An update: I present to you.....

[Brian Van Horn]

Paul Waner.

Just confirmed with a relative of the Waners.

Thank you,

Brian Van Horn

[bmarlowe1]

As anyone involved with serious photo ID would tell you, relatives often suffer from the same wishful thinking as do collectors. I am just guessing this person who offered the ID did not know Waner as a young person.


A relative's opinion pales in probative value compared to an ear mismatch.


See post #29:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345

[Brian Van Horn]

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

?

[Brian Van Horn]

The cheekbones and the relative trump the ears.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

So sharing some portion of DNA gives one some enhanced ability to ID a kid in a 110 year old photo. That's as illogical as everything else you have said on this subject.


And, the cheekbones do not match. In any case, any apparent particlular feature "match" would not trump an ear mis-match, at least according to the scientific literature and practice by any major law-enforcement agency. So you can go with that, or you can go with Mr. Van Horn.

[Brian Van Horn]

No hard feelings. Enjoy looking at Paul Waner. :D

[Jim65]

The #1 rule of photomatching game worn jerseys, is to look for differences not similarities. Differences always overrule similarities.

I would think that rule applies to photomatching almost anything, including people.

[bmarlowe1]

yes

[Brian Van Horn]

I hate telling you this, but the jerseys could be explained simply by the part of the country. Old jerseys, yes, but could they still be worn years after other parts of the country changed? Yes.

Enjoy Paul Waner

P.S.

The ear argument is weak. Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet. I graduated with size nine feet. They are now ten and a half.

[bmarlowe1]

> old jerseys

Here you are refering to the original thread where I argued that based on Waner's DOB, it would be unlikely that as a teenager he would be on a team wearing collared jerseys. I said that alone made it "unlikely" that Waner was in the photo - I never said that was conclusive.

> The ear argument is weak. Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet..

Yes your feet spread out because you stand on them for thousands of hours during your life - do you stand on your ears? Ears change little from young adolesence (or earlier) to about age 60 or 70 on average. This is in the scientific literature (I can email you some recent papers if you like) and has really been well-established for over a century. The ear growth that does occur (small fractions of a mm) is not perceptible in a photo and does not change the ear shape. This is especially applicable to humans of ball-playing age.The ear argument is THE argument that is accepted by forensic practitioners, auction houses, law-enforcement, museums, etc.

Even beyond age 70 - what you usually see is drooping earlobes (due to years of gravity pull) and the top of the ear may curl over a bit, but the basic ear shape stays the same and if one is careful you can compare an old man's ears to that of a teenager.

You have a habit of making things up out of thin air.

[Brian Van Horn]

Mark,

Argue all you want. It is Paul Waner. The identity has been confirmed by a relative. By the way, because of the jersey, I asked the person in the title of the e-mail if the person in the photo was Paul Waner or his father Ora Lee Waner. The response:

It is Paul Waner.

This person volunteered in a phone conversation with me as well that the family has numerous photos of the brothers prior to submitting the e-mail with an attachment of the photo in question. These other photos would cover all ages. Let's review.

There are only two gentlemen this could have been in the photo.

1.) Paul Waner
2.) Ora Lee Waner who was good enough as an amateur pitcher to be offered a contract by the Chicago White Sox. He declined the offer.

Who is the gentleman in the photo?

The answer:

Paul Waner.

[Tao_Moko]

As long as Brian owns it then it is Waner. Pretty certain it's that simple from what I read. So, nice Waner Brian. The jury is only important if it sold as Waner definitively.

[Brian Van Horn]

As long as Brian owns it then it is Waner. Pretty certain it's that simple from what I read. So, nice Waner Brian. The jury is only important if it sold as Waner definitively.

Tongue-in-cheek. Thank you.

[robertsmithnocure]

This would make an interesting poll. My vote would be that it is not Paul Waner.

I would think that it would be the differences in images that would be the tell-tale sign, not the similarities.

[Brian Van Horn]

Finally got around to this amusing, but false statement:

"You have a habit of making things up out of thin air."

You have a record of flat out being wrong.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

>> you have a record of flat out being wrong.


Like I said, you have a habit of making things up out of thin air.


>> The identity has been confirmed by a relative


That is false. You can only say that a relative thinks it is Waner. We know nothing about this relative and there is no reason to think his or her judgement is any better than that of anyone else, particularly given the easily discerned ear evidence for which you have yet to provide a sensible response.


Relatives are often wrong as to who is in an old photo.

[Brian Van Horn]

>> you have a record of flat out being wrong.


Like I said, you have a habit of making things up out of thin air.


>> The identity has been confirmed by a relative


That is false. You can only say that a relative thinks it is Waner. We know nothing about this relative and there is no reason to think his or her judgement is any better than that of anyone else.


Relatives are often wrong as to who is in an old photo.

So, a relative with a large inventory of photos of the family history is wrong. An inventory that would include pictures of Paul and Lloyd at all ages. A relative that discerned Paul from Ora Lee to clear away that possible argument of mistaken identity.

Excuse me for a moment.......

Bwahaha! Of course you will now make the hilarious argument I am making up the relative. No. I do not make up information out of thin air. The relative, who if they want to reveal their identity is up to them not me.

The relative's ID of Paul Waner flatly carries more weight than your argument. It is Paul Waner. Kindly deal with it.

No hard feelings. :)

[Tao_Moko]

Tongue-in-cheek. Thank you.

My point was that you are not attempting to raise its value for resale so no reason to get all twisted up over it. This hobby has mostly turned to sh*t because the joy of collecting has been overtaken by ear forensics and grading companies that are all flawed and riddled with human error and a lack of scientific controls that would not be accepted almost anywhere else. I don't remember 30 years ago bickering over qualifiers and ear lobe growth. Not sure why I came back and commented so I'll crawl back under my rock. Basically, enjoy the card for what it is to you and tell some kids about who Paul and his brother were.

[bmarlowe1]

>> The relative's ID of Paul Waner flatly carries more weight than your argument.


It's not my argument, it's 100 years of forensic science for which you have yet to provide a response.


We all have access to many Waner photos. Why don't you request scans of the young Paul Waner photos upon which the relative based his opinion for us all to see? Would not it have been prudent to do that even before you started this thread so we all could see? or is it just easier for you to assume a relative can't be wrong because it suits your purpose? Is this relative any good at facial recognition - how can we know?

[bmarlowe1]

>>... I don't remember 30 years ago bickering over qualifiers and ear lobe growth


That's right, and there were a lot more mis-identified photos sold in the hobby. You think that was good?

[Fred]

Front row, second from right?

[ksfarmboy]

What’s stamped on the back if that is a postcard?

[bmarlowe1]

Front row, second from right?


See link at end of post #2

[Brian Van Horn]

My point was that you are not attempting to raise its value for resale so no reason to get all twisted up over it. This hobby has mostly turned to sh*t because the joy of collecting has been overtaken by ear forensics and grading companies that are all flawed and riddled with human error and a lack of scientific controls that would not be accepted almost anywhere else. I don't remember 30 years ago bickering over qualifiers and ear lobe growth. Not sure why I came back and commented so I'll crawl back under my rock. Basically, enjoy the card for what it is to you and tell some kids about who Paul and his brother were.

Bravo!

Couldn't agree more. +1!

[Brian Van Horn]

>> The relative's ID of Paul Waner flatly carries more weight than your argument.


It's not my argument, it's 100 years of forensic science for which you have yet to provide a response.


We all have access to many Waner photos. Why don't you request scans of the young Paul Waner photos upon which the relative based his opinion for us all to see? Would not it have been prudent to do that even before you started this thread so we all could see? or is it just easier for you to assume a relative can't be wrong because it suits your purpose? Is this relative any good at facial recognition - how can we know?

My response has already been given. Go back and review. The relative outweighs you in this matter. The photos on the end of the relative back it up.

[tiger8mush]

Can a higher resolution scan be taken of the postcard?

Do we know anything about the team? Is it a minor league team that would've had stats in the local newspaper?

Do the uniforms or equipment help date the photo?

In the thread from a couple years ago, a member compared that postcard to one he claims might be of the same teammates from a couple years before. If true (same teammates via scientific facial recognition), can any of the above questions be answered with respect to THAT postcard? See post #15 here:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345

Do we know what teams Waner played on in his late teenage years?

Do we have any high resolution scans of Waner during his adolescent years that we can compare to his older years to see how much his facial recognition features (ears/nose) changed (or didn't)?

What is the provenance of the postcard? Was it purchased from a random dealer on ebay or was it found in a pile of Waner family keepsakes?

