>>>all I did was voice my opinion on a couple photos..

No you did not. Please re-read my response just after you blew up, and also Jim VB's reply - this time s-l-o-w-l-y. The re-read your initial posts, again s-l-o-w-l-y.

Along with photos, you seem to have a problem with word usage and the plain meaning of language.

>>>Show us another photo of both players...

Huh? There are many photos of Radbourne, I posted for comparison one of the best that we know of, which happens to be at an angle that is at least similar to the head of the guy in the Bodie cabinet.

The guy in civies in the Bodie cabinet is unknown - hence we don't have any other photos of him. Get it Bradd?

>>>they have eerily similar noses, ears and hair-lines.

The real Radbourne has clear, obvious hair loss on his left side in the area above the ear. The guy in the Bodie cabinet does not.

-------------------------------

Thanks to all for the support. I was actually harder on Nashville Jeremy a couple of weeks ago, but it all slid off of him like water off of a ducks back. Like faces, people are all different - some more than others.

>>> That's probably what caused the initial mix-up.

No Bradd, what caused the mix-up was sometime in the past some fraudulent theif wrote Radbourne on the back.

I do get it, and I apologize for hastily responding to your response to my post. A cooler head would have been a better option. I still find the response rude and quite insulting, but I'm over it. To the topic at hand, I say they are eerily similar in facial features and hair can be cut. I'm certainly not saying this is the same man, but to say they have no similarities is crazy talk. I'll stand by my original assessment that they have nearly identical noses, ears and hair-lines. If in the photo of Radbourn he was facing the camera, it would be much harder to dismiss them as the same person.

well, not really
 

So Bradd, here's my take on it. On this message board you don't have to tell anyone your name, HOWEVER, if you get into a pissing match with someone then I feel they have a right to know who they are (hopefully amicably) arguing with. I am not going to expose your identity at this point because I feel Al nailed it. I think you just got a little sideways with the tone of the conversation, as you and Mark started discussing this picture.

Also, Jim nailed it too. We all have our own areas of expertise and when someone treads into that area they better darned well know what they are talking about and be able to back it up with definitive proof/facts. I get calls from advanced collectors, dealers and grading companies very frequently. (several this week already). They call because they know I study some things more than almost anyone else. This week it was on M101-4/5 Sporting News backs and E94 Overprints. If you jump into those areas, in a discussion with me, you better make sure you have your facts straight as I study the intricacies of those sets (especially the backs) quite a bit. Most folks know I collect very rare and esoteric type cards. I am far from a "know it all" but do have very good knowledge in those areas, so if you go there, just have your facts straight. I love good discussions and debates and have changed my view many times after listening to good arguments. At the Philly show I was asked questions by several folks concerning thoughts on different issues. You don't get those folks asking questions without them knowing you have a good idea of what they are asking about.

All this being said almost all members on the board are valuable in one way or another. Just be cordial to each other, have respect for their expertise, and all will be good. Many times it's the "way" something is phrased that sets people off on a chat board. Re-phrasing something can often quell confrontations and make for a much friendlier discussion. Best regards and happy holidays

ps...Huggins and Scott did the right thing on this cabinet. The good guys almost always do the right thing in these situations....that's why they are the "good guys". :)

My name is James Feagin and I'm the Senior Writer for Huggins & Scott Auctions :):)

Bradd,

Repeating what I said after you blew up: "Perhaps jumping on your case personally that way was not very tactful (sorry)".

>>>and hair can be cut....

In all of Radbourne's capless photos from his playing days - this area lacks hair. This is a pretty weird haricut you are postulating.

If this is important enough to you that you want to get better at it - I would be happy to provide references for you via private message.

I should add that this photo has all the earmarks of a fradulent past -
- alleged 19thC HoF'er
- not in uniform
- not grouped with other known players
- name penciled in somewhere on the photo
- no provenance

--------------

Hi James from H&S. Yes Leon - we should be cordial - I will try.:D

Thank you for the response. I do apologize for the wordage I used. I simply don't take being disrespected well, I guess. I simply formed an opinion on the two photos without knowing the backround well enough. I appreciate boards like this because I can find help if I ever need it when it comes to pre-war cards. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Apology accepted!

I appreciate the offer, but I'm "not there" yet when it comes to pre-war or 19th century stuff. I'm a newbie in this field. I am only at post-war graded HOF RCs, but I am working my way backwards, so I'll be here someday. I'm kind of just here browsing and soaking in info at a slow pace. Thanks again.

I concur :)

Much better to be known as a "good guy" than as a "great guy."

Bill

For Bradd:

It should be obvious that these ears are not the same. There is no way that the small difference in head angle for the 2 photos would make one shape "morph" into the other.

