NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-12-2014, 02:17 PM
marvymelvin marvymelvin is offline
Brad Francis
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Utah
Posts: 383
Default

Are directly and evajoy91 the same person?? Or is it just bad luck to have two pains in the asses running at the same time. I just can't for the life of me figure out why they don't just accept the information and move on even if they decide they do not not want to accept the advice. Just smile and wave for hell sake! Hey I ask for advice from people all of the time, some of the time I agree and some of the time I don't, but I never ask and then argue. It is common sense and common decency.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 10-12-2014, 06:10 PM
Directly Directly is offline
Tom Re.bert
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 838
Default

[QUOTE=marvymelvin;1333154]Are directly and evajoy91 the same person?? Or is it just bad luck to have two pains in the asses running at the same time. I just can't for the life of me figure out why they don't just accept the information and move on even if they decide they do not not want to accept the advice. Just smile and wave for hell sake! Hey I ask for advice from people all of the time, some of the time I agree and some of the time I don't, but I never ask and then argue. It is common sense and common decency.[/QUOTE

I'm happy-, but for the record not one time have I mocked, insulted, or name called anyone. If so I apologize. I tried to present facts.

It really doesn't matter what we say, the Photograph is here to stay


There have been many great discoveries requiring trial and error before becoming successful. This is my last response to this thread and hopefully will leave the members the impression of possibilities.

Due to the fact we know Comiskey is the one constant recorded baseball player in my Dubuque Rabbits photograph to have played baseball in Dubuque the four years 1878-1881.

In 1880 Ted Sullivan decided that a free lance combination would be less risky and in 1880 the semi-professional team succeeded the Northwestern league title holders.

( 1878-1881 Dubuque Rabbits baseball team roster )

1878--Comiskey and others

1879--Comiskey, Tom Sullivan, LP Reis, Lapham, Radbourn, Bill and Jack Gleason, Ted Sullivan, J Ross, Tom Loftus, Taylor
and Alveretta

1880--Comiskey and others

1881--Comiskey 1b, Ted Sullivan ss-p., Loftus 2b, Ross c., Burns 3b., Lear rf., Morrison ss-p., Keys lf., and Phelan cf

The 1882 US census shows Ted Sullivan resided in St Louis staying with his uncle. We know Comiskey didn't own a copy, so very likely Sullivan took the photo with him to St Louis. Comiskey named Reis and Alveretta in a photo, so is this the photo?

I do want thank a few of our forum members insight.-- in Missouri we call this research.

Thanks again!

Last edited by Directly; 01-27-2024 at 06:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 10-12-2014, 06:26 PM
Econteachert205 Econteachert205 is offline
D3nn!s B@!!ou
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,897
Default

So just to continue to play along (why not), comiskey is listed as 6 ft tall. Using some simple measurements the seated player purported to be comiskey measures about as tall as the average of the players standing in the back row. I would say it is very doubtful those players in the back row get to 6 ft tall, which given their approximate height to each other, they roughly all would. Very unlikely in 1880.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 10-12-2014, 06:29 PM
parker1b2's Avatar
parker1b2 parker1b2 is offline
J0n@th@n P@rker
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 492
Default

The photo looks like all the players are children or early teenagers, not men in their late teens or early 20s
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 10-12-2014, 06:37 PM
TimCarrollArt's Avatar
TimCarrollArt TimCarrollArt is offline
Tim Carroll
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Conway, SC
Posts: 304
Default

No matter how many times you call a dog a duck......it is still a dog.