[Brian Van Horn]

Can a higher resolution scan be taken of the postcard?

Do we know anything about the team? Is it a minor league team that would've had stats in the local newspaper?

Do the uniforms or equipment help date the photo?

In the thread from a couple years ago, a member compared that postcard to one he claims might be of the same teammates from a couple years before. If true (same teammates via scientific facial recognition), can any of the above questions be answered with respect to THAT postcard? See post #15 here:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345

Do we know what teams Waner played on in his late teenage years?

Do we have any high resolution scans of Waner during his adolescent years that we can compare to his older years to see how much his facial recognition features (ears/nose) changed (or didn't)?

What is the provenance of the postcard? Was it purchased from a random dealer on ebay or was it found in a pile of Waner family keepsakes?

Picture from my phone coming. I'll try to hold the phone steady. No illness, just the truth that goes along with me not making things up. Nothing against you, just keeping this on an even keel following a previous accusation in this thread.

[tiger8mush]

Also, if we CAN get a higher res of the postcard, there are a couple players with a patch or writing on their left shoulder / sleeve. That might help give a clue for team identification?

And as ksfarmboy mentioned, is it a postcard back or blank back?

[bmarlowe1]

>>My response has already been given.

Oh yes, your ears are like your feet. That was rich.

>> The photos are on the end of the relative back it up.

Can you say that again in English?

So in the short span of time this thread has been running I got 4 emails and 1 PM requesting photo ID help. I wonder how many Mr. Van Horn got?

One in particular is on point. It is from a relative of a 19thC player well-known to us all. There is a team photo owned by the family. One current relative has identified one team member as the ancestor, while another relative disagrees and says it is another team member. That's would be enough to make Mr. Van Horn's head explode. I will just compare the ears.

[Brian Van Horn]

As promised. A photo from my phone. Hope the resolution is sufficient. For what it is worth, and I noted this in a previous posting in another thread, Paul Waner is pictured as a left handed pitcher which was his original position in the minors.

[bmarlowe1]

>> just keeping this on an even keel following a previous accusation in this thread.

You have trouble understanding things. The stuff about how ears grow like your feet grow - that you made up. It has no basis in fact.

[Brian Van Horn]

>>My response has already been given.

Oh yes, your ears are like your feet. That was rich.

>> The photos are on the end of the relative back it up.

Can you say that again in English?

So in the short span of time this thread has been running I got 4 emails and 1 PM requesting photo ID help. I wonder how many Mr. Van Horn got?

One in particular is on point. It is from a relative of a 19thC player well-known to us all. There is a team photo owned by the family. One current relative has identified one team member as the ancestor, while another relative disagrees and says it is another team member. That's would be enough to make Mr. Van Horn's head explode. I will just compare the ears.

Can you say that again in English?

If I have to, I'll put it in pigeon English.

The relative has a huge collection of photos. The photos are more than you and I could ever possibly hope to attain for a collection. Those photos back up the ID of the player being Paul Waner. It doesn't mean the relative has pictures of Paul in this uniform. It means the recognition is that this IS Paul Waner. This has to be explained?

No hard feelings.

[Brian Van Horn]

>> just keeping this on an even keel following a previous accusation in this thread.

You have trouble understanding things. The stuff about how ears grow like your feet grow - that you made up. It has no basis in fact.

You're zero for two. :D

https://www.doctoroz.com/blog/arthur-perry-md/noses-and-ears-continue-grow-we-age

But, of course, I am just making that up......Not.

No hard feelings. Just let me know if you'd like more from that made up, oh, what should we call it......oh, wait......Fact. :D

[bmarlowe1]

Also, if we CAN get a higher res of the postcard, there are a couple players with a patch or writing on their left shoulder / sleeve. That might help give a clue for team identification?


The team name is as it says on most of the jerseys: "All star", but they use an actual star instead of the word "star." So apparently it is an all-star team. You won't get higher res from the OP - he probably doesn't know how and he already "knows" Waner is there, so why bother.

[Brian Van Horn]

Just for complete disclosure, here is the back:

[bmarlowe1]

You're zero for two. :D

https://www.doctoroz.com/blog/arthur-perry-md/noses-and-ears-continue-grow-we-age

But, of course, I am just making that up......Not.

No hard feelings. Just let me know if you'd like more from that made up, oh, what should we call it......oh, wait......Fact. :D


I did not say they don't grow and I did say that earlobes may droop when one gets old. I also correctly said they don't grow enough to be perceptible in a photo until one is well beyond ball-playing age. They certainly don't grow like your feet.

You've got an imprecise Dr. Oz blog post for popular consumption that you found and incorrectly interpreted after you made your assertion, I have this from "Ear Biometrics and Machine Vision", Burge and Burger, 21st Workshop for Pattern Recognition, Austria, 1997: "It is obvious that the structure of the ear does not change radically over time"... ""Ear shape and structure are relatively constant from about age 8 to age 70." "Forensic Art and Illustration", Karen T. Taylor, Ch. 8, pegs visible ear changing in photos starting beyond age 60. There is much, much more like this, but it is not easy reading (for you).

[Brian Van Horn]

I did not say they don't grow and I did say that earlobes may droop when one gets old. I also correctly said they don't grow enough to be perceptible in a photo until one is well beyond ball-playing age. They certainly don't grow like your feet. You've got an imprecise Dr. Oz blog post for popular consumption that you found and incorrectly interpreted after you made your assertion, I have this from "Ear Biometrics and Machine Vision", Burge and Burger, 21st Workshop for Pattern Recognition, Austria, 1997: "It is obvious that the structure of the ear does not change radically over time"... ""Ear shape and structure are relatively constant from about age 8 to age 70." "Forensic Art and Illustration", Karen T. Taylor, Ch. 8, pegs visible ear changing in photos starting beyond age 60. There is much, much more like this, but it is not easy reading (for you).

Face it. The ears, the nose and, in my case, the feet continue to grow. Is it possible, just possible in some of your IDs without this knowledge, without this made up, oh....fact, you may have made an incorrect conclusion in identity in your past? For all of the science that is out there, we are human first.

Your basis for ID is a uniform and an ear. There are different uniforms in the picture albeit all with the collar at the top of the uniform. Then there is the ear. One ear that, like the rest of the human ears on this planet, has cartilage that grows with age. Of course, there is also the ID from the relative with a very large number of photos of Paul from all ages. Hmmmm....may want to brush up on your ears and noses in the future. As for the throat, I am trying not to hiccup from something else this enthralling discussion is causing me. :D

Pleasant reading and no hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Is it possible, just possible in some of your IDs without this knowledge...you may have made an incorrect conclusion in identity

No because I have had this knowledge for a very long time and understand it (you don't) - did you read my last post? It isn't that complicated - please read it. I actually read books on the subject before making assertions.

>> For all of the science that is out there, we are human first.

What does that mean?

>> Your basis for ID is a uniform and an ear.

No, please read more carefully. It is the ear. Other significant facial feature mis-matches are also there - but the ear is almost always the best thing to use if it is visible because it is nearly constant over the age-ranges of interest to us and does not vary with changing facial expression.

>> there is also the ID from the relative with a very large number of photos of Paul from all ages

So why can't we see what he used? We don't have to see the whole collection, just a few of the young Paul Waner photos he used. Also read (or re-read slowly) the last paragraph of post #30.

[Brian Van Horn]

You are wonderful for my health. :D

" Is it possible, just possible in some of your IDs without this knowledge...you may have made an incorrect conclusion in identity

No because I have had this knowledge for a very long time and understand it (you don't) - did you read my last post? It isn't that complicated - please read it. I actually read books on the subject before making assertions."

So, how is it on something you stated I made up-the growing of the ears and nose-is a fact. A fact that I have known since the age of eight. I am now 53.

You identify people in photos, but somehow managed to miss that basic fact and, to boot, accuse me of making it up.

They say laughter is the best medicine. I never figured science would make laugh so hard.

No hard feelings. :D

[bmarlowe1]

I did not miss that fact (it is in the stuff I read 15 years ago). What you missed is that the growth is not enough to affect ear comparison in photos of men of ball-player age. If I am doing this wrong, so is the FBI.

What you made up was asserting that the relatively microscopic yearly growth in ear cartilage is anything close to what can happen to your feet.

Your either not reading what I post or you can't understand it. So why can't we see a few of the young Waner photos your relative used? Are you afraid the comparison won't look so good?

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL!

You clearly stated that I made it up.

