did allowed the photo to leave my hands.

3)Fact:--True, my photo was returned because "Quote" the players didn't sport mustaches.--"No problem"

4)Fact:--True, "LATER" by chance I ran across the 1887 Dubuque Comiskey St Louis Team photo.

5)Fact:--True, They wanted the photo back again. I was asked to mail the photo or drive it in.

6)Fact:--True, I didn't.---so is this a consignment???

Quote: (Showing us pictures that you think match are not facts. Sorry. What else would be at stake here? Do you think this is a conspiracy by Net54 to lower the value of your photograph? Do you think if one of us owned it that the verdict on this photo would be any different?)--

Reply: Conspiracy of course not, why would I ??. I do believe when a well known collector, dealer or Auction House presents a item, some people are inclined to agree with them.

Note: Net54 is a great forum to document my legal ownership.--Thanks!

slidekellyslide

03-06-2013, 09:37 PM

I own the Comiskey photo so let me retort the chain of events in the order they transpired twenty years ago.

1)Fact:--True, I had a hunch since my photo was from Dubuque.

2)Fact:--True, In 1992 I did allowed the photo to leave my hands.

3)Fact:--True, my photo was returned because "Quote" the players didn't sport mustaches.--"No problem"

4)Fact:--True, "LATER" by chance I ran across the 1887 Dubuque Comiskey St Louis Team photo.

5)Fact:--True, They wanted the photo back again. I was asked to mail the photo or drive it in.

6)Fact:--True, I didn't.---so is this a consignment???

Quote: (Showing us pictures that you think match are not facts. Sorry. What else would be at stake here? Do you think this is a conspiracy by Net54 to lower the value of your photograph? Do you think if one of us owned it that the verdict on this photo would be any different?)

Reply: Conspiracy of course not. I do believe when a well known collector, dealer or Auction House presents a item, some people are inclined to agree with them.

Note: Net54 is a great forum to document my legal ownership.--Thanks!

Who is "They"? And why do you need Net54 to document legal ownership of the photo?

Runscott

03-06-2013, 10:24 PM

Who is "They"? And why do you need Net54 to document legal ownership of the photo?

I didn't realize that talking about something in public proved legal ownership.

Now I'm talking about this town ball photo. Since I've now established ownership, please tear it up and throw it away. Thanks.

dgo71

03-06-2013, 11:34 PM

Note: Net54 is a great forum to document my legal ownership.--Thanks!

Sweet, I didn't realize it was that easy!

http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae158/DGO_11/Idaho_zpse6222e73.jpg

People of Idaho...I now own your fair state. I will be instituting a flat tax of 2%, payable directly to me, effective April 1st. Sorry Idaho-ians, that's how it goes. Apparently all I have to do is discuss you and show your picture and you are legally mine. I may also at a later date decide to change the state's name to something that will allow you to refer to yourself as something that rolls off the tongue more fluidly than Idaho-ians. Suggestions are welcome, but remember, I make the final decision. I own you after all. Legally. Fair and square. No givesies-backsies.

slidekellyslide

03-07-2013, 07:49 AM

Maybe this is a new take on "adverse possession"? The internet version of squatter's rights?

Runscott

03-07-2013, 01:57 PM

Now let's talk about America. There, I guess I own it.

I know there's probably going to be some legal issues with the state of Idaho, so I'll defer ownership to the guy who recently established ownership by talking about that particular state (but all other 49 states are MINE!).

Here's our new t-shirt:

dgo71

03-07-2013, 08:11 PM

I like it!

Directly

03-08-2013, 10:02 AM

Again for the Record--Why these Facts adds up positive my baseball player is Charles Comiskey than not!---

1) My photograph was taken in Dubuque.

2) My 1879 photograph was taken during the same time frame Comiskey lived and was playing baseball in Dubuque.

3) Comiskey eight years later ask Dubuque photographer Jordan to take his St Louis team photo, so Comiskey knew the photographer. There were at least two other Studio's in town, but Comiskey again chose Jordan's!)

4) My Dubuque photograph ended up in St Louis, where several of the baseball players ended up.

5) My baseball Player strongly resembles Comiskey, what's the odds there was another teenager in Dubuque resembling Comiskey during the same time frame, not even calculating the astronomical probability of this Comiskey twin being in a baseball team photo--WOW---do the math on those odds?--If I had a photo of a kid in a suit & tie, I wouldn't be having this discussion--but in a baseball photo--PLEASE!