Tim
__________________
I cut baseball cards:

www.timcarrollart.com

Facebook/Instagram/Twitter: @timcarrollart
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 10-12-2014, 06:37 PM
Lordstan's Avatar
Lordstan Lordstan is offline
M@rk V3l@rd3
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 3,754
Default

Finally! I am so glad that you will stop posting on this.
To present the facts, I will summarize.
First, there is nothing, and I do mean nothing , in that photo to suggest it is from Dubuque. Even more obvious is that there is nothing to suggest the players pictured are all on the same team. These facts make all your timeline points about who lived where and when totally meaningless with regard to this photo.
Second is that the facial features don't match Comiskey. This is not only my opinion. This fact has been proven by the person considered the foremost expert on facial identification. Apparently in your house research means polling 15 women and having them agree. I wouldn't bring Missouri into it as I am sure there are many people there, outside of your home, that realize what real research looks like. The entire world calls what you have done with this photo stupidity.
Please notice that I didn't call you stupid. I am calling your entire thought process, rationale, and refusal to accept the facts stupid.
Good bye. I can't wait for the SABR article that will shine a light on what this photo is and is not.
__________________
My signed 1934 Goudey set(in progress).
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjFuyogy

Other interests/sets/collectibles.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96571220@N08/albums

My for sale or trade photobucket album
https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7c1SRL

Last edited by Lordstan; 10-12-2014 at 06:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 10-12-2014, 07:32 PM
Directly Directly is offline
Tom Re.bert
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordstan View Post
Finally! I am so glad that you will stop posting on this.
To present the facts, I will summarize.
First, there is nothing, and I do mean nothing , in that photo to suggest it is from Dubuque. Even more obvious is that there is nothing to suggest the players pictured are all on the same team. These facts make all your timeline points about who lived where and when totally meaningless with regard to this photo.
Second is that the facial features don't match Comiskey. This is not only my opinion. This fact has been proven by the person considered the foremost expert on facial identification. Apparently in your house research means polling 15 women and having them agree. I wouldn't bring Missouri into it as I am sure there are many people there, outside of your home, that realize what real research looks like. The entire world calls what you have done with this photo stupidity.
Please notice that I didn't call you stupid. I am calling your entire thought process, rationale, and refusal to accept the facts stupid.
Good bye. I can't wait for the SABR article that will shine a light on what this photo is and is not.
Here he goes again--the loose cannon who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, you would think he owns the photo?-- OK Sir; Why don't you think the photo isn't from Dubuque?

Second I see nine players in a baseball uniform, so I guess you see a couple football or may be tennis players--does this guy know what a baseball team looks like?

Third--another expert told me the contrary--I sure wouldn't want your opinion one whom doesn't seem know what a baseball team looks like?--

If the entire hobby world is watching. about time--I have been asking for this 25 years.---What if I'm right?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 10-12-2014, 07:39 PM
sayhey24's Avatar
sayhey24 sayhey24 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,412
Default

Quote from directly/evajoy91 at 8:10:
"I'm happy-, but for the record not one time have I mocked, insulted, or name called anyone."

At 9:32 he calls Mark V. a loose cannon and insults and mocks him.

That didn't last long!

Greg
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 10-12-2014, 07:53 PM
frankbmd's Avatar
frankbmd frankbmd is offline
Fr@nk Burke++
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Between the 1st tee and the 19th hole
Posts: 7,232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by parker1b2 View Post
The photo looks like all the players are children or early teenagers, not men in their late teens or early 20s
Is it possible to have a 'stache if one isn't old enough to shave? Just wondering.
__________________
FRANK:BUR:KETT - RAUCOUS SPORTS CARD FORUM MEMBER AND MONSTER NUMBER FATHER.

GOOD FOR THE HOBBY AND THE FORUM WITH A VAULT IN AN UNDISCLOSED LOCATION FILLED WITH NON-FUNGIBLES


274/1000 Monster Number


Nearly*1000* successful B/S/T transactions completed in 2012-24.
Over 680 sales with satisfied Board members served.
If you want fries with your order, just speak up.
Thank you all.



Now nearly PQ.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 10-12-2014, 08:29 PM
Lordstan's Avatar
Lordstan Lordstan is offline
M@rk V3l@rd3
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 3,754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly View Post
Here he goes again--the loose cannon who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, you would think he owns the photo?-- OK Sir; Why don't you think the photo isn't from Dubuque?

