Wagner??

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I thought it would be obvious enough from what I posted, but the batter vs. Clarke noses are markedly different in both size and shape. Both Wagner and the batter had enormous noses. The batter can't possibly be Clarke.

You dismissed my comments regarding the apparent size and shape of the back of the head and the distance from the ear to the back of the head because "the angles were so different even a forensic person could not tell."

Yet, would not the same apply to the apparent length and depth of the bridge of the nose? No need to answer... It's a rhetorical question.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

You dismissed my comments regarding the apparent size and shape of the back of the head and the distance from the ear to the back of the head because "the angles were so different even a forensic person could not tell."

Yet, would not the same apply to the apparent length and depth of the bridge of the nose? No need to answer... It's a rhetorical question.

It's only a rhetorical question if you think there is no answer.

I dismissed your comment based on rational geometrical considerations and also having compared thousands of faces over the past 6 years. The specific type of comparison you were trying to make is known as anthropomorphic comparison (comparing the distance between features of faces at very different angles) and is well-known to be very difficult to execute. I can send you references offline this evening if you like. The comparing nose size and shape would be referred to as morphological comparison.

As to the nose size of the batter, since we are viewing him from somewhat behind the head, this would make his nose appear to stick out a bit less far than would a straight profile view. Also the drooping tip would be somewhat less evident when viewed from below than in a straight profile view. Yet his nose still sticks out more than either that of Clarke or Wilson, and, the drooping tip is clearly evident in spite of the angle.

A comparison of the nose bridge that might help you understand is shown below.

Anyway, this is just rhetorical, no need to answer.

[Shoeless Moe]

but the ear isn't Wagner.


Unless he had plastic surgery of course

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

but the ear isn't Wagner.


Unless he had plastic surgery of course

Based on what? What can be discerned appears to match. In addtion to the ear similarities pointed out previously above, here a few more around the earlobe:

Yellow arrow - earlobe crease; Red arrow - blob of flesh above earlobe crease; blue arrow - shape of ear opening just above earlobe

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drc

There's an old saying with baseball photos (which means I said it once three years ago). It goes 100% sure is, and 90% is the same as isn't. This in particular applied to 1800s tintypes and such where the question was was that anonymous guy in a baseball-like uniform really a baseball player. There were cases where we'd say "If he was holding a baseball and a bat we'd be sure he was a baseball player, but he isn't so we can't be sure."

to quote brian fantana: "60 percent of the time, it works every time"

[mordecaibrown]

This is more of an educational question for Mark - as he has infinite more experience in photo recognition than me.

As for the ear comparison, to me there appears two differences in the photo comparison.

To me the bottom of the lobe in the "left handed batter" original photo looks like the lobe attaches to the neck downwards versus the lobe in the known Wagner appears to turn back up to the ear canal. I hope I explained that well - essentially, to me, it looks like the lobes attached to the neck differently in these two pics.

Also, it appears that the ear is different above the ear canal in the two pics - left handed batter with skin flap and Wagner with no inner ear flap above his ear canal. This could definitely be a difference from the picture angles.

Thanks for the info.

Andy

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by mordecaibrown

This is more of an educational question for Mark - as he has infinite more experience in photo recognition than me.

As for the ear comparison, to me there appears two differences in the photo comparison.

To me the bottom of the lobe in the "left handed batter" original photo looks like the lobe attaches to the neck downwards versus the lobe in the known Wagner appears to turn back up to the ear canal. I hope I explained that well - essentially, to me, it looks like the lobes attached to the neck differently in these two pics.

Also, it appears that the ear is different above the ear canal in the two pics - left handed batter with skin flap and Wagner with no inner ear flap above his ear canal. This could definitely be a difference from the picture angles.

Thanks for the info.

Andy

Andy - I agree the earlobe issue as you explained it is a good point. With respect to the earlobe, you are saying that Wagner's earlobe appears to be somewhat detached, while the batter's earlobe appears to be attached. I looked at this photo a while back for someone and that is also how I originally saw it. However, the other similarities made me look at it more carefully.