I couldn't see that closely before. They do look different.

yeap
 

I think I feel the urge for a group hug coming on......Everybody take cover quickly :).

kumbaya

For the record, I don't think this is Radbourne.

I AM curious as to Mark's use of the ears as a definitive "fingerprint", so to speak, to make or disprove of identifications.

Coming at it as a boxing enthusiast, a fighters ears can change significantly throughout the course of their career. Hell, if you go up to the Boxing Hall of Fame in Canastota, New York for the yearly inductions.........some of the old timers have nubs on the side of their heads you'd have a hard time even identifying as ears anymore.

Of course there's the obvious signs like "attatched", "unattatched", "lobes", "no lobes". However, the interior structure of the ear can change significantly as a fighter ages, depending on cartilage damage, swelling, etc.. Even the overall shape of the outside of the ear can change.

Now, being we are talking about turn of the century baseball players, I imagine many of these guys were of the rough and tumble type and got into their own share of scraps and scrapes throughout the years. Also the general conditions were much worse then they are today. I imagine there weren't a lot of ears that went through life unscathed during this era.

Let me be clear.........I'm not making a run at Mark or anybody else. Just curious as to the method. I've mis-identified my own share of boxers throughout the years and have relied on other historians/collectors to correct and inform me when necessary, and I am always grateful for their input.

Thanks.

- Dave

I believe the practice of ear identification first became popular among Star Trek Collectors. There was a fraudulent Mr. Spock photo floating around, in which the ears measured 1/16" short. It was Leonard Nimoy himself, who identified the photo as a fake.

Seriously, I think Mark's "ear identification" practice is sound. The structure and placement of the ears is intricate, and is probably the best identifier on a person's face. When used in combination with all other facial characteristics, I bet Mark's method works over 99% of the time.

As for players' ears changing over the years... probably "not so much" with baseball players. The basic structure of the ear would not change significantly over the years unless they were "beaned" over and over again.

Dave -

Let's first start with ears as "fingerprints" absent severe injury - yes it is valid to use them as such. There is very little change in them until about age 70 - of course that is an average age. What is most noticeable is that for people with large lobes, they start to droop in old age. Even so, you can still compare old guy to young guy ears, but you have to keep the droop in mind.

Of course injury can change the appearance. Boxers are a perfect example. It has occurred to me a number of times that I am glad my interest is in early baseball images, not boxing images.

After looking closely at thousands of Deaball Era and 19thC baseball faces, I see little evidence of "cauliflower ear". Boxer's are repeatedly hit in the ear. A ballplayer may occasionally get a ball in the ear, or get into a fight and get hit in the ear, but I have not seen an example of this type of permanant gross deforming injury in early ballplayers. Of course, there may be some that I haven't come across yet.

I have seen what look more like smaller deformaties - like Tom Tido Daly's left earlobe (see Okkonen's Baseball Memories 1900-1909, p.97). I haven't seen an image of him where this is not present. (His right side looks normal). An injury? a birth defect? - I dunno.

Mark

edited to add: - I agree with Perezfan - our posts overlapped in time.

Thanks for the responses guys.

Knowing what we now know about the fake Radbourn should we assume that the Roger Connor in this lot was not really Connor? I don't have the Halper auction catalogs (Note to my brother if he's reading this - Send me those catalogs!!! :D ) so I'm wondering how many dubious photos like this were in that collection?

Dan- I remember that the large cabinet group in the Halper sale was one that I catalogued. That was the lot that had the 1890 Cy Young cabinet. I don't recall that Roger Connor however. Are you saying that it was in the big lot? From the small picture you provided it doesn't look like him. Many of the Halper cabinets were generic. It's been over ten years so I may be forgetting some things.

Barry, I don't have the Halper Catalog so I can't say what lot the Connor was in, but the above picture is from a lot in an REA auction and it is attributed to the Halper Collection.

I just don't remember it. There was a big lot of around 38 cabinets, and we were pretty careful with the photo i.d.'s. Maybe the so-called Connor was sold individually or was in a different lot. Again, too much time has passed.

You're off the hook Barry. :D

This is stuff that Halper kept and was later sold after he passed away. The above lot was sold in the 2007 REA auction.

Thanks Dan, whew...I knew it didn't look familiar. That big cabinet group from the sale was really extraordinary. I certainly remember how much I liked it.

As to Connor - the scan on REA's site is not too good - but I don't like the hairline nor the chin. If anyone has a good scan, we could be sure.

Dan - I do have the Halper catalogue if you ever need a scan of anything.

Is it just my computer or did six pages of this thread just disappear?

Wow, an end of the year "controversial" thread.