Second I see nine players in a baseball uniform, so I guess you see a couple football or may be tennis players--does this guy know what a baseball team looks like?

Third--another expert told me the contrary--I sure wouldn't want your opinion one whom doesn't seem know what a baseball team looks like?--

If the entire hobby world is watching. about time--I have been asking for this 25 years.---What if I'm right?
Wow.
I don't know what I'm talking about! Really?
Let's get this straight, it is your responsibility to prove your facts to be true, not the other way around.

First, there is nothing in the photo that says Dubuque. There is no name of any city in the photo, so you stating the photo is from Dubuque is wishful thinking, not fact. Where is your proof that it is from Dubuque?

Second, I never said they aren't baseball players. I said that there is no proof that they are all part of one team. Perhaps you are unaware that baseball players on the same team wear the same uniform. I see players wearing at least 3 different uniforms. This would suggest to most people who are both familiar with sports and who have the ability to think that these players are on different teams. So to refer to Dave Grob's information on contextual probability, if they aren't all on the same team, as you believe, then it isn't the Dubuque Rabbits. If it isn't the Dubuque Rabbits then why would Comiskey be in it? The answer is that it is very unlikely.

Third. I stated that it was not only my opinion, but it was proven by the foremost expert in facial recognition in our area of interest. He is not just some random guy off the street. I formed my opinion based upon the FACTS he presented. We have asked previously who your "expert" is. You have yet to tell us, so for all we know he or she doesn't exist.

Now, If you combine the low contextual probably with the lack of facial similarity, it becomes obvious that it isn't him. This really shouldn't be that hard for you to follow.

What if I am right? Did you really just ask that?
You obviously need to work on your reading comprehension. It is true that a good amount of the most involved and passionate baseball history hobbyists will very likely read the article. It should also be quite obvious, if you had been paying attention, that the article will be written by Mark(Bmarlowe1), you know, the expert to whom I keep referring. Considering that he has been the person who has presented the facts, in this and the other thread, that that have proven the player's facial characteristics don't match Comiskey, I think I am pretty safe saying that you will be proven wrong.
__________________
My signed 1934 Goudey set(in progress).
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjFuyogy

Other interests/sets/collectibles.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96571220@N08/albums

My for sale or trade photobucket album
https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7c1SRL

Last edited by Lordstan; 10-12-2014 at 08:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 10-12-2014, 08:34 PM
GoCubsGo32's Avatar
GoCubsGo32 GoCubsGo32 is offline
G@ry Sƈ@m.ҽh.0ɾn
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Florida/Indiana
Posts: 1,084
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly View Post
If the entire hobby world is watching. about time--I have been asking for this 25 years.---What if I'm right?
What if you are right? We wish you were right.I think you are missing that part.We would love for that young man to be Comiskey. It would be an amazing historical artifact. Unfortunately..it is not. It is not Comiskey. Sorry man.

I would be careful calling out some of these board members.When they are trying to help YOU out for with their expertise advise. You should be grateful that there are board members on here that would share their advice for free to help people out.

I'm always open for a healthy debate and think it's a great thing to have.However, you have to present strong evidence to prove your side. In all your posts...you have not even come close.

Several expert members have answered your question(s) about your photo. Since I'm not in agreement with your logic or opinion. You can call me a "loose cannon" too...I guess OR a member of NET54 who's just trying to help out.Cause everyone who's here.. just trying to help you out.

Last edited by GoCubsGo32; 10-12-2014 at 08:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 10-12-2014, 09:11 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly View Post
Third--another expert told me the contrary--
Who is this expert and why is he hiding? What is he afraid of?

And why won't you (or your "expert") respond to post #97? In a few words it makes a good case that you have no competence in any of this. I'll repeat it here for your convenience:
So - what happened to all the other names you had for such a long time on your photo? On 9-25 you changed Rowe to Laurie Reis and Cliff Carroll to Alveretta. I thought you stand by your "insight without reservation." And now, you've taken all the names away except Comiskey. If you won't stand by your previous IDs, why should anyone think you have any idea how to ID Comiskey?

