Its as Plain as the Nose on your Face-the Ear Thing isn't Gospel

[eastonfalcon19]

[CW]

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by CW

I think all future posts on this thread should just be +1 of CW!

Ken

[Runscott]

There is something wrong with this guy. I think it's great when someone with problems like he has, as well as no aptitude, is still interested in our hobby and gets enjoyment from it. But when he can't keep a low profile and listen and learn from people who know about 100x what he knows, and instead chooses to be a complete nuisance, he really should be shown the door.

[thecatspajamas]

My guess is he has found an auction house that will take it and in his own misguided way is trying to rekindle interest in it. Why else lay low for so long and then come out of nowhere with this supposed expose that amounts to an unintelligible restatement of his previous misguided argument?

[Directly]

Another collectors advise---Quote: Don't let the insults bother you!- You have a perfect right to be objective about your photo. Stick with the Facts!

If there is going to be a study of any antique portrait photo and one wants to compare the ear and stop because one ear may not appear to be a perfect fit when matching against another photo, is this a logical concept. Wouldn't it be fair to mention the antique photo's ear comparison may appear a little different, so there for not positively definitive.

Shouldn't any photo comparison theory greatly depend on each of a photo's factors--lighting, head positions, clarity, line of sight, age, condition of photo, the photographers process & touch-up, all the above, etc.

The Ear discussion is fine, but what about a overall point system.

Nose-----Mouth----hair-line---Eyes,---. Comparing two photos made around the same time, etc and other related facts.

A Ear comparison of my Lapham would be interesting.

So look, which ear might you pick for comparison?--to be fair my Comiskey is the fifth from the left--

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Directly

Another collectors advise---Quote: Don't let the insults bother you!- You have a perfect right to be objective about your photo. Stick with the Facts!

If there is going to be a study of any antique portrait photo and one wants to compare the ear and stop because one ear may not appear to be a perfect fit when matching against another photo, is this a logical concept. Wouldn't it be fair to mention the antique photo's ear comparison may appear a little different, so there for not positively definitive.

Shouldn't any photo comparison theory greatly depend on each of a photo's factors--lighting, head positions, clarity, line of sight, age, condition of photo, the photographers process & touch-up, all the above, etc.

The Ear discussion is fine, but what about a overall point system.

Nose-----Mouth----hair-line---Eyes,---. Comparing two photos made around the same time, etc and other related facts.

A Ear comparison of my Lapham would be interesting.

So look, which ear might you pick for comparison?--to be fair my Comiskey is the fifth from the left--

Tom,
You finally asked a reasonable question. Let's be clear about this though. You are not objective about your photo. You have a financial interest in proving this photo to contain the people you claim it does. No one here has any financial interest either way. The people on the board who have been trying to help you are the ones who have been objective. As a matter of fact, most here would be celebrating the historical significance of your photo, if it were true. Most here would love your photo to be what you wish it were and would love to be able to help you prove it were the real deal. Unfortunately for everyone interested in baseball history, it has been shown clearly in the previous thread not to be any of the people you claim them to be.

Now onto your thoughts. The reason a point system is not worthwhile is that you can have 20 features match, but if one, and it needs to be only one, doesn't match, all the rest don't matter, as it's not the same person. I think people focus on the ear for multiple reasons.

1) The ear is easy to see in many photos and therefore comparison images are often available.

2) The shapes are very distinctive and differences are often easy to see in comparison to jaw width, eye distance, and other things that require some more skill to create reference points to be able to match up photos.

3) The scale doesn't matter. You can compare a larger image to a smaller one because the shape won't change regardless how big or small the photos are.

4) The ear shape doesn't change from the teens to late 70s. This allows the photo of a younger person to be compared with an older image with a high degree of reliability.

5) The ear shape doesn't change with weight gain.

All the things you brought up, lighting, etc, are taken into consideration when attempting to match facial features. We all know, and Mark(bmarlowe1) will tell you clearly, that not all photos can be used for comparison. Reasonable comparison images were found to use with your photo and it showed it to not be him.

My final thought of my last reply to this thread is this. I really wish you would stop calling the kid in your photo Charles Comiskey. It isn't him.