"The stuff about how ears grow like your feet grow - that you made up. It has no basis in fact."

Now, what I in fact said was:

"Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet."

Your response:

"Oh yes, your ears are like your feet. That was rich."

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

If you can't admit your error....well.......

[Bram99]

Yes your feet spread out because you stand on them for thousands of hours during your life - do you stand on your ears? Ears change little from young adolesence (or earlier) to about age 60 or 70 on average. This is in the scientific literature (I can email you some recent papers if you like) and has really been well-established for over a century. The ear growth that does occur (small fractions of a mm) is not perceptible in a photo and does not change the ear shape. This is especially applicable to humans of ball-playing age.The ear argument is THE argument that is accepted by forensic practitioners, auction houses, law-enforcement, museums, etc.

Even beyond age 70 - what you usually see is drooping earlobes (due to years of gravity pull) and the top of the ear may curl over a bit, but the basic ear shape stays the same and if one is careful you can compare an old man's ears to that ...

Tell that to poor Don Mossi.

[bmarlowe1]

No, why don't you use the full quote of what you said:
Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet. I graduated with size nine feet. They are now ten and a half.

The clear implication is that ears also grow a lot -enough to be visible in photos (I guess from the time of graduation to in your case age 53). How else should your statement be interpreted? There is nothing to support that assertion. The scientific evidence is contrary.

[the-illini]

No dog in this fight but what is that PC worth even if it is Waner? 250 bucks?

[bmarlowe1]

No dog in this fight but what is that PC worth even if it is Waner? 250 bucks?


Chris - it's not about the money. What I don't like for starters is that the OP's style of photo ID had resulted in many mis-identified photos in SABR publications (and other baseball history books) over the years. Of course there is also the problem of people getting a lot of money for photos that don't depict what is claimed (though I am sure the OP really believes the guy is Waner). Over the past 15 years or so I've been a proponent of methods that reduce the problem. Some auction houses have rejected a lot of consignments that would have been accepted in the past. The photo ID in SABR publications is really good now. A lot of people understand what I do and that their gut reaction and hope with respect to a photo may be wrong.

Of course some can never understand.

[Fred]

See link at end of post #2

Just call mine a lucky guess!

Paul Waner is listed at 153 pounds and 5'8" born in 1903. Lloyd is listed as 150 pounds and 5'9" born in 1906. Both born in the same city in Oklahoma. Not sure what that's supposed to tell us...

[Phil68]

My point was that you are not attempting to raise its value for resale so no reason to get all twisted up over it. This hobby has mostly turned to sh*t because the joy of collecting has been overtaken by ear forensics and grading companies that are all flawed and riddled with human error and a lack of scientific controls that would not be accepted almost anywhere else. I don't remember 30 years ago bickering over qualifiers and ear lobe growth. Not sure why I came back and commented so I'll crawl back under my rock. Basically, enjoy the card for what it is to you and tell some kids about who Paul and his brother were.

What a kind and thoughtful response. I need to be more like this more often.

[RCMcKenzie]

I thought the guy in the front row, to the far left, looked a lot like Johnny Evers, but I'm really bad at i.d.'s. What I've learned, is that a lot of people look alike...Rob

[brianp-beme]

Eddie Collins went from angelic to creepy looking old guy over the course of his baseball card career.

Brian (not that this is relevant, but ears to you all anyhow)

[Mark17]

Eddie Collins went from angelic to creepy looking old guy over the course of his baseball card career.

Brian (not that this is relevant, but ears to you all anyhow)

Actually, the ears have aged just as described - a little curling at the top, otherwise a very strong match.

As an experiment, I wonder what the relatives of Hap Felsch would say, if you asked them about the guy in the top row, far right. Looks a lot like Hap to me, and the collars on the uniforms might be a closer period match too.

[Brian Van Horn]

No, why don't you use the full quote of what you said:
Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet. I graduated with size nine feet. They are now ten and a half.

The clear implication is that ears also grow a lot -enough to be visible in photos (I guess from the time of graduation to in your case age 53). How else should your statement be interpreted? There is nothing to support that assertion. The scientific evidence is contrary.

Laughter is the best medicine. Given what you have reiterated, you have added 15 years to my life. Bless you.

Now, as for reading comprehension.......wait, I'm wrong. You've now added 16 years to my life. Thank you!

[phikappapsi]

Here he is in 1926. Id say Mr Van Horn is on the mark with his assessment.

I'll agree that's the same.guy

[phikappapsi]

Not sure I can see how anyone would call these different people

[ALBB]

no hard feelings

[asoriano]

I thought the guy in the front row, to the far left, looked a lot like Johnny Evers, but I'm really bad at i.d.'s. What I've learned, is that a lot of people look alike...Rob

I thought it looked like a young Rube Marquard myself! :D

[robertsmithnocure]

These photos that were used in the other thread are what convinced me that it was not Paul Waner. The nose on Waner does not match up to me. Waner appears to have a down-turned, “hook” nose as compared to the image in question. I agree that the players look similar, but I don’t see how you could say that the noses are the same.

[Brian Van Horn]

no hard feelings

:D

[phikappapsi]

These photos that were used in the other thread are what convinced me that it was not Paul Waner. The nose on Waner does not match up to me. Waner appears to have a down-turned, “hook” nose as compared to the image in question. I agree that the players look similar, but I don’t see how you could say that the noses are the same.

"Your nose, which is comprised of bone, soft tissue/skin, and cartilage, may change shape as you age. The structures and skin of the nose lose strength with time and, as a result, the nose stretches out and sags downward"

https://www.newfaceny.com/blog/how-does-our-nose-shape-change-with-age/

[Brian Van Horn]

These photos that were used in the other thread are what convinced me that it was not Paul Waner. The nose on Waner does not match up to me. Waner appears to have a down-turned, “hook” nose as compared to the image in question. I agree that the players look similar, but I don’t see how you could say that the noses are the same.

Rob,

Just asking. If you add in Joe's exhibit of Paul Waner which does not include the down-turned hook nose, but is nonetheless Paul Waner, does that change your opinion at all?

[Brian Van Horn]

"Your nose, which is comprised of bone, soft tissue/skin, and cartilage, may change shape as you age. The structures and skin of the nose lose strength with time and, as a result, the nose stretches out and sags downward"

https://www.newfaceny.com/blog/how-does-our-nose-shape-change-with-age/

Thank you.

[phikappapsi]

Thank you.

of course. This whole thing seems pretty nonsensical to me. A family with obvious high level access and multitudes of other items says it's him; it looks like him, and there are other images from the period that look very similar; but we're(you're) going to be to told that's all incorrect because pictures from 25 years later seem to potentially, maybe indicate a curling of the nose downward?

Or we're going to assume exceptionally grainy images of one side of an earlobe may not match perfectly to more clear images from a different angle?

pure hogwash.

People age, body parts sag, especially those with little to no bone structure. The images from his 1920's postcards match very nicely to your new image. I'd stop sweating it - albeit both annoying and hilarious; it's nonsense.

I only have remotely strong feelings about this because my grandfather had a very similar facial construct. He had a upturned/button on the end of his nose in his youth, that turned over and sagged downward as he hit his 50's+. this would be like someone telling me my own images of my grandfather, weren't actually of him, because they didn't "like the way he aged"

[aelefson]

I am with Mark (bmarlowe1) on this and all other photo identifications. I have read many of the articles he has posted and I would rather trust an expert than someone who is hoping they found a diamond in the rough (or others who post links to articles on the internet who have never studied this to the extent Mark has). Thank you Mark for all of the help you have provided to board members over the years. Personally, I really appreciate it and hope others do too.

Alan Elefson

[Jim65]

Aging can cause a lot of differences

[Brian Van Horn]

I am with Mark (bmarlowe1) on this and all other photo identifications. I have read many of the articles he has posted and I would rather trust an expert than someone who is hoping they found a diamond in the rough (or others who post links to articles on the internet who have never studied this to the extent Mark has). Thank you Mark for all of the help you have provided to board members over the years. Personally, I really appreciate it and hope others do too.

Alan Elefson

Alan,

All I ask is that you remember that I confirmed with this with a Waner family member and that my factual claim about the growing of the ears and nose with age was accused of something be made out of thin air. This of course was revised to something the accuser later said he knew for years. Hmmm.

Just please also look at the exhibit posted by Joe as well as the later pictures on either side of my postcard posted by Rob. Between the 1926 exhibit of Paul Waner and the Yankees picture is a difference of 19 years. Please look at the difference in the nose.