6) What's the odds other players in my Dubuque photograph resemble players whom moved over to Dubuque from Peoria, Illinois in 1879?

7) My Dubuque Comiskey photograph is possibly the only in existence. Probably nine or less were produced. Hence the extreme rarity.

Thanks again NET54 forum to established the facts.

--Until and have a wonderful day!

GrayGhost

03-08-2013, 10:12 AM

Where is Tommy Roe when you need him? ....Dizzy. Im so dizzy, my head is spinning.....:rolleyes:

I just have one simple question.

IS THIS COMMY OR NOT?????????????:)

bmarlowe1

03-08-2013, 10:19 AM

5) My baseball Player strongly resembles Comiskey, what's the odds there was another teenager in Dubuque resembling Comiskey during the same time frame, not even calculating the astronomical probability of this Comiskey twin being in a baseball team photo--WOW---do the math on those odds?

6) What's the odds other players in my Dubuque photograph resemble players whom moved over to Dubuque from Peoria, Illinois in 1879?

<5> As explained in previous posts, experience tells us that the odds against finding a photo of a player that to some resembles a famous player are not at all astronomical - it is common, even if the photo originates from a place where that person played. I can look in my high school yearbook and find faces that resemble famous people that come from this same region. Furthermore - the obvious ear mismatch (post #3) tells us with certainty that it is not Comiskey. The resemblance you claim means nothing.

<6> None of the others resemble the players you claim them to be, and some of your comparisons are laughingly ludicrous.

thecatspajamas

03-08-2013, 10:32 AM

Again for the Record--Why these Facts adds up positive my baseball player is Charles Comiskey than not!---

1) My photograph was taken in Dubuque.

2) My 1879 photograph was taken during the same time frame Comiskey lived and was playing baseball in Dubuque.

3) Comiskey eight years later ask Dubuque photographer Jordan to take his St Louis team photo, so Comiskey knew the photographer.

4) My Dubuque photograph ended up in St Louis, where several of the baseball players ended up.

5) My baseball Player strongly resembles Comiskey, what's the odds there was another teenager in Dubuque resembling Comiskey during the same time frame, not even calculating the astronomical probability of this Comiskey twin being in a baseball team photo--WOW---do the math on those odds?

6) What's the odds other players in my Dubuque photograph resemble players whom moved over to Dubuque from Peoria, Illinois in 1879?

7) My Dubuque Comiskey photograph is possibly the only in existence. Probably nine or less were produced. Hence the extreme rarity.

Thanks again NET54 forum to established the facts.

--Until and have a wonderful day!

Fact: It was shown in post #3 that Comiskey is NOT in your photo, and could not possibly be the individual you had identified as him.

The rest of your "facts" are extrapolations and suppositions based on your original flawed identification of Comiskey in your photograph. It's all fruit of the poisonous tree so to speak, and the more you try to force the rest of the team into your photo, the more ridiculous you have made yourself look.

Runscott

03-08-2013, 10:40 AM

Again for the Record--Why these Facts adds up positive my baseball player is Charles Comiskey than not!---

1)

--Until and have a wonderful day!

I've replaced your list with the ones that are meaningful in identifying the players in your photo.

If you were sold this as being a photo with Comiskey, you should be able to use the expert advice given on this board, to get your money back.

Directly

03-08-2013, 10:56 AM

You are kidding--right--your not serious. Are you saying experts can't be wrong?--not even ONCE?-

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by slidekellyslide
Who is "They"? And why do you need Net54 to document legal ownership of the photo?

"I didn't realize that talking about something in public proved legal ownership."

OK- someday I try to contact a relative about my photo, because the photo was not offered for retail sales, is possessson 90 percent of the law?--In other words, would distant relatives have any rights to the photograph since it had been lost for say for 85 years. Is there a statue of limitations on collectibles, or can we use the old saying " finders keepers,losers weepers?

Runscott

03-08-2013, 11:42 AM

You are kidding--right--your not serious. Are you saying experts can't be wrong?--not even ONCE?-

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by slidekellyslide
Who is "They"? And why do you need Net54 to document legal ownership of the photo?

"I didn't realize that talking about something in public proved legal ownership."