It's a simple question. Apparently you (and your expert) have no answer. Your silence speaks volumes.

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-12-2014 at 11:43 PM. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 10-13-2014, 12:02 AM
Directly Directly is offline
Tom Re.bert
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankbmd View Post
Is it possible to have a 'stache if one isn't old enough to shave? Just wondering.
Is this Bill Gleason he doesn't have a "stach" after 1887, so is Gleason even in the 1887 St Louis team photo, is Comiskey.

In my opinion if my Comiskey isn't Charles, then it his brother.

I can present a photo sold by Sotheby's in the description was listed it's was thought the player is so-n-so, etc.--Really???--by whom??

Last edited by Directly; 01-27-2024 at 06:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 10-13-2014, 06:26 AM
RUKen's Avatar
RUKen RUKen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly View Post
Is this Bill Gleason he doesn't have a "stach" after 1887, so is Gleason even in the 1887 St Louis team photo, is Comiskey. In my opinion if my Comiskey isn't Charles, then it his brother. I can present a photo sold by Sotheby's in the description was listed it's was thought the player is so-n-so, etc.--Really???--by whom??
No, actually the player in the cabinet card is Kid Gleason, who was a 21-year-old rookie with Philadelphia in 1888 and was not on the 1887 Browns.

The members of this board are well aware that auction houses have placed photos and other memorabilia up for bidding that have had unsupportable or just plain wrong identifications, and some of us (including myself) have contacted auction houses to explain why identifications are incorrect. In most cases, when presented with the evidence, the online descriptions of the items are changed to reflect the new information, and sometimes this results in items going unsold. No reputable auction house wants to sell something that is not what it is claimed to be, whether through fraud or honest mistake.

(This message was edited after posts on another thread indicated that many members will not contact an auction house regarding an incorrect ID, even if the correct ID devalues the item.)

Last edited by RUKen; 10-17-2014 at 06:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 10-13-2014, 09:37 AM
Lordstan's Avatar
Lordstan Lordstan is offline
M@rk V3l@rd3
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 3,754
Default

Hmm. Perhaps you should educate yourself about baseball history instead of relying on Wikipedia.

The first card, which is the same photo you posted is William "Kid" Gleason. He was a pitcher who's career started a bit later than 1880. Unfortunately, someone posted that photo into Wikipedia as the other Bill Gleason.

William Gleason was a shortstop on multiple teams with Comiskey. He is the other 2 photos.

Perhaps you could address the questions that I and Mark raised.
1) How can you prove the photo is from Dubuque?
2) How can you prove that all the players in the picture are on the same team?
3) How can you get around the fact that major facial features, including the ears, don't match Comiskey?
4) Who is your expert and what facts are their opinion based on?
5) After being so sure of your player identification "without reservations," you are now backing off of the names of all the other players. Why now, should we believe that your Comiskey ID is correct?

And now, you are backing up again stating that if it isn't Charles, it is his brother. Do you have any proof of this or are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
__________________
My signed 1934 Goudey set(in progress).
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjFuyogy

Other interests/sets/collectibles.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96571220@N08/albums

My for sale or trade photobucket album
https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7c1SRL

Last edited by Lordstan; 10-13-2014 at 09:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 10-13-2014, 09:39 AM
Lordstan's Avatar
Lordstan Lordstan is offline
M@rk V3l@rd3
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 3,754
Default

Sorry. Photos didn't upload the first time. Here they are.
__________________
My signed 1934 Goudey set(in progress).
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjFuyogy

Other interests/sets/collectibles.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96571220@N08/albums

My for sale or trade photobucket album
https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7c1SRL
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 10-13-2014, 10:44 AM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly View Post
In my opinion if my Comiskey isn't Charles, then it his brother.
You are getting closer. If it's not his brother, then it is his friend. If it is not his friend, then it's another guy on the planet who lived in the same century.