Sorry everyone, I couldn't help myself.
Mark

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Sorry everyone, I couldn't help myself.
Mark

Apology not accepted

You and the photo-match Mark each get one of these for troll-feeding:

[Lordstan]

Scott,
I know. I know.
I'm sorry.
I'll even give myself one.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Apology not accepted.
You and the photo-match Mark each get one of these for troll-feeding:

Here's the thing. The mention of a "point system" got my attention for a couple of reasons.

I first heard it raised by a major AH in opposition to my pointing out (in a net54 post c2009) an obvious ear mismatch in one of their lots. According to their "point system", the guy was JJ. This was related to me in a phone call by a "friend" of the AH. As best as I can tell the AH has since reformed.

Also, IMO, it doesn't sound like something the OP would propose on his own. I speculate that he is getting some "help."

Something like a point system may be used for computer screening of, say, thousands faces in an airport video camera being compared to a database of terrorist faces - the computer is liberally looking for a set of possible face matches. After the computer selects possible matches, the list is fed to a skilled human to do the real comparisons using methods frequently discussed on net54.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Here's the thing. The mention of a "point system" got my attention for a couple of reasons.

I first heard it raised by a major AH in opposition to my pointing out (in a net54 post c2009) an obvious ear mismatch in one of their lots. According to their "point system", the guy was JJ. This was related to me in a phone call by a "friend" of the AH. As best as I can tell the AH has since reformed.

Also, IMO, it doesn't sound like something the OP would propose on his own. I speculate that he is getting some "help."

Something like a point system may be used for computer screening of, say, thousands faces in an airport video camera being compared to a database of terrorist faces - the computer is liberally looking for a set of possible face matches. After the computer selects possible matches, the list is fed to a skilled human to do the real comparisons using methods frequently discussed on net54.

That is very interesting. This all makes sense and fits with Lance's post a few prior to this where he theorized that the OP did get another AH interested, so he brought the subject up again.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Here's the thing. The mention of a "point system" got my attention for a couple of reasons.

I first heard it raised by a major AH in opposition to my pointing out (in a net54 post c2009) an obvious ear mismatch in one of their lots. According to their "point system", the guy was JJ. This was related to me in a phone call by a "friend" of the AH. As best as I can tell the AH has since reformed.

Also, IMO, it doesn't sound like something the OP would propose on his own. I speculate that he is getting some "help."

Something like a point system may be used for computer screening of, say, thousands faces in an airport video camera being compared to a database of terrorist faces - the computer is liberally looking for a set of possible matches. After the computer selects possible matches, the list is fed to a skilled human to do the real comparisons using good methods frequently discussed on net54.

Mark, I was just messing with you.

It was annoying to see the bogus Comiskey appear in our forum again - if posters like this guy can't be banned, another idea might be to ban certain topics once they have run their course of uselessness.

[bmarlowe1]

Some actual arguments were made, so I'll concur with what Lordstan said and specifically respond.

Directly: If there is going to be a study of any antique portrait photo and one wants to compare the ear and stop because one ear may not appear to be a perfect fit when matching against another photo, is this a logical concept [?]

I did not say your guy is not Comiskey because the ear is "not a perfect fit", I said he is not Comiskey because the ear is obviously grossly different in shape - not even remotely close.

Directly: The Ear discussion is fine, but what about a overall point system.

An "overall point system" is just something you made up. I prefer to listen to forensic experts. When the ear is grossly different, any other "points" you may have don't matter. There appear to be other significant differences - the nose, your guy probably had blue eyes, etc., but in your photo the ear difference is by far the easiest feature to see with certainty for comparison purposes and alone is enough to show that your guy is not Comiskey.

Directly: Comparing two photos made around the same time...

Ear shape is the most stable thing to compare. It stays virtually the same from about age 8 until the 60's. Ear changes are rarely visible in a photo until old age.

Directly: Shouldn't any photo comparison theory greatly depend on each of a photo's factors--lighting, head positions, clarity, line of sight,...

In the 2 photos below, the line of sight (i.e. head positions relative to the plane of the camera) are nearly the same (frontal view with very slight turn to the viewer's left). The ears being compared are not in significant shadow. The shape of the left outer ear (viewer's right) is easy to see even in Directly's grainy photo.

[Econteachert205]

It's not even close.

[FourStrikes]

.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by CW

+1

[parker1b2]

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