OK- someday I try to contact a relative about my photo, because the photo was not offered for retail sales, is possessson 90 percent of the law?--In other words, would they have any rights to the photograph. Is there a statue of limitations on collectibles, or can we use the old saying " finders keepers,losers weepers?

Thanks for clarifying. I think that your post above summarizes your thoughts very well, and that we can finally let this thread die.

Great job explaining yourself.

sayhey24

03-08-2013, 12:04 PM

You are kidding--right--your not serious. Are you saying experts can't be wrong?--not even ONCE?-

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

Quote:

OK- someday I try to contact a relative about my photo, because the photo was not offered for retail sales, is possessson 90 percent of the law?--In other words, would they have any rights to the photograph. Is there a statue of limitations on collectibles, or can we use the old saying " finders keepers,losers weepers?

Of course experts can be wrong, but the ears don't lie. In this case the ears of the "fake" Comiskey and the real Comiskey clearly belong to two different men -- you don't need an expert for that, just a person with eyes.

Can someone clear something up for me -- am I recalling correctly that this is not an original photo, but a copy made much later. Wouldn't that mean it doesn't have much value regardless of who is in it?

And finally we have a Seinfeld quote in this thread -- "statue of limitations"!

Greg

thecatspajamas

03-08-2013, 01:08 PM

OK- someday I try to contact a relative about my photo, because the photo was not offered for retail sales, is possessson 90 percent of the law?--In other words, would they have any rights to the photograph. Is there a statue of limitations on collectibles, or can we use the old saying " finders keepers,losers weepers?

Is that your way of saying you don't actually own the photo? Because it sounds like you are now asking if it's okay to steal it from a family member. Or you're concerned that a family member will steal it from you?

It's very hard to tell exactly what you are asking with your brutalization of the English language. It actually sounds like 2 different people writing from one post to the next...

Runscott

03-08-2013, 01:30 PM

It's very hard to tell exactly what you are asking with your brutalization of the English language.

Thanks - I needed that chuckle !!!

Directly

03-08-2013, 04:42 PM

Ok, the experts claim these two people don't resemble each other whatsoever---- we can't help a picture tells a thousand words.

A photo is common showing a player whom resembles a famous player--Really--How common when the photo was taken during the same period in the same town and is a perfect match (please dont say hair-line isn't a major factor--you show it hundreds of examples--just recently too!) --please use common sense--whats everyone so worried of here??

Lordstan

03-08-2013, 05:37 PM

OK. I have absolutely had it with this guy.
Hello....Is anybody home inside your head?

Let's summarize shall we?
1) First you ask if it's Comiskey in your initial post. You follow with a series of posts which attempt to disprove everything all the people who replied stated. Perhaps you should consider the fact that everyone who has replied to this thread feels that the person you identified is not Comiskey, except you!
2) In the 3rd post, the ears are clearly shown to be different and therefore PROVE WITHOUT A SHRED OF DOUBT that the player you identify as Comiskey cannot be him.
3) You then follow with some half ass drawing of the ears, which are obviously drawn by a blind man, attempting to show the ears are the same.
4) You create this cockamamie timeline about how because Comiskey was in Dubuque and knew the photographer. This was followed by the picture was found in St Louis and therefore was owned by a player because some of them wound up there later? Really? What are you smoking? Can I have some?
5) Somewhere in there you start in trying to identify a whole bunch of other people as part of the team Comiskey was on in Dubuque. Of course none of these match.
6) Next someone questioned that if they're all on the same team, why are they dressed differently? I count 5-6 different uniforms on these guys. They couldn't be the team you are referring to because they're not even on the same team period!
7) Now you start with some crap about ownership. Blah, Blah, Blah. It makes no sense and has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't Comiskey.
8) Most recently, you post another comparison pic stating that the 2 people resemble each other. Who cares? Resembling someone isn't the same, and doesn't prove they're the same person .

Finally and Hopefully forever, we can state definitively, without question or reservation, that Charles Comiskey is NOT in this photo!!!

I would hope Leon would consider locking this thread as this person clearly is trying to manipulate information he is being given in an attempt to justify his crazy and unfounded theory.

Best,
M@rk Vel@rde

springpin

03-08-2013, 06:15 PM

Leon,

How much money would each member have to pay the board to make this thread stop? There is nothing of redeeming value about it anymore. Please?

perezfan

03-08-2013, 10:55 PM

Agree...