Keep in mind that comparing ears when one is viewed from the back and the other is not is very difficult (and rarely comes up). For this one it's not only from behind, but also from considerably below. For the batter in this case it seems that the viewpoint is sufficiently behind and below such that the bottom of earlobe is almost pointing straight at the viewer. That, IMO for this unusual case, makes it very difficult to discern the angle at which the lobe joins the head. I believe that the batter's "fleshy blob" (red arrow) is the closet point to the viewer and that the angle at which the lobe joined the head can be the same for the person(s) in both photos.

As to the "skin flap", it's not clear to me what you mean there. If you can draw arrows over the photos, I'll try to answer.

[bmarlowe1]

unintentional double post

[mordecaibrown]

Mark -

A picture is worth a 1000 words - no idea why I didnt do this in the first place. I made a circle in both pics to illustrate where I was discussing. To me in the known photo of Wagner there looks like there is no skin here - just open space; however, in the left handed batter it appears that skin folds down at this point.

You did understand my point correctly about the lobe. The various angles of these pics definitely make it tough to compare.

I also included another pic I had of Fred Clarke, I tried to blow it up. To me, his ear looks more similar to the left handed batter and the nose looks similar to the left handed batter.

Interesting discussion.

Andy

[deebro041]

Initially i also thought they were two different earlobes. But if you look at the closeup of Wagner, he has somekind of tissue under his earlobe which could almost be similar to the questioned photo.

[yanks12025]

never mind, I don't think we'll ever know 100%.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by mordecaibrown

Mark -
To me in the known photo of Wagner there looks like there is no skin here - just open space; however, in the left handed batter it appears that skin folds down at this point......
I also included another pic I had of Fred Clarke, I tried to blow it up. To me, his ear looks more similar to the left handed batter and the nose looks similar to the left handed batter.
Andy

My response to the "open space" question is below. I used an image of Wagner where the ear details aren't lost in shadow.

You used the same pic of Clarke that I used (yours is colorized).

[smokelessjoe]

Mark,

Is there a way to measure the width of the sideburns or the distance from ear to sideburn etc. I know this would not be an exact science because people could trim how they want to etc.

Just curious if this is something you have ever done or is even worth trying?

The width of the sideburns matchup in some of the photos and different in others...

[bmarlowe1]

Shawn - I don't see a way for that to help. The sideburns seem consistent between the batter and the Wagner images, that's all I can say.

[sayhey24]

Very interesting thread with a lot of good opinions both ways.
I'm torn -- many of the facial features do look like Wagner's, but I keep coming back to the body -- the calves and shoulders just look too small to be Wagner's.

One point that I haven't seen raised is this -- do we know for sure that the catcher is Bresnahan? If the person who wrote on the back has the catcher identification correct, why would we be so quick to dismiss the hard-to-read batter identification?

Greg

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

Very interesting thread with a lot of good opinions both ways.
I'm torn -- many of the facial features do look like Wagner's, but I keep coming back to the body -- the calves and shoulders just look too small to be Wagner's.

One point that I haven't seen raised is this -- do we know for sure that the catcher is Bresnahan? If the person who wrote on the back has the catcher identification correct, why would we be so quick to dismiss the hard-to-read batter identification?

Greg

Look at the image of negative on loc site. They state date and bres

[bmarlowe1]

You can do a reasonable ear match of the catcher to Bresnahan.

Also, the upper deck facade is pre-1909, and the catcher's socks match the Giants 1908 socks in the HoF uniform database, for what it's worth.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I thought it would be obvious enough from what I posted, but the batter vs. Clarke noses are markedly different in both size and shape. Both Wagner and the batter had enormous noses. The batter can't possibly be Clarke.

It would be easier to rule Clarke out if you had a photo from slightly behind and below his right shoulder. Wouldn't such an angle tend to make the features seem elongated? As in the photo?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Mark

It would be easier to rule Clarke out if you had a photo from slightly behind and below his right shoulder. Wouldn't such an angle tend to make the features seem elongated? As in the photo?