[bmarlowe1]

>> A family with obvious high level access and multitudes of other items says it's him

We don't know that a "family" is saying anything whatever that means. As far as I know it was one person. I don't know what you mean by "multitudes of items." What is relevant are photos and for some odd reason we haven't seen any of them. As I pointed out, it is not uncommon for family members to disagree as to who is depicted in an old photo.

>> It looks like him...

It looks like him to YOU and the OP. To other people it does not look like him. This is a purely subjective assessment that we know collectors often get wrong. That is why we try assess individual facial features which can be much less subjective.

>> grainy images of one side of an earlobe...different angles

In the 3 side-by-side photos the center and left photos are at virtually the same angle. See post 29 for best available quality, https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345

I am not keying in on the earlobe. The overall shape of the ears are very different and that is evident in spite of the not-so-great quality of the OPs image. It's not hard to see. As Drs. Bruge and Burger said, "It is obvious that the structure of the ear does not change radically over time" That doesn't mean that the ear doesn't grow, just not enough to be noticeable in photos until about age 70 on average.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Mr. Van Horn: All I ask is that you remember that I confirmed with this with a Waner family member and that my factual claim about the growing of the ears and nose with age was accused of something be made out of thin air. This of course was revised to something the accuser later said he knew for years. Hmmm.

You continue to have trouble distinguishing fact from fantasy. Back in the 2017 thread where you started this fairy tale I said the following in post 38 https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345
"The ear growth of which you speak is so small that it would not be noticeable even when comparing a photograph of a teenager to that of a man in his 40's. It rarely becomes apparent until much later, and even then it is usually just some ear lobe droop - not a gross change in shape.

Nose tip also can droop when we get old - but nowhere near enough to account for the gross difference seen here, and anyway in the exemplar photos of Waner he is not that old."


So it appears your assertion that I never said this before is dead wrong. I didn't revise anything.

[Brian Van Horn]

>> A family with obvious high level access and multitudes of other items says it's him

We don't know that a "family" is saying anything whatever that means. As far as I know it was one person. I don't know what you mean by "multitudes of items." What is relevant are photos and for some odd reason we haven't seen any of them. As I pointed out, it is not uncommon for family members to disagree as to who is depicted in an old photo.

>> It looks like him...

It looks like him to YOU and the OP. To other people it does not look like him. This is a purely subjective assessment that we know collectors often get wrong. That is why we try assess individual facial features which can be much less subjective.

>> grainy images of one side of an earlobe...different angles

In the 3 side-by-side photos the center and left photos are at virtually the same angle.

I am not keying in on the earlobe. The overall shape of the ears are very different and that is evident in spite of the not-so-great quality of the OPs image. It's not hard to see. As Drs. Bruge and Burger said, "It is obvious that the structure of the ear does not change radically over time" That doesn't mean that the ear doesn't grow, just not enough to be noticeable in photos until about age 70 on average.

So, uh, now the nose is left out of the equation because of the difference between the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture? Just so we're clear on the math, Paul Waner would be either 41 or 42 in the Yankees photo as opposed to 70. Hook nose and all. In the 1926 exhibit he is either 23 or 24 sans hook nose.

Please check the ear in the 1926 exhibit against the ear in the postcard.

[Brian Van Horn]

>> Mr. Van Horn: All I ask is that you remember that I confirmed with this with a Waner family member and that my factual claim about the growing of the ears and nose with age was accused of something be made out of thin air. This of course was revised to something the accuser later said he knew for years. Hmmm.

You continue to have trouble distinguishing fact from fantasy. Back in the 2017 thread where you started this fairy tale I said the following in post 38:
"The ear growth of which you speak is so small that it would not be noticeable even when comparing a photograph of a teenager to that of a man in his 40's. It rarely becomes apparent until much later, and even then it is usually just some ear lobe droop - not a gross change in shape.

Nose tip also can droop when we get old - but nowhere near enough to account for the gross difference seen here, and anyway and in the exemplar photos of Waner he is not that old."


So it appears you assertion that I never said this before is dead wrong.

LOL! Once again you're lack of reading comprehension has bolted to the fore.

You indicated that I made things up out of thin air.
I quoted you and will quote you again:

"The stuff about how ears grow like your feet grow - that you made up. It has no basis in fact."

You misquoted me, but that has already been corrected. Still it is par for the course you.

Then I provided a link:

https://www.doctoroz.com/blog/arthur-perry-md/noses-and-ears-continue-grow-we-age

Then, you, in post #41 stated:

I did not miss that fact (it is in the stuff I read 15 years ago).

Wow! From me making it up to you reading about it 15 years ago. Thank you, Houdini.

Almost forgot. No hard feelings.

[CrackaJackKid]

No way this is Paul Waner

[phikappapsi]

So, I went ahead and put the side by side into a little vector scenario I drew.

The chin is an obvious match; and I went ahead and ignored the button nose drop that I think we've already pretty well defined as being unimportant.

What would not have changed is the relative psition of the bottom side if the nose (where it meets the face), in relationship to the inside and outside corner of the eye, and the corner of the ear.

I created the vector from the straight on image of the postcard that was clean, then overlayed it onto Brian's photo, and rotated it on its axis to match the head tilt in that image, and boy oh boy; that again seems close enough for me!

[Brian Van Horn]

So, I went ahead and put the side by side into a little vector scenario I drew.

The chin is an obvious match; and I went ahead and ignored the button nose drop that I think we've already pretty well defined as being unimportant.

What would not have changed is the relative psition of the bottom side if the nose (where it meets the face), in relationship to the inside and outside corner of the eye, and the corner of the ear.

I created the vector from the straight on image of the postcard that was clean, then overlayed it onto Brian's photo, and rotated it on its axis to match the head tilt in that image, and boy oh boy; that again seems close enough for me!

Well done, sir!

Now to hear from our esteamed......err.....esteemed colleague.

By the way, crow is being prepared as a special meal for our colleague.

[bmarlowe1]

>> So, uh, now the nose is left out of the equation because of the difference between the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture? Just so we're clear on the math, Paul Waner would be either 41 or 42 in the Yankees photo as opposed to 70. Hook nose and all. In the 1926 exhibit he is either 23 or 24 sans hook nose

As usual you are wrong. The noses in the 1926 exhibit and the Yankee and Pitt photos are consistent. For some people, especially those with large noses, just starting to smile or grimace will case the nose phlange and nostrils to pull up at an angle relative to the tip of the nose. This is evident in the Pitt. and NY images and is exaggerated in the Pitt image because his head is tilted forward. In the 1926 image he is expressionless and the camera is slightly low (his head is tilted slightly back relative to the plane of the camera.

As for the nose in your photo, it is not consistent with any of the 3 exemplars. It would take me a few hours to draw up an analysis - that is a waste of time becasue the ears don't match.

>> Please check the ear in the 1926 exhibit against is st the ear in the postcard

The ears in all 3 Waner exemplar photos match. The 1926 is not a great choice because of the differing angle, but it is still evident that it is longer top to bottom than the that of the guy in your photo.

[bmarlowe1]

I really didn't want to spend so much time on something so ludicrous, but here is probably the best side-by-side I can do with available photos (absent a scan from the "relative" - why can't we see even one?).

If you can't see the very gross difference in ear size and shape then you need to see an eye doctor (assuming he is properly disinfecting). Ears absolutely do not "grow" like this over whatever the age range between these photos is. They grow virtually imperceptibly and you can easily compare the ears of a teenager those of a man in his early 40s. These are 2 different humans.

[phikappapsi]

I really didn't want to spend so much time on something so ludicrous, but here is probably the best side-by-side I can do with available photos (absent a scan from the "relative" - why can't we see even one?).

If you can't see the very gross difference in ear size and shape then you need to see an eye doctor (assuming he is properly disinfecting). Ears absolutely do not "grow" like this over whatever the age range between these photos is. They grow virtually imperceptibly and you can easily compare the ears of a teenager those of a man in his early 40s. These are 2 different humans.

that has to be easily the worst representations of dimensions ever. You started on a slope, you didn't adjust for pitch angles in either face; and you used arbitrary starting points, on subjects 25 years apart in age. .

I've spent about as much time as I'm willing to on this; but if I get bored; I'll tinker with your work; logically, and show you it actually is the same guy. note the top and bottom the the ear, in relation to the top and bottom of the nose; almost identical

[bnorth]

Not sure I can see how anyone would call these different people

They look like different people to me.

