Any Idea of Why This Went So Cheaply?

[oldjudge]

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=16455

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

[slidekellyslide]

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

[barrysloate]

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

[Leon]

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

[bmarlowe1]

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

[oldjudge]

Am I imagining it or are the noses entirely different?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

The other question is why did SGC authenticate it?

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

[bmarlowe1]

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

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

And yes - why did SGC authenticate this?

[bmarlowe1]

THis reminds me of the phony Barnes:

[oldjudge]

Thanks Mark

[barrysloate]

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

[Jacklitsch]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

Don't get me started.....

[barrysloate]

I know Steve, I know...

[E93]

Lucky it wasn't PSA that did this.

[Matt]

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

[oldjudge]

Sale cancelled by H&S

[barrysloate]

As well it should be.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Sale cancelled by H&S

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

[slidekellyslide]

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

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

[Jacklitsch]

Is this Wilkinson?

[slidekellyslide]

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

[uffda51]

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

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

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

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

Has this photo been on the market before?

[Bicem]

I blame PSA.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Bicem

I blame PSA.

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

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

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

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

And yes - why did SGC authenticate this?

That's the same person.

[bmarlowe1]

Sportscardtheory -

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

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Sportscardtheory -

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

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

[sportscardtheory]

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

[bmarlowe1]

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

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

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

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

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

[bmarlowe1]

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

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

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

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

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

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

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

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

[doug.goodman]

We all have a beer and watch the football game.

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

Doug

[bmarlowe1]

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

I think your statements were a bit stronger than that:

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

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

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

Doug --
I second your motion.

[barrysloate]

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

[benjulmag]

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

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

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

[GaryPassamonte]

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

[oldjudge]

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

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

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

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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

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

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

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

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


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


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


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

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

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


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


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


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

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

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

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

Never mind. Not worth it.

[barrysloate]

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

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

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

[barrysloate]

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

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

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

[Al C.risafulli]

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

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

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

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

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

-Al

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

[sportscardtheory]

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

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

[sportscardtheory]

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