What a great thread. I am convinced that it is more likely that the card pictures JJ than not.
I'm also glad that the photo ID topic on this board took a different twist. While I respect Mark's knowledge, I sometimes get frustrated by what I think is a dismissive tone any time the Magic Ear Rule isn't met. I didn't read early posts as "gosh, there just isn't really enough to go on here to say it's JJ for sure". To me the tone is more like "Well we don't have a Super Duper Really Colossal Perfect High Res scans so don't say that this is JJ because you can't. Topic over."
So I'm glad that this thread shows that there are other ways to try to determine photo subject, and that not being able to have the perfect photo evidence does not automatically kill the theory. We know that in most photos/issues from this era we are not going to the exact bullet-proof evidence, and allowing for discussion around some alternate logic is a good thing.
As to Brett, I thought his initial tone was just fine and am glad that it has returned to that. I was hoping the belligerence from the middle of the thread would disappear and hope it has.
Great thread.
J
(Full disclosure: Awhile ago I posted two photos of female teams from the 1890's. One had players labeled and the other did not. Uniforms were similar, and I asked if anyone thought that any of the players might be the same between photos. I made a sort of tongue-in-cheek comment about the Magic Ear Rule. Mark posted early in the thread that it was, of course, impossible to say because I hadn't posted a Super Duper Really Colossal Perfect High Res scan. Not sure if that killed the thread or not, but I really didn't get many responses and felt that Mark's post may have been at least part of the reason. So I am likely a bit touchy when I see an early post with a tone that I read as dismissive finality and am glad that this one didn't get killed by it.)
|