[bmarlowe1]

>> that has to be easily the worst representations of dimensions ever. You started on a slope, you didn't adjust for pitch angles in either face; and you used arbitrary starting points,

Actually it is by the book (or books) which I have read and you have not. Bear in mind that I have been schooled by an NYPD analyst, and have done work like this for Library of Congress, Boston Public Library, National Baseball HoF and Museum, major auction houses, other Museums and have helped numerous collectors get refunds. I also have produced a newsletter for SABR for the past 12 years that often addresses these issues.

The 3 points you made don't make any sense. These faces are at nearly the same angle (pretty much as close as you are going to get except for carefully done mugshots) They are more than close enough to support what I illustrated. When you do the same for 2 subjects that are actually the same person, the features can be seen to match. Keep in mind that we don't need accuracy to a fraction of a millimeter to expose gross differences.


BTW - your chin match is wrong - they don't match, you have no idea what you are doing, and in any case a chin match does not mean two faces belong to the same person if other features do not match. Is that not obvious?

[celoknob]

I try to avoid chiming in on arguments on this forum but this intrigued me for several reasons. One, I am interested in identifying obscure player photos from the deadball era and this is an interesting example. I find it frustrating and very difficult, esp when I had poor photos (e.g. Spalding and Reach Guides) as my only exemplar.

Second, I appreciate the thoughtful posts by bmarlowe1. He explains in ways that make objective sense why he offers his opinions. This is so rare when it seems that for whatever reason, experience, professionals and logic take back seats often these days to hunches, hopes and biases.

I don't understand why the OP is upset at him. If all you care about is your own opinion then there is no reason to post on this forum and then continue to argue about it. If you do make a claim about a photo on this forum then it should be challenged if it is not proven to be correct. False public claims should be corrected. That is how we learn.

[phikappapsi]

seriously tapping out after this because I just don't care nearly as much as my responses indicate.

but... Adjusted to create common head size; while rotating the axis slightly to account for the older picture being more from the profile.

Nose bridge, pupils and top of ear match perfectly, as does the the anterior nasal spine (which does not grow/move).

The ridges across the maxilla and premaxilla also match, but hey, that's just bones.

Wish I had better software to rotate this thing spherically and prove it without a doubt; but Brian - I'd buy this from you with confidence that it was Paul Waner - If I cared at all about collecting Paul Waner photos (I do not) but this was a fun albeit annoying distraction on a friday afternoon.

FWIW - If I was concerned about ANY aspect of these two photos it would be the vast difference in the palpebral fissure; which is stark. However; that can likely be explained by the fact that the kid in the first picture is outside in the daylight squinting, and the older Waner image appears to be taken in the evening or indoors

[Michael B]

Aging can cause a lot of differences

Red herring. Skin bleaching, excessive rhinoplasty and other facial surgery is not comparable to normal aging. Just look at Lisa Rinna and the late Kenny Rogers.

[bmarlowe1]

Re post #79, your analysis is not valid. The eyes, nostrils and mouth do not line up in your graphic. Thus your relative sizing is wrong. You are shooting from the hip with respect to a complex subject about which you seem to know nothing.

When working on a project a long time ago with an NYPD forensic analyst and a former FBI analyst - they taught me to do what I did above and why it works well even if the heads are at slightly different angles.

BTW - There is no need to rotate the heads here because for both subjects the eyes are level without any rotation.

[OldOriole]

I think it's time for a poll on this. Other than that, I don't know what else will be accomplished by this thread. The OP is not going to change Mark's mind and if the OP really thinks it's Waner then...great, move on. That being said, my vote would be for two clearly different people for the scientific reasoning being given.

How 'bout a poll?

[bigfanNY]

So the poll would be who believes in science and who dose not?
I have no dog in in this fight but OP Team Photo is NOT Paul Waner. And if OP wanted to offer anything that would sway the science he would ask the relatives to share a picture of PW at the same age, maybe even in the same uniform. But why would the OP post something that would prove himself wrong?

Because poll or no poll it is not Paul Waner.

[Brian Van Horn]

I try to avoid chiming in on arguments on this forum but this intrigued me for several reasons. One, I am interested in identifying obscure player photos from the deadball era and this is an interesting example. I find it frustrating and very difficult, esp when I had poor photos (e.g. Spalding and Reach Guides) as my only exemplar.

Second, I appreciate the thoughtful posts by bmarlowe1. He explains in ways that make objective sense why he offers his opinions. This is so rare when it seems that for whatever reason, experience, professionals and logic take back seats often these days to hunches, hopes and biases.

I don't understand why the OP is upset at him. If all you care about is your own opinion then there is no reason to post on this forum and then continue to argue about it. If you do make a claim about a photo on this forum then it should be challenged if it is not proven to be correct. False public claims should be corrected. That is how we learn.

The sentiment has clearly gone both ways between myself and Mark. The problem with Mark is that he can't admit he's wrong. Also, he misquotes from my posts and then claims I make things up. When given proof of my assertion, he then states he knew of it 15 years ago. I'm no angel here, but Mark? Please.

[robertsmithnocure]

Red herring. Skin bleaching, excessive rhinoplasty and other facial surgery is not comparable to normal aging. Just look at Lisa Rinna and the late Kenny Rogers.

I assume that he was making a joke.

[Brian Van Horn]

Somehow I managed to miss that statement by Michael B.

My fault.

[bmarlowe1]

>> The problem with Mark is that he can't admit he's wrong. Also, he misquotes from my posts and then claims I make things up. When given proof of my assertion, he then states he knew of it 15 years ago. I'm no angel here, but Mark? Please.

I do not misquote you. When you quote yourself you leave things out.

As to you saying that I did not know ears grow, you can be sure I did know because:
(1) In 2017 in Net54 I posted in response to YOU about this same photo: "The ear growth of which you speak is so small that it would not be noticeable even when comparing a photograph of a teenager to that of a man in his 40's. It rarely becomes apparent until much later, and even then it is usually just some ear lobe droop - not a gross change in shape"
(2) In 2008 in SABR's "The National Pastime' I published an article "Analyzing Grand Old Images" in which I stated, "...ear shape and structure are relatively permanent from about age 8 to age 70." Note that I said "relatively" and "about", meaning ears are not absolutely unchanging like concrete over a full lifetime.

So clearly your statement about what I knew and when I know it was wrong. Can you admit it?

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL! Thank you. Just ignore the evidence that I gave on this on two different posts.

By the way, feel free to check out Paul Waner's nose on the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture. Clearly appreciable difference in the nose long before the age of 70.

Also, thanks now for the laugh. You have added a 17th year to my life.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Just ignore the evidence that I gave on this on two different posts.

You continue to blather imprecise nonsense

>> By the way, feel free to check out Paul Waner's nose on the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture. Clearly appreciable difference in the nose long before the age

Really, do you read the posts? Seems not. "Age 70" was tied to ears, not noses, though noses are also fairly stable thru middle age. And in any case I addressed your nose comment back in post 73.

[Brian Van Horn]

>> Just ignore the evidence that I gave on this on two different posts.

You continue to blather imprecise nonsense

>> By the way, feel free to check out Paul Waner's nose on the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture. Clearly appreciable difference in the nose long before the age

Really, do you read the posts? Seems not. "Age 70" was tied to ears, not noses, though noses are also fairly stable thru middle age. And in any case I addressed your nose comment back in post 73.

LOL!

Here we go.....again. Thank you for the laughter.

Let's see if we can simplify this for you. 1926 exhibit. No, hook nose. 1945 profound hook nose.

Your answer from post 73:

"The noses in the 1926 exhibit and the Yankee and Pitt photos are consistent. For some people, especially those with large noses, just starting to smile or grimace will case the nose phlange and nostrils to pull up at an angle relative to the tip of the nose. This is evident in the Pitt. and NY images and is exaggerated in the Pitt image because his head is tilted forward. In the 1926 image he is expressionless and the camera is slightly low (his head is tilted slightly back relative to the plane of the camera."

Now, that is blather. The point that you are blathering around is that there is a profound difference in the nose. The distinct difference is because of age not because of a beginning smile or tilt of the head. The evidence is right in front of you in the difference between the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture.

Also, please look at the ear in each photo. Notice a difference? Remember, we're talking about ages 22 to 23 as opposed to 41 or 42. Not 70. Still, that's only an additional difference of over two and approaching three decades beyond the Yankees picture.

Go ahead. Blather.

No hard feelings.

[Michael B]

I assume that he was making a joke.

I realize it. Just trying to play along. Sitting on the sidelines for this show can get boring.