You'll get there.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 10-13-2014, 01:25 PM
Dave Grob Dave Grob is offline
Dave Grob
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: National Capital Region
Posts: 510
Default Logic in Arguments

Dear Tom,

You have failed to make a logically defendable and objective argument for your case. This has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with your assessment of the facial characteristic on the proffered Charles Comiskey. Assumptions are made when there are gaps in your factual information, but as more of the argument relies on assumptions, the weaker the argument is and less convincing it is likely to be.

FACT: Charles Comiskey played in Dubuque during the period of 1878-1881.

FACT: Charles Comiksey would have been 19-22 during this period.

Assumption: The person you have identified in the image is in fact Charles Comiskey.

Assumption: The person identified as Charles Comiskey is between 19-22.

Thus you are offering an argument that says since Comiskey played in Dubuque in 1878-1881, and was 19-21 during this frame, and I believe that the person identified as Charles Comiskey appears to have certain facial characteristics that feel are consistent with what I believe he looked like at this point in time and age, then this must be Charles Comiskey while in Dubuque during the time frame in question.

You can use assumptions to bridge information gaps, but you cannot use them as confirmations of other assumptions in order to establish facts. Facts must always stand on their own merit. Facts are also used to establish context or a nexus between various facets of information offered in an argument.
A much stronger argument would start with a fact that:

This photograph was taken in Dubuque during the period of 1871-1881. This can be substantiated by the photographer/studio information or the some other contemporary annotation.

Then there might be some logical progression to the inferences you make about the age and facial characteristics. Your theories on the pedigree of the image and the assumed travels of it from Dubuque to St. Louis are not relevant to the fact pattern since they do not objectively confirm the date or location of the point of origin of the photograph (when and where the picture was actually taken).

Dave Grob
DaveGrob1@aol.com
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 10-13-2014, 08:11 PM
Directly Directly is offline
Tom Re.bert
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 838
Default

Runscott: sorry but thanks for wasting the space to this forum discussions.

Lordstan, thanks for your questions, sometimes our emotions can run high when different points of views are discussed, I appreciate your taking your time to express your thoughts!
#4--Sorry I will not disclose the names of the other people involved due to respect!
Comiskey's brother never played in Dubuque, I was being sarcastic and just repeating a statement of another person.

If you don't mind I really would like to understand Dave's interesting points of advise.

Dave what would help constitute the time of the photo's exposure to help substantiate the facts?---Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 10-13-2014, 08:39 PM
Dto7 Dto7 is offline
Don Stokes
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 391
Default

"Have you no sense of Decency Sir?" - Welch-McCarthy

Last edited by Dto7; 10-13-2014 at 08:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #121  
Old 10-13-2014, 08:52 PM
Dave Grob Dave Grob is offline
Dave Grob
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: National Capital Region
Posts: 510
Default

Tom,

With no contemporary annotations or secondary information/data contained within the image itself, there is nothing that can be used as a factual point of reference to claim the image was one taken in Dubuque during the time frame in question. In short there is no factual contextual information to support the assumption that the person in the photo is Charles Comiskey based on a relationship to time and place. Assumptions cannot be used to create a supporting fact pattern by linking them through some assumptive symbiotic relationship.

By this I mean it is flawed logic to proffer:

“I assume this picture was taken in Dubuque during the 1878-1881 because I assume this Charles Comiskey; ergo because I assume this is Charles Comiskey during the 1878-1881 timeframe the photograph must have been taken in Dubuque.”

Your argument is therefore based on two assumptions:

1. That the image was taken in Dubuque during the time frame in question at the exclusion of all other possibilities.

2. That the person you have identified as being Charles Comiskey is in fact Charles Comiskey at the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Since there is no way to overcome either of these assumptions (establishing them as objective matters of fact), your position and theory as to who the player in question is and where/when this picture was taken will always remain a speculative theory.

This is a theory that others can agree with or not, but it is not one supported by logical and objectively defendable argument. Please know I offer this as someone who has actually taught critical thinking and reasoning as part of my professional background outside of the sports memorabilia field. I hope you will take these comments in the spirit in which they are being offered.