Please put us out of this misery, and lock it. I was hoping that we as a group could resist the urge to respond to this nonsense. But apparently the urge to set the OP straight was too overwhelming...

It's time to say sayonara...

slidekellyslide

03-09-2013, 07:46 AM

There's nothing in this thread that warrants it being locked. No name calling, no nastiness. While we all may agree there is nothing to debate here and Directly hasn't exactly given us any real facts it's an on topic post.

perezfan

03-09-2013, 10:19 AM

It may be "on topic", but what exactly is the topic?

1. Dimentia
2. Derangement
3. Denial
4. Blindness
5. Stupidity
6. Greed
7. Wishful Thinking
8. All of the above

Any subject matter involving baseball players would rank behind those topics, IMHO

bmarlowe1

03-09-2013, 11:08 AM

I am sympathetic to the sentiments recently posted, though I think in the end Dan is right.

The the responses to Tom (AKA Directly) continue perhaps due to a concern is that in the future someone might read the first post of the thread and then perhaps jump to a final post or series of posts on the thread by Tom that were not responded to, and then think the photo may be good. Perhaps we shouldn't worry about someone being that stupid.

Directly

03-10-2013, 12:56 AM

The prosecution for the record has admitted my player resembles Comiskey. If there is any probability, then what? We should add into the formula all the facts-for a non-bias evaluation, correct. So with all the facts, there is a very high probability my player is indeed the 19 year old Charles Comiskey.

If the audience will please review this entire forum and read between the lines I have been called, deceiving, out of my mind, bogus, ridicules, fake, in so many words a crook, etc, etc, etc-+++ (WHY?) -even my grammar, really composition got something to do with the facts--it appears some are trying every angle of demeanor to try to convince the jury I'm wrong, and they were correct with a inaccurate evaluation. Even years ago, before they took into account all the facts. Then to go as far in writing I had consigned my Comiskey photograph, which was not true or factual .

Its been posted and confirmed any expert can make a mistake, that's comforting.

Sorry, comparing the facts and his facial features. I win.

Directly

03-10-2013, 01:43 AM

Thanks Slidekellyslide I appreciate you comment.

I'm just presenting facts, nothing more nothing less. This is still American right? Where collectors can have the right to a public forum to discuss their opinions be right are wrong.

Please calm down and relax, why all the name calling and yelling asking to shut down a important forum just because someone disagrees with another's opinion. I am rather disappointed the facts aren't relevant but its understandable its extremely tough to swallow my 1879 Comiskey photo exist.

bmarlowe1

03-10-2013, 10:20 AM

The prosecution for the record has admitted my player resembles Comiskey.

That would me me, For the record I said, "This is a classic case of someone finding a 19thC baseball photo with someone who vaguely resembles a well-known figure…..I have no doubt that to you they look alike. However, with all due respect, that means very little when the ear shapes are grossly different.

I don't care about your grammar. Other posters are hard on you mainly because what you have posted shows that you are completely unable to comprehend and respond to simple logical arguments, and your "thinking" on this issue is representative of problems that have plagued the hobby for a long time.

As for the auction house, you definitely submitted your photo to a major auction house in 2011 with the Comiskey claim. They did not accept the claim.

Lordstan

03-10-2013, 11:23 AM

Tom,
The reason you have been described in that way is because you are either unwilling or unable to see the facts that have been laid before you. What is happening here is that you have been informed by every single person who responded to your post, that it isn't Comiskey. In multiple posts, we have presented unrefutable evidence that this isn't Comiskey. Still you refuse to believe, and have hung onto the idea that the kid may slightly resemble Comiskey combined with a whole bunch of circumstances that aren't even known to be factually true. I'm sorry guy, but that isn't evidence.

One more time let me help you understand the correct way to analyze this information...
It doesn't matter that you think they have a couple features in common.
It doesn't matter that Comiskey was in Dubuque in 1879 and possibly knew the photographer.
It doesn't matter that the pic came from St Louis and some players on the Dubuque team wound up in St Louis. This is your wild assumption and not in any way a provable fact.
Even if all your assumptions were shown to be true, it still wouldn't matter.

WHY?

None of the above matters because the ears don't match.

Why is this important?