No - there is no viewing angle that will make a nose appear elongated. A nose will appear to stick out from the face the most if the view is a straight profile - as in the Clarke photos I posted (unless the nose is substantially bent right or left). For any other angle it will appear to stick out less.

In light of a few emails I received and the way the poll questions are posed, I want to be sure my position is understood. I am saying that I can't eliminate the batter being Wagner based on facial feature comparison (maybe someone else can), and that the batter is very unlikely to be Clarke or Wilson.That's it, and that is why I did not vote in the poll.

I would hesitate to recommend that someone buy the piece based on it depicting Wagner - it may be him, but there is a risk.

The comments on stature do seem reasonable. To me the waist seems narrow - but he may just have his belt pulled tight - I don't know.

[bmarlowe1]

Mark - below are the batter's nose and Clarke's nose. I have re-sized them so that the nose sizes match, as does the angle of the bridge. You could now say that size doesn't matter. It should be obvious that thse are two different humans.

[bmarlowe1]

After some research I think I have this figured out pretty definitively - will post tomorrow night.

[bobbvc]

Photo from "Honus Wagner, A Biography" DeValeria. Note- Batter and catcher closer to same height in this photo than photo in question. (Yes, I know knees bent, etc. make it harder to tell).

[smokelessjoe]

I am guessing this is a different day right? Maybe not, I do not not know? Definitely some differences...

None of the fans sitting on the field & different umpire. Those things could change during a game though - I guess.

[jsousa1213]

Any chance this is Warren Gill? I ask this based on the fact that the photo from eBay posted in message #8 appears to have "Gill at Bat" written on the back, Gill did bat in the second game that day as a pinch hitter, and, from the attached photo, he appears to have similar features to the batter, including a large nose and connected earlobes.

On Baseball Reference, Gill is also listed as a right handed batter, but, with only 27 games in his career, I suppose it would be possible that he was actually a switch hitter. Or maybe he sensed that his career was about over and decided to do it for a lark.

Jason

[mordecaibrown]

[QUOTE=jsousa1213;1024592]Any chance this is Warren Gill? I ask this based on the fact that the photo from eBay posted in message #8 appears to have "Gill at Bat" written on the back, Gill did bat in the second game that day as a pinch hitter, and, from the attached photo, he appears to have similar features to the batter, including a large nose and connected earlobes.

This seems like a reasonable question/assumption. Bresnahan is correctly listed on the back of the photo, so is there any reason to doubt that this is Gil batting?

I think it is a reasonable enough question that at the very least Gil needs to be eliminated.

Nice catch on that writing on the bottom of the photo - I only looked at the back briefly.

[bmarlowe1]

What's funny is that I identified Gill in that photo posted above for Library of Congress, but at this point I can't say whether the batter is or is not Gill. I have another nice clear shot of Gill from the front, but no profiles.

The only way is to try to compare Gill's right ear from the front to the mostly back of the batter's ear. Not easy.

[bmarlowe1]

[Jlighter]

Mark, are you a detective?

[mordecaibrown]

Great work Mark!!! This has been a great thread!

[alanu]

I vote no based on what Mark had to offer, glad I didn't read this thread until now.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

Mark, are you a detective?

-Jake - no I'm not. I haven't even been able to find my cell phone since Tuesday.

For those who don't know me, here is my usual shameless plug. I write a quarterly photo newsletter (Mystery Photo Supplement) for SABR's Pictorial History Committee that is mostly about identifying what is depicted in early baseball photos (direct links below). They started in April 2008 (top), and the latest was March 2012 (bottom). The first couple of issues were pretty wimpy, but I think they improved a lot over time. Some of the recent ones have been perhaps just a bit controversial.