Dave Grob
DaveGrob1@aol.com
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 10-14-2014, 08:08 AM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,324
Default

With all due respect, the only thing known about your photo is that its of a bunch of a guys who play baseball. A group out of millions of guys who played baseball.

Until you can tie the photo to Dubuque definitively, there is no reason to even start guessing that it's Comiskey.

Your first point of research should be to tie the photo to the team you're saying it represents. That means you look for photos of the Dubuque team in uniforms that are similar or consistent with your photo. That means you look in newspapers for photos of the team, because your photo could be a reference photo if it is the Dubuque team. That means you search through archives for photos of the team, because there's a possibility your photo was reprinted in periodicals, much like how Reach guides are used to identify teams from the early 20th century.

Last edited by packs; 10-14-2014 at 08:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 10-14-2014, 08:28 AM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly View Post
Runscott: sorry but thanks for wasting the space to this forum discussions.
The mirror, Directly, the mirror.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 10-14-2014, 09:14 PM
Directly Directly is offline
Tom Re.bert
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 838
Default

Dave, thanks again for your valued input.

(Sorry I had cropped my Dubuque photo)

The baseball team Cabinet photograph is stamped "DUBUQUE"---"H.A. Jordan" "Artist"

#1) Fact: This establishes without question the location of the photo being Dubuque.

#2) H.A. Jordan -(Artist)-Dubuque Photographer (date range) Per research by the Center for Dubuque History. Loras College, Dubuque,Iowa

Quote: Director/Locas College, Dubuque Iowa: ---" Indeed the first listing of H.A. Jordan Photographer, appears for the first time in the 1881 Dubuque City Directory. We find his name in the city Directories up to and including 1890 when he disappears from the listings."
( Most business requires some start-up time, so its feasible the Jordan's Studio opened earlier?)

I might point out a five cent cigar would be expensive for most children.

The uniform question: I can only point out it appears Mr. Jordan high-lighted a "Star" on Reis's baseball hat. This to me is significant.

I still believe to have a very good case!--Thanks again!

Last edited by Directly; 01-27-2024 at 06:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 10-14-2014, 09:26 PM
parker1b2's Avatar
parker1b2 parker1b2 is offline
J0n@th@n P@rker
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 492
Default

I still think it is just a bunch of kids in the photo, not men.

Last edited by parker1b2; 10-14-2014 at 09:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 10-14-2014, 09:32 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly View Post
The uniform question: I can only point out it appears Mr. Jordan high-lighted a "Star" on Reis's baseball hat. This to me is significant.
But, Reis is not in your photo. And again, why should anyone find your IDs credible given that you weren't able to distinguish the obvious facial difference between William G. Gleason who played for Dubuque and then the Browns in the 1880s and William J. "Kid" Gleason who did not. I guess that's what they call research in Missouri.

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-14-2014 at 09:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 10-14-2014, 09:46 PM
Lordstan's Avatar
Lordstan Lordstan is offline
M@rk V3l@rd3
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 3,754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly View Post
Dave, thanks again for your valued input.

(Sorry I had cropped my Dubuque photo)

The baseball team Cabinet photograph is stamped "DUBUQUE"---"H.A. Jordan" "Artist"

#1) Fact: This establishes without question the location of the photo being Dubuque.

#2) H.A. Jordan -(Artist)-Dubuque Photographer (date range) Per research by the Center for Dubuque History. Loras College, Dubuque,Iowa

Quote: Director/Locas College, Dubuque Iowa: ---" Indeed the first listing of H.A. Jordan Photographer, appears for the first time in the 1881 Dubuque City Directory. We find his name in the city Directories up to and including 1890 when he disappears from the listings."
( Most business requires some start-up time, so its feasible the Jordan's Studio opened earlier?)

I also believe during 1882 Comiskey played baseball between both Dubuque & Chicago.

The uniform question: I can only point out it appears Mr. Jordan high-lighted a "Star" on Reis's baseball hat. This to me is significant.