Interstingly enough, didn't we just have a thread about "provenance" and what it means to us? Someone mentioned that the cabinet came from the Halper collection. If that's the case that would have been a lot of "provenance" in itself. Maybe SGC encapsulated this cabinet based on its "provenance".

Personally, unless I knew the subject really well I'd have a difficult time determining if the subject in different photos is the same person especially if the photos were taken at a different times (even 6 months difference) and at a different angles.

I can't remember who said it, but I agree -

It's PSAs fault... :p

your computer
 

Nothing disappeared that I am aware of. Sometimes if you don't login the settings revert back to automatic/static ones and that can mess stuff up a little bit (not completely gone though). Otherwise, it's your computer...

Fred: "Personally, unless I knew the subject really well I'd have a difficult time determining if the subject in different photos is the same person especially if the photos were taken at a different times (even 6 months difference)"
_____________________________

You may have difficulty making that determination, but it can be done with certainty with clear photos, and over the past year there have been a number of good threads explaining how to do so (including this one). Ears will not change in 6 months.

As to provenance, we know that the Candy Cummings photo sold in the Halper Collection was bogus.

Mark,

The Halper collection was so extensive that I'm sure that there are probably many pieces that weren't what they appeared to be. I can think of another as I post this.

Regarding the provenance statement I was thinking that SGC took the past ownership of the cabinet into consideration when they slabbed it.

Personally, I couldn't make a definite determination of whether or not that is Radbourn in the cabinet. I'm going to guess that the ears and nose may not look the same because of the different angles from which the photos were taken.

It'd be difficult to have someone convince me that it wasn't Radbourn. I guess unless someone can come up with better provenance we'll never know for sure. Who knows, maybe Halper picked this up from a Radbourn family member or from someone that knew Radbourn personally. That would be a greater form of provenance but we'll probably never know. For now it'll live on in a debate in cyberspace.

Fred:"I'm going to guess that the ears and nose may not look the same because of the different angles from which the photos were taken. '

-------------------------------------------

Really Fred that is nonsense - take a photo of your ear, the turn your head about 5 degrees and take another photo of your ear - then tell me how different they look.

Now - gather all the really verified Radbourne photos - they are all at at least somewhat different angles - yet his ears always compare very well. Only in this photo does his left ear look entirely different.

I guess this requires the application of some common sense as well as some inate ability to understand that 3-D objects don't magically morph into something else when they are turned a few degrees (the difference in angles of the 2 photos is quite small). Also, if you take the time to carefully study a few thousand photos of faces, you may learn to understand what happens to ears/noses/etc. when they are turned more than a few degrees.

In the 1880's you can be certain that there were very many Americans who looked similar to Radbourne.

I would add that in the unlikely event that Halper got this from the Radbourne family, the "provenance" would be simply a falsehood passed down thru the generations - a common occurence. Or maybe they wrote "Radbourn" on the photo so they wouldn't forget their last name.

Mark,

Tone on a public board is tough to figure out.

I have common sense (well at least I think I do) and upon occassion I use it. Perhaps not here though. I was merely stating that looking at a few photos of an ear shot from different angles would not lead me to believe that this is not Radbourn.

As far as the Radbourn family reference it wasn't the only possible provenance factor I brought up. It could have been a family member or friend. I suppose I shouldn't have brought that up unless I was willing to open myself up to debate and/or ridicule. I wish I was always right (like some people on this board) but I know better. Have a happy new year!

There's that tone thing again.

Thanks Mark...I actually do have it, but my brother is in possession of it on the other side of the country.

>>>There's that tone thing again.

The Cumbaya season is over.

I never said you lacked common sense. You may be better than me at any numbers of things - picking stocks, hitting a curve ball, other major life decisions, whatever. I did say you were not applying it here.

>>>I was merely stating that looking at a few photos of an ear shot from different angles would not lead me to believe that this is not Radbourn.

The problem with "merely stating...." is that this is a serious subject, and one that has caused a substantial amount of fraud. There has been a lot of effort in recent decades to find methods for correctly identifying people in photos. (This is critically important in natl security/intelligence fields as well as criminal investigation.) There is some accessable literature on the subject. "A few photos (even just one) of an ear shot from slightly different angles" is exactly enough to tell you it's not Radbourne.

If you don't buy any of this, then your challange is to find 2 photos of any famous individual you like (try Cobb, J Jackson, Jackie Robinson - anybody), taken at very slightly different angles like the ones discussed here, in which the ears look different.

You can also consider why H&S pulled the item from the auction and why SGC is "un-authenticating" the photo - just to make my Holiday Season brighter? (there's some tone for ya).

Happy New Year