[Brian Van Horn]

I realize it. Just trying to play along. Sitting on the sidelines for this show can get boring.

True. Oh, so true.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Now, that is blather. The point that you are blathering around is that there is a profound difference in the nose. The distinct difference is because of age not because of a beginning smile or tilt of the head.

As usual you are wrong, my assessment was correct. Below we have a young PW, smiling a bit and what do you know, his nose tip points distinctly downward. Can you see that Mr. Van Horn?

[Brian Van Horn]

>> Now, that is blather. The point that you are blathering around is that there is a profound difference in the nose. The distinct difference is because of age not because of a beginning smile or tilt of the head.

As usual you are wrong, my assessment was correct. Below we have a young PW, smiling a bit and what do you know, his nose tip points distinctly downward. Can you see that Mr. Van Horn?

Bwahaha!

Let's see. Look at your picture and the 1945 Yankees picture. Notice a huge difference in the nose and, no, it is not due to angle or smile.

Also, you didn't answer my request which I will again post:

"Also, please look at the ear in each photo. Notice a difference? Remember, we're talking about ages 22 to 23 as opposed to 41 or 42. Not 70. Still, that's only an additional difference of over two and approaching three decades beyond the Yankees picture."

You have a wonderful dichotomy of blathering (incorrectly) on one subject while avoiding another.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Let's see. Look at your picture and the 1945 Yankees picture. Notice a huge difference in the nose and, no, it is not due to angle or smile.

Looks about the same as the young PW smiling photo

>> Also, please look at the ear in each photo. Notice a difference? Remember, we're talking about ages 22 to 23 as opposed to 41 or 42. Not 70.

There is absolutely no visible difference in the ear.

[Brian Van Horn]

>> Let's see. Look at your picture and the 1945 Yankees picture. Notice a huge difference in the nose and, no, it is not due to angle or smile.

Looks about the same as the young PW smiling photo

>> Also, please look at the ear in each photo. Notice a difference? Remember, we're talking about ages 22 to 23 as opposed to 41 or 42. Not 70.

There is absolutely no visible difference in the ear.

Oh, my goodness. LOL!

Would you agree the pictures are about the same size and distance from Paul Waner in both photos?

Just asking. Again, just asking.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Would you agree the pictures are about the same size and distance from Paul Waner in both photos?

Again, in English please

[Brian Van Horn]

>> Would you agree the pictures are about the same size and distance from Paul Waner in both photos?

Again, in English please

It is in English! LOL!

Let's try this again. Would you agree since you literally lined up these photos they are just about the same size and that the pictures were taken from about the same distance away?

[bmarlowe1]

>> Would you agree since you literally lined up these photos they are just about the same size and that the pictures were taken from about the same distance away?

I don't know how far away the cameras were from the faces depicted, except to say they were far enough away to avoid what is called "perspective distortion" that occurs in extreme close-ups. That is all that is important here.

I don't know the size of the original photos or negatives which is not relevant to anything here.

[phikappapsi]

Pretty sure the point Brian is about to make is that, even in the two photos you used, that compare waner vs waner and are known. There's a dramatic difference in the earlobe. Which you've said all along disqualifies.

[bmarlowe1]

Pretty sure the point Brian is about to make is that, even in the two photos you used, that compare waner vs waner and are known. There's a dramatic difference in the earlobe. Which you've said all along disqualifies.


Do you not understand that in the younger full frontal photo (at left) the earlobe is not visible? You can see it in the semi-profile (at right) but not in the full-frontal image. That is often the case. I know that because I have done literally thousands of these, you haven't.

[Brian Van Horn]

Well, here you go.

Take the 1945 Yankees photo of Paul Waner and move it up just slightly so it matches the slight bit of ear just above your top right line in the 1926 exhibit. That way, there is an alignment of the heads in both pictures.

Aren't you going to thank me for doing your due diligence in this matter?

Now, overlap your red lines again. That's a boy. You're making progress.

Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe. Bad, naughty ear lobe. You aged 28 or 29 years before you should have and there is that more pronounced inner ridge of the ear lobe. OK. Slightly different angle of the photos. Still, the ear is longer and more pronounced. To boot, your red lines back this up. Guess what? He's not 70 in the picture.

Oh, but I'm just making this up.....with backup from the pictures and your red lines.

No hard feelings.

[nolemmings]

My two cents: That ain't Paul Waner. Some resemblance, maybe even a Waner family member, but no Poison.

I would give modest at most credence to a family member's identification. I've personally seen my family members quibble over who is pictured in various old family photos, even when the two people arguing are themselves both in the picture and dispute the identity of another! Both were obviously present and would have recollection and still they can disagree. I would venture that this is not all that unusual. So absent more corroboration, as suggested, I would discount whatever was offered as an ID in this case, unless there's much more that isn't being shared with us.

[Brian Van Horn]

Todd,

I thank you for your input. I just respectfully disagree.

[bmarlowe1]

Pretty sure the point Brian is about to make is that, even in the two photos you used, that compare waner vs waner and are known. There's a dramatic difference in the earlobe. Which you've said all along disqualifies.

OK - so here is young PW turned a bit so you can see his earlobe. I admit we are comparing right ear to left ear - not quite kosher - but 99% of the time it is OK. Anyway now you can see a full ear in both photos and there is nothing here to indicate a mismatch.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe.

Already answered, full-frontal (earlobe hidden) vs. semi-profile (earlobe visible). I know you don't understand this, but most will. I bet phikappapsi does.

[phikappapsi]

Yeah, that is a bit(much) more convincing for sure.

[Brian Van Horn]

>> Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe.

Already answered, full-frontal (earlobe hidden) vs. semi-profile (earlobe visible). I know you don't understand this, but most will. I bet phikappapsi does.

The point is this using your statement in post 11:

"Even beyond age 70 - what you usually see is drooping earlobes (due to years of gravity pull) and the top of the ear may curl over a bit, but the basic ear shape stays the same and if one is careful you can compare an old man's ears to that of a teenager."

Let's face it. Your post 74 lined up the exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture to make a point. Oops! Now you knew these pictures had to be at the same distance for your line comparison. The only problem is that the head shot in the 1926 exhibit was just a smidge higher than the 1945 Yankees photo. So, move up the Yankees photo for a proper alignment. Gee, that hanging earlobe just won't cooperate.

As for the other ear, please stop running away from the point.

The point being that the ear changed noticeably in size and the alignment of the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees photo prove it along with your line markings prove it.

Still I really must apologize.

Sorry, Mark. Checkmate. You lose on this point.

No hard feelings.

[perezfan]

While I’ve seen enough to draw my own conclusion, I’ve got to believe there are better pics available, than just these three. I’m not invested enough to put the time into researching it. But aren’t there loads of accessible Paul Waner photos that would make it easier for both sides to make their respective cases?

Not that it would help much to sway either side, haha.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe.

I already said distance has nothing to do with this- in all likelihood the distance from camera to subject in the various photos was different. That does not matter. Again - you do not seem to be reading the posts.

>> The only problem is that the head shot in the 1926 exhibit was just a smidge higher than the 1945 Yankees photo. So, move up the Yankees photo for a proper alignment.

Then the rest of the photo would be misaligned, do you not undesrtand that? The alignment as shown is based on correct forensic practice. If you don't like it take the time to create your own graphic for all of us to see.

It is clear from your comments that you don't comprehend any of this.You have a lot of trouble interpreting what you are seeing in images. Perhaps another N54 member can do a better job of explaining it all to you.

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL!

The constant of the thread is that the childhood photo of Paul Waner, the 1926 exhibit of Paul Waner and the 1945 Yankees photo of Paul Waner all show his left ear.

Your own alignment of the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees have done you in on the point of aging and its effect, well before 70, on the left earlobe. Face it. You sank your own argument with picture evidence.

Still, I thank you.

No hard feelings.

[Fred]

So.... is it Paul Waner? :p

[Brian Van Horn]

OK - so here is young PW turned a bit so you can see his earlobe. I admit we are comparing right ear to left ear - not quite kosher - but 99% of the time it is OK. Anyway now you can see a full ear in both photos and there is nothing here to indicate a mismatch.

Wow! You lined up a second picture to reinforce your first comparison. The earlobe is still lower with age and in the latter picture, Paul Waner is still nowhere close to 70.

Thank you. You're so kind.

No hard feelings.

Still, keep making my argument for me with photographic evidence to boot. You're doing a wonderful job.