I still believe to have a very good case!--Thanks again!
Finally!!
You answered a question Directly and to the point without any extra nonsense.
So now, I think we can feel pretty confident about the Dubuque location.

The next question is what proof do you have that the players are all on the same team. I count at least 6 different uniforms.
Uniform 1 - Front row left end.
Uniform 2 - Front row second from left. (Different shirt and belt style)
Uniform 3 - Back left and back 3rd from left. (Same star on chest)
Uniform 4 - Back 2nd from left (Different buttons and no star on uniform)
Uniform 5 - Front right end.
Uniform 6 - Front second from right (Notice belt is different from guy on end)
I can't make out the 2 players in the back row on the right well enough to say for sure if their uniforms match anyone else.

It seems to be highly unlikely that they would pose for a team photo in that many different uniforms, especially since the other composite shows that the team had really nice uniforms with name "Dubuque" displayed boldly across the chest plate. So why would they take a team photo with so many different uniforms? I don't believe they would. It follows that if they are not all on the same team, then it can't be a team photo of the Dubuque Rabbits. If it isn't the Rabbits then why would Comiskey be in this photo? Obviously, he would have no reason to.

Also, please stop identifying players by names they clearly aren't. In post 97 of this thread Mark showed pictures of the real Reis in comparison for the guy you're calling Reis. None of the facial features come anywhere close. The ears, nose, jaw line, lips, and overall head shape don't match even remotely.
__________________
My signed 1934 Goudey set(in progress).
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjFuyogy

Other interests/sets/collectibles.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96571220@N08/albums

My for sale or trade photobucket album
https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7c1SRL
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 10-15-2014, 07:06 PM
Directly Directly is offline
Tom Re.bert
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 838
Default

Thanks to the Net 54 forums opinions and recommendations is why I revised my photo to highlight only one baseball player, Comiskey.

Comiskey being the main common denominator within those four years (1878-1881).

Comiskey teamed up with many different baseball players and teams in those four years.

In 1878 Comiskey joined a dozen amateurs and pros to try to make the Ted Sullivan team, players as Bill O'Rourke, Tom Burns, Frank Byrne, Will Phelan and Tom Cooney, Jeff Dolan, Spike Brady, and Farrell

Some other team mates named in those years --John Troy, Charles Eden, John O'connor and E.C. Kent.

***Another example the 1880 Dubuque "Easterns" Comiskey played 1st base for the "Easterns" against the "Westerns" baseball team comprised of a "mixture of professional & amateur athletes".***

In 1881 the team roster Comiskey was the player manager along with Sullivan, Phelan, Lear, Brown and Loftus, Ross, Burns and
Morrison.

I believe the Comiskey image in the 1887 Dubuque is the same player as in my 1878-1881 Dubuque photograph.

Time will only tell, be it twenty years from now--thanks again!

Last edited by Directly; 01-27-2024 at 06:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 10-15-2014, 10:04 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly View Post
Thanks to the Net 54 forums opinions and recommendations is why I revised my photo to highlight only one baseball player, Comiskey.
So, did you send corrections to The Comiskey family, HoF, SABR, Charlie Sheen, The Smithsonian, The Dubuque Telegraph-Herald and Sports Collectors Digest?

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-15-2014 at 10:05 PM. Reason: forgot one
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 10-16-2014, 04:54 AM
Scott Garner's Avatar
Scott Garner Scott Garner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 6,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
So, did you send corrections to The Comiskey family, HoF, SABR, Charlie Sheen, The Smithsonian, The Dubuque Telegraph-Herald and Sports Collectors Digest?
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 10-18-2014, 07:39 PM
Directly Directly is offline
Tom Re.bert
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
So, did you send corrections to The Comiskey family, HoF, SABR, Charlie Sheen, The Smithsonian, The Dubuque Telegraph-Herald and Sports Collectors Digest?
yes, I will----but will pass on Charlie Sheen--

Last edited by Directly; 10-19-2014 at 06:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 10-18-2014, 09:11 PM
Scott Garner's Avatar
Scott Garner Scott Garner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 6,597
Default

Wow...
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 10-19-2014, 06:17 PM
Directly Directly is offline
Tom Re.bert
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 838
Default

*********Research********

("A studious inquiry or examination especially investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of
facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical applications of such new laws or revised
Theories or laws.")