The ears are a facial feature that don't change as we age. Therefore, if they are clearly visible, ear shape comparison can be used with virtually 100% accuracy to match photos of people. In your picture, the ears of the kid in question don't match the ears of Charles Comiskey in pictures that we know for sure are him.
The reality is that you could have a thousand other pieces of circumstance that you feel somehow ties Comiskey to this picture, but the kid's ears still won't match. FACT: If the ears don't match it isn't him.

Why am I frustrated? I am ticked because you come on here asking for help. You get answers you don't like and then either ignore them or attempt to invalidate them. You go from "experts aren't always right" to then suggesting that we, as a group, are somehow attempting to purposefully deny the photo's significance. When someone tells me that I don't know what I am doing or that I am lying, I do tend to take it a little personally.
Pretty much, all of the people who responded to you have many years of hobby experience. Many with photograph expertise. BMarlowe1, Mark, is one of, if not "THE" foremost picture identification expert in the entire hobby. If you had read previous threads on this forum, you will see that we are very supportive of individuals who make great "finds." No one here has any desire to disprove something that is real. Can an expert be incorrect? Sure. Being you like to quote about odds so much...What are the odds that when they all agree, they are all wrong together? Astronomical. :D

You obviously want this picture to be Comiskey, for financial and perhaps other reasons. No matter how hard you try it isn't and won't ever be him.

One last thing.
This is America.
This is not a public forum. It is a private forum. You had to apply to join. Neither you nor I have the "right" to post on this forum. We have the privilege to post our opinions on this forum. (To the Owners/Mods TYVM, BTW). The owners of this forum get to decide what is acceptable and what isn't.

Mark,
Your analysis hit the nail on the head. I asked Dan/Leon to close it so hopefully someone sometime wouldn't do exactly what you stated. We see his responses and assume he can't be this dense, so he must be attempting to defraud. I think policing the hobby is something most serious collectors are concerned about.

Dan,
I understand. I know locking threads is something you guys hate to do. This entire discussion just frustrates me.

Directly

03-10-2013, 05:06 PM

I'm not the new kid on the block either. Before selling my retail building location in 2006 I was a SportsNet member and later DealerNetB2B. Many of those past contacts are probably gone, but If anyone out there is reading this topic-HELLO AGAIN!

Vaguely looks like Comiskey--PLease---any true baseball photo collector should know better--I own the photo and I am starting to believe thats the problem--is it?

Sorry--just another error who told you ears won't change with age?--Fact: Time will tend to cause our faces to change and the ears to droop, its call gravity.

The ear scenario presented as comparisons in my opinion is extremely so close, not to be conclusive at all. If I offended anyone due to this opinion, I'm sorry!

I hope the keepers of the NET54 forum monitor this topic and see my presentation as being in good taste, in a fair and dignified manner, constructive, informative and educational.----Thanks!

Runscott

03-10-2013, 05:13 PM

Mark is our resident expert in facial recognition. You've lost him completely, and we all agree with him.

Strike 3. Go back to the dugout.

bmarlowe1

03-10-2013, 05:55 PM

Sorry--just another error who told you ears won't change with age?--Fact: Time will tend to cause our faces to change and the ears to droop, its call gravity

Earlobes can droop with age - this typically becomes evident around age 70. This is almost never seen when comparing faces of men of ball playing age.The faces in post 3 were sufficiently young so that age droop would not be a factor. In any case, droop would not explain the obvious difference in shape in this case.

Directly

03-12-2013, 06:18 AM

I have presented only the facts. If there is such a thing as destiny and I was allowed to find the photo, I can't answer this, if so I will do to my best to protect the photograph for the future generations.I will keep all the documentation with the photo so hopefully it will never be lost again for the time someone much better qualified and deserving than me to be its keeper. -I attached the 1910 photo of Comiskey looking out over his new baseball stadium! Please just take one last look, and thanks again!

Important note:--By the way this is the first scan of the original ever posted or released and its just at 12 megapixels--so is this a professional high res scan--please!!

Last final note for the record: The local Baseball team during the time my photograph was made were named the Dubuque Rabbits.--

I will be addressing my photo with a professional facial expert for a second opinion--.-one should always get a second professional opinion with a photo of this magnitude, don't you agree?--if its permissiable to the forum I may post their conclusion?--the conclusion either way could be a extremely interesting article ---

Comiskey was named the Old Roman--do you know why?--

--

I'm over 50 and I won't be put out to pasture--not just yet!--