[Brian Van Horn]

So.... is it Paul Waner? :p

So far, Mark is sinking his own argument with photographic evidence to boot. There's still hope for him.

[bmarlowe1]

>> You lined up a second picture to reinforce your first comparison.

No.

>> The earlobe is still lower with age and in the latter picture, Paul Waner is still nowhere close to 70.

Small difference in head tilt will cause small difference in alignment, however it will not affect comparison of overall ear shape which is the same. That's all we are trying to do.

In my original side-by side of your photo with the real PW, the ear shapes are grossly different, fine precise alignment is not needed.

With these low quality images we are not trying to measure fractions of a millimeter, but we are able to expose gross differences. I already explained this, but either you did not read it or you did not understand it.

[bigfish]

Mark/Brian, does anything else droop post 65 years old? Perhaps we could evaluate another body part for another data point????

I know and like both if you. I hope for the best for Brian’s postcard.
:D:D:D

[Brian Van Horn]

Mark/Brian, does anything else droop post 65 years old? Perhaps we could evaluate another body part for another data point????

I know and like both if you. I hope for the best for Brian’s postcard.
:D:D:D

Now, this is a classic!

:D

[Brian Van Horn]

>> You lined up a second picture to reinforce your first comparison.

No.

>> The earlobe is still lower with age and in the latter picture, Paul Waner is still nowhere close to 70.

Small difference in head tilt will cause small difference in alignment, however it will not affect comparison of overall ear shape which is the same. That's all we are trying to do.

In my original side-by side of your photo with the real PW, the ear shapes are grossly different, fine precise alignment is not needed.

With these low quality images we are not trying to measure fractions of a millimeter, but we are able to expose gross differences. I already explained this, but either you did not read it or you did not understand it.

Let's face facts. You lined up the exhibit and the Yankees picture to make a point. The point unfortunately was that your lining up of the two proved the earlobe ages noticeably before 70. For that I thank you and your red lines for exposing the "gross differences".

No hard feelings.

[perezfan]

Here’s a pretty clear screenshot of a rookie Paul Waner at age 23. Looks like the honker was already pretty substantial, with a somewhat bulbous hook. And no cleft in the chin at all, FWIW.

[Brian Van Horn]

Here’s a pretty clear screenshot of a rookie Paul Waner at age 23. Looks like the honker was already pretty substantial, with a somewhat bulbous hook. And no cleft in the chin at all, FWIW.

Mark,

Please forgive me, but here is a picture of a Pittsburgh Pirate in a 1926 uniform (Paul's rookie year). The picture you have is of Paul Waner in the 1930s.

[bmarlowe1]

Let's face facts. You lined up the exhibit and the Yankees picture to make a point. The point unfortunately was that your lining up of the two proved the earlobe ages noticeably before 70. For that I thank you and your red lines for exposing the "gross differences".

No hard feelings.


Since the eaarlobe in question is not visible in the photo you are referencing, how do you know it has changed? Please crreate a graphic that explains that. If you don't know how, find someone that agrees with you to help.

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL!

You lined up the photos to make a point. The point you made through the photo alignment scuttled your argument. Now, after how many posts (?), you are arguing it is hidden in the 1926 exhibit. Face it. You're grasping. The earlobe grew over the 19 years and Paul Waner was nowhere near 70 in the Yankees photo.

Checkmate on this argument. Sorry, but you lost this point.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

>> You lined up the photos to make a point. The point you made through the photo alignment scuttled your argument. Now, after how many posts (?), you are arguing it is hidden in the 1926 exhibit. Face it. You're grasping.

The argument was made in post 101, which either you did not read or did not comprehend.

You do not comprehend the points I have made, thus your counter-arguments are incoherent.

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL!

You scuttled your own argument with photographic evidence.

That is a coherent statement.

Simple enough?

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

You don't know what the argument is. You haven't answered as to how you know an invisible earlobe has changed. Why not PM phikappapsi for help?

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL!

You lost a battle of photo comparison to phikappapsi and your photo comparison proved there is noticeable growth in Paul Waner's left ear well before the age of 70.

Oh, Black Knight, I wish I could commend you in battle, but you committed hari kari. All that is left in this part of the argument is your pining for the fjords.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

Young & old Waner. Here his left earlobe is visible, and of course it matches the old Waner.

[Brian Van Horn]

Young & old Waner. Here his left earlobe is visible, and of course it matches the old Waner.

Thank you. That ear is still longer in the Yankee picture. Thank you for proving the point a third time through photo comparison.

Black Knight, I think it only fair to warn you that you have now voluntarily lopped off three of your limbs. You only have one left. We are beyond the flesh wound stage.

No hard feelings. Oops! With you lopping off three of your limbs maybe that's not appropriate.

Oh, I am so sorry for your loss.

[brianp-beme]

I nose it is none of my business, but here are Paul Waner baseball cards, as seen through the ears.

Brian (none of these cards are mine...I wouldn't be able to foot the bill)

[Brian Van Horn]

I nose it is none of my business, but here are Paul Waner baseball cards, as seen through the ears.

Brian (none of these cards are mine...I wouldn't be able to foot the bill)

Brian,

Deeply appreciated.

[bmarlowe1]

>> That ear is still longer in the Yankee picture

Barely by an insignificant amount if you measure. You could see that small diffference in 2 photos of the same person taken the same day.

What matters is the ear shapes are clearly the same and they are about the same size. I guess you were wrong about the photo with the invisible earlobe. And of course the ear on your "Waner" does not match any of these.

[Brian Van Horn]

"Barely by an insignificant amount if you measure."="Tis but a flesh wound."

[bmarlowe1]

>> That ear is still longer in the Yankee picture.

Left photo slid down for easy ear size comparison. Like I said, not significant. Game, set, match.

[Marchillo]

The crux of the OP's argument is that there was a family member that positively identified the item as being Paul Warner and a lot of this is verified through family photos. It seems like the family member was more than happy to take the time to talk to Brian and provide some insight. It seems to me that the relative would be more than happy to share some of these photos.

Has the OP asked to see the photos?
Has the OP asked if they can post the photos?

Otherwise this is a circular argument that will go nowhere.

I contend that Tom Brady filled in for Craig Biggio on his 1989 Topps card.

[conor912]

Worst. Thread. Ever.

[thecatspajamas]

Mark, thank you for your reasoned responses throughout this thread. I appreciate your insight and analysis of this and other photos that have been presented through the years. I have unfortunately allowed my SABR membership to lapse, but if you have a short list of any resources or in print or online that are readily-accessible or easily-purchased for someone interested in learning and correctly-applying the basic techniques you describe, could you give a good "Recommended Reading" list for beginners? Thanks!

[Brian Van Horn]

Worst. Thread. Ever.

Thank you.

[Brian Van Horn]

>> That ear is still longer in the Yankee picture.

Left photo slid down for easy ear size comparison. Like I said, not significant. Game, set, match.

LOL! You're right. I have won game set and match. If you get the head sizes aligned correctly (1945 is much smaller), the ear in the 1945 Yankees photo is much bigger. Did it not occur to you when you put in the lines across the two pictures this flaw would be obvious? The eyes and the lips which were lined in up in previous photo comparisons are no where near lined up. As King Arthur said to the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," "You make me sad". I am sad you resulted to compromising science to this point.

To paraphrase from "Hamlet":

Hoisted upon your own petar.

By the way, your latest hari kari attempt cost you your final limb, Black Knight.

No, we will not call it a draw.

No hard feelings. :D

[timn1]

Worst. Thread. Ever.

Maybe it’s time to stop agreeing to disagree and just stop.

[bmarlowe1]

>> If you get the head sizes aligned correctly (1945 is much smaller), the ear in the 1945 Yankees photo is much bigger.

The heads and the ears the same same size in both posts 127 and 133. Try a ruler.

Thx to all who emailed me about the OP having episodes of high irrationality when challenged. Some where back there he said something about this all making him feel younger. Perhaps that explains his posts reading like those of a petulant 12 year old. No hard feelings.

At some point I will respond to Cats Pajama's request.

[thecatspajamas]

At some point I will respond to Cats Pajama's request.

Thanks Mark. Please feel free to do so in a new thread. I suspect those who would enjoy and benefit most from the resources are not so likely to navigate to the end of this one.

[Brian Van Horn]

>> If you get the head sizes aligned correctly (1945 is much smaller), the ear in the 1945 Yankees photo is much bigger.

The heads and the ears the same same size in both posts 127 and 133. Try a ruler.