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/F...otoColumn1.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/M...ublication.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Mysteryphoto9-08.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/mysteryphoto2-09.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Mysteryphoto5-09.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Mysteryphoto9-09.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Mysteryphoto1-10.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Mysteryphoto5-10.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/M...photo10-10.pdf

https://sabr.box.com/shared/static/x...9saxlbzj0z.pdf

https://sabr.box.com/shared/static/t...8u64tq5rtd.pdf

https://sabr.box.com/shared/static/1...092a683653.pdf

[Bocabirdman]

Based on the latest posts my Mark, (Mark: You have done some intensive work here), I tend to dimiss Wagner as the lefty batter. Did the umpires, back then, rotate around the field from game to game as they do today? If we know they did, then Mark's second picture, logically, must be of the same game. Even if it isn't, the thickness of Wagner vs. the lefty is striking.....just my two cents....

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Great thread, I'm learning a lot!!! No expert, and don't know if it means anything, but the extent of the socks that are showing between the questioned photo (#1) and that of Wagner batting RH (#2) also appears to be quite different which I guess could change during a game.

In photo#1 the length of the socks showing are approximately equal for both legs, whereas in photo#2, Wagner's sock on his right leg appears much shorter than on his left leg.

[bmarlowe1]

[yanks12025]

Great work Mark.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Outstanding Mark!!! I really admire the time, research, clear discussion of each piece of evidence and scientific approach that you have shared with all of us. The details of the "forensic" process you employed will serve as a useful template for all of us seeking identification in future photos.

Thanks a lot.

Craig

[iwantitiwinit]

In my opinion it is clearly not Wagner, calves are too thin.

[thekingofclout]

Along the same lines as comparing that both Thomas and the Batter wear their belt buckles on their right side. Take note in the way that Thomas wears his pants compared to the Batter. Thomas wears his much longer than the Batter does. We're all creatures of habit, and none more so than Ballplayers. I'd find it unlikely that a player would wear his pants long one day and short another. Once you feel comfortable with a certain length, I really don't think you'd switch to wearing them the opposite length.

Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

Along the same lines as comparing that both Thomas and the Batter wear their belt buckles on their right side. Take note in the way that Thomas wears his pants compared to the Batter. Thomas wears his much longer than the Batter does. We're all creatures of habit, and none more so than Ballplayers. I'd find it unlikely that a player would wear his pants long one day and short another. Once you feel comfortable with a certain length, I really don't think you'd switch to wearing them the opposite length.

Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

I considered the buckle supportive of the ear comparison which is pretty strong on it's own, IMO. In any case, below left to right we have Thomas in 1900, 1902, and the 1905 photo I used where his pants are well below his knee.

I don't know how much choice these guys had with respect to pants length. In 1900, it seems his pants were not as long, though he is seated on the ground, so maybe it's not so easy to tell. In the 1902 Spalding Guide photo, which I think I scaled pretty conservatively with respect to the 1905 photo, his pants are clearly shorter (if that's really him).

[Shoeless Moe]

somebody overpaid in that ebay auction.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=221057149168


did the winner chime in? are they a net54-er?

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

somebody overpaid in that ebay auction.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=221057149168


did the winner chime in? are they a net54-er?

Look at Forever Youngs post on the first page.

[T206Collector]

There.... now he's batting right-handed. Everyone's a winner!!

[bmarlowe1]

Who's that lefty catcher?

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Who's that lefty catcher?

Why Babe Ruth, of course!

[jbbama]

I would start by learning what other batters on that Pitt team were lefties....start there. IMO, bottom half of body is too thin to be Wagner.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by jbbama

I would start by learning what other batters on that Pitt team were lefties....start there. IMO, bottom half of body is too thin to be Wagner.

I would start by reading the posts in this thread.

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I would start by reading the posts in this thread.

Now Mark, what, of any importance, could have been touched in in a mere 94 posts? Now why didn't anyone think to check on the Pittsburgh roster for that year?

[BKasarda]

Here is another similar picture. It is a postcard circa 1915. Looks like the guy batting left handed