(1878-1881)


1878-Comiskey joined with over a dozen Amateurs and Pro's who'd converged on Dubuque to try out for Ted Sullivans team.

!878-The team was an Independent franchise.

1878-The local Dubuque club was reportedly known as the Rabbits, but this name was seldom used by local sportswriters.

1879-Ted Sullivan and loftus opened a "Baseball Headquarters" named Baseball Emporium located at 530 Main Street, selling baseball equipment, a billiard parlor and cigar shop. This was a great place to run into members of a team and space was allocated for opposing teams to coordinate their efforts.


( 1880-81-The H.A. Jordan Photographer Dubuque Studio was in business located at 5th and Main )


1879-There was a massive player overhaul, Comiskey being the only player from the 1878 Dubuque team to make the 1879 club.

1879-The Dubuque team ordered their Dubuque Uniforms from the Spalding Co. Sullivans aggregation won the championship but proved a financial failure, and the manager decided a free lance combination would be less risky, and in 1880 the Semi-Professional team Dubuque Rabbits succeeded the title holders.

1880-***( Comiskey was without a team)*** Sullivan, Reis, and Loftus were the only players from the 1879 team to make the 1880 Dubuque team. Newcomers included John Troy, O'Connor,E.C Kent. This 1880 Dubuque Reds team as referred to by the press was disbanded July of 1880.

1880-- July 24th Comiskey returned to the field of baseball as first base and Ted Sullivan at short stop for the Easterns against the Westerns, a mixture of amateurs and Pros athletes.

1881 --During the spring of 1881 another attempt was to revive the sport and Comiskey was elected player manager. He was surrounded by names as Phelan, Lean. Brown, Leary and Loftus.

1881-During the summer of 1881 Ted Sullivan had been invited to bring his Rabbits to St Louis for a game against the St Louis Browns which were found Comiskey's old team mates, Jack and Bill Gleason. (The Rabbits uniforms told looked very similar to white pajamas)

1881--December Comiskey signs with the St Louis Browns for the 1882 season.

I would find it unlikely during 1880 Comiskey wasn't moonlighting as a baseball player somewhere in Dubuque with any baseball team or baseball players he might gather.

**********This forums research has been very positive and helpful, which I am extremely grateful****thanks again!
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 10-19-2014, 07:09 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

It's funny that you included a definition of "research." Part of it is looking things up - that you know how to do. The hard part is interpreting, understanding, and applying logic to what you have found. That you have been completely unable to do. What you have presented on net54 is not even close to research (not in Missouri nor anywhere else).
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 10-21-2014, 07:34 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default The gospel on the "ear-thing"

Staying true to the title of this thread, you can get the gospel on the “ear-thing” in the just released SABR Pictorial History Committee newsletter at:

http://sabr.box.com/shared/static/bx...igvcnj45g5.pdf

The article appears on page 20.

If you like the newsletter you might consider supporting it by
1) If you aren’t a member, consider joining SABR, and/or
2) Consider a donation directly to the Pictorial History Committee – see page 21, 1st column about half way down explains how to do it. No contribution is too small.


Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-22-2014 at 08:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hiding in Plain Sight JollyElm Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) 15 01-05-2014 11:49 AM
Topps is just plain strange. steve B Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) 2 03-20-2013 08:09 AM
At the first pole ...... its REA's T210 Jackson by a nose at Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 2 04-11-2006 06:05 PM
Pete needs to wipe his nose better Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 0 08-22-2004 09:30 PM
Sometimes ebay sellers are just plain dumb Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 8 04-10-2003 04:12 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:03 AM.


ebay GSB