Thx to all who emailed me about the OP having episodes of high irrationality when challenged. Some where back there he said something about this all making him feel younger. Perhaps that explains his posts reading like those of a petulant 12 year old. No hard feelings.

At some point I will respond to Cats Pajama's request.

LOL! Ah, irrationality. Try your red lines. The red lines which sunk your argument. The red lines in post 133 which you lined up with Paul Waner's eyebrows in one picture and the middle of his eyes in the 1945 Yankees picture to try to convince us the ears were the same. Ah, my irrationality. Thank you.

Apparently the e-mails missed.

No hard feelings.

[Brian Van Horn]

Maybe it’s time to stop agreeing to disagree and just stop.

I agree.

[ahumes13]

Worst. Thread. Ever.

I completely disagree, my ear lobes are tight, come at be bro! This has been a personal checkpoint as to the state of the union - and I mean that in a good way. If we (some of us?) are arguing about bulbous noses and ear lobes online in a subection of a baseball memorabilia site, then as a society we're very weird, but also ain't doing too bad in the grand scheme of things.

A good weekend to all...and I'm with Brian, it is Waner, noses and other things droop - fight me!

Andy

[nolemmings]

Sorry, gotta tell ya. It's Shoeless Joe Jackson. His descendant Reggie, or was it Jesse?, told me so. Q.E.D.

[bmarlowe1]

>> The red lines in post 133 which you lined up with Paul Waner's eyebrows in one picture and the middle of his eyes in the 1945 Yankees picture to try to convince us the ears were the same.

You would have to be rational to be convinced. Like I said, just measure the ears top to bottom with a ruler. You will be dumbfounded by what you see.

Ignoring advice from many to start ignoring the OP, I'll add one more graphic he won't understand, but most will. In the spirit of catspajama's suggestion for education:

First the images are size-matched according to correct forensic procedures (red dotted lines). The idea is that if you align easy-to-see landmarks (here eyes, nostrils, mouth) and both images depict the same person, the relative sizes of other features should match, like for instance ears.

Note that the blue lines are parallel (to the uninitiated, that means the space between them is constant across both images). It allows you to compare the sizes of objects (here the ears) between the lines even though they are not horizontal. The difference in ear size is stark.

No 40-year-olds in these images, and I am certain there are way too many levels of logic for the OP to comprehend. I am happy to respond to any sensible commentary.

[quinnsryche]

This has been one of the best threads on this site in a LONG time! Keep it going, I laugh hard every post.

[oldjudge]

God help me for getting into this, but the two faces in post 146 seem to be different sizes. If you resize the photo on the right s.t. the distance from the middle of the eyes to the bottom of the chin is the same as in the photo at the left, how do the ear sizes then compare?

[tiger8mush]

God help me for getting into this, but the two faces in post 146 seem to be different sizes. If you resize the photo on the right s.t. the distance from the middle of the eyes to the bottom of the chin is the same as in the photo at the left, how do the ear sizes then compare?

I think if you resize one of the photos, the eyes/nose/mouth won't line up, which (if I understand Mark correctly) will prove its not the same person.

[bmarlowe1]

God help me for getting into this, but the two faces in post 146 seem to be different sizes. If you resize the photo on the right s.t. the distance from the middle of the eyes to the bottom of the chin is the same as in the photo at the left, how do the ear sizes then compare?


Jay - I was hopping someone would ask that question. Two things:
1) It is often hard to find "the bottom of the chin." On the right it is lost in shadow, on the left the skin of his neck seems to hang down somewhat below his chin. This is common and it makes it hard to discern where the chin ends and the neck skin begins. So I try to avoid that as a landmark. However analysts do sometimes use it.
2) I could probably estimate accurately enough where the chin bottoms are. If I then resized as you requested the nostrils and mouth would no longer align. This would be considered as proof that these are 2 different persons regardless of ear size.


Just noticed - Rob (Tiger8mush) already had the right answer!

[Exhibitman]

Why are there no hard feelings? it is high time we had some!

[brianp-beme]

Why are there no hard feelings? it is high time we had some!

I think the new saying for this thread should be "Soft Feelings Only", because I believe hard ones are not allowed.

Brian

[bmarlowe1]

Why are there no hard feelings? it is high time we had some!


Funny a boxing fan saying that. Keep in mind that I used it only once to mock the OP. I wasn't intending to be nice.

[commishbob]

This thread gets better and better, or worse and worse. I can't really tell

[Fred]

So, is it Paul Waner? :p

[Tom Hufford]

I'm pretty sure its actually Lloyd Waner :) ! I met Lloyd in 1971, and it looks like his ear.

[Directly]

Curious how did you obtain the photo? (from a family member?)

1)How was the photo's date established, if so how?

2) is there definitive proof where the photo was taken?

3) Does the family know whom took the team photo--(a family member, etc?)

Good luck on your quest!

[oldjudge]

Jay - I was hopping someone would ask that question. Two things:
1) It is often hard to find "the bottom of the chin." On the right it is lost in shadow, on the left the skin of his neck seems to hang down somewhat below his chin. This is common and it makes it hard to discern where the chin ends and the neck skin begins. So I try to avoid that as a landmark. However analysts do sometimes use it.
2) I could probably estimate accurately enough where the chin bottoms are. If I then resized as you requested the nostrils and mouth would no longer align. This would be considered as proof that these are 2 different persons regardless of ear size.


Just noticed - Rob (Tiger8mush) already had the right answer!

Thanks Mark, that makes sense

[griffon512]

I have no dogs in this fight.

There are material differences in the features of these individuals. So much so that it is beyond conclusive they are not the same person (including, but not limited to, ear shape and features, nose shape and features, cheekbone structure, head shape -- materially rounder in one, various relative length/width ratios between features that become apparent from horizontal line additions). I wish this could be settled by giving this to an outside party who focuses on facial recognition for a living. I would bet dollars to donuts that they would determine they are two different people. Please let me know if I can ever make that bet! Seriously though, why not agree to have an outside expert look at it agreed upon by both parties and the loser will pay for that expert's cost and whatever you want to bet outside of that?

What's most interesting to me is how strong confirmation bias can be and how belief is more important than reality in shaping views. If one wonders how society can become so polarized in a biased position in the face of objective data look no further than this thread. It is next to impossible to change an entrenched position in many cases so this is largely a waste of time at this point (I've already suggested a possible resolution) but continue on if you wish.

[Fred]

For what it's worth - I'm not an expert in facial recognition or anything related to photo identifying people. However, I guessed without much hesitation who I thought was Paul Waner from the photo. The only thing that seemed "off" (if you could call it "off") is the size of the person that looks like (not saying it isn't him) Paul Waner. The person in the picture looks to be "big" in comparison to the others, however that could be due to things like where the camera was when the picture was taken.

IMO it looks like Paul Waner, but that doesn't mean much.

It's been a fun thread to read and at least it isn't a train wreck.

[celoknob]

Mark,

I assume the ears are not used as a landmark features originally with the nose, eyes and mouth lines is because we are looking at a 3-d person and the ears could be tilted relative the the foreground features? And that explains why the ears don’t originally line up with the others in horizontal lines but you can then go back and compare ear size only after the original analysis but not position? Msybe this explains why ears don’t “line up” in post 127? Maybe this is obvious or I’m way off but would be interesting to hear. Thanks, Kell

[bmarlowe1]

>> Griffon 512: What's most interesting to me is how strong confirmation bias can be and how belief is more important than reality in shaping views.

I have published more than one article on how confirmation affects this. I had read a few sciientific articles on how confirmation bias affects ID of criminal suspects. There is little doubt that it affects collectors (and relatives) looking for the great find.

One can hire a pro and it will cost $2000 - $3000 for a written assessment. I doubt the OP would be willing to pay for something he won't understand.

Responding to celoknob: It only takes a couple of degrees of head tilt difference (towards or away from the viewer) to change the alignment of the ears with the landmarks on the face. So it is hard to use ear position relative to other features. In some cases it can be done, but it can be more complicated and we don't need it for this one.

>> And that explains why the ears don’t originally line up with the others in horizontal lines but you can then go back and compare ear size only after the original analysis but not position?

Yes

>> From Fred: IMO it looks like Paul Waner, but that doesn't mean much

Yes it doesn't mean much. Confirmation bias.

[perezfan]

While not specifically Paul Waner, this photo sequence illustrates how facial features can change dramatically over time.

Compare the photos of Joe Jackson as a young man, a middle aged man and a senior citizen. Thus, the significant ear growth and nose droop exhibited by Waner over the years is minor by comparison...