Net54baseball.com Forums - Its as Plain as the Nose on your Face-the Ear Thing isn't Gospel

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)

- Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Its as Plain as the Nose on your Face-the Ear Thing isn't Gospel (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=194547)

Econteachert----Two words Coaches corner

Two words; Charlie Sheen. ( This type ultra-high level collector )

Comiskey did reside in Dubuque for around four years between the age a 19-22. The photographer was in business while Comiskey played baseball there, then left to play baseball in St Louis. One hundred years later this Dubuque baseball team photograph was found in St Louis.

I have been advised to focus and concentrate with the Comiskey image. Because he is the real bread and butter, value and importance of my Dubuque photo. No one cares about Alveretta or Reis. Radbourn would be a bonus. Also SABR will be a good forum for my photo.

I have heard the mustache theory before, sorry I can't locate any photograph of Comiskey with mustache.

The age theory: I presented two photographs comparing my Comiskey with another person-. Could the person on the left be forty years old?--So although a good thought the age theory just doesn't hold water with my Comiskey image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1330595)

Econteachert----Two words Coaches corner

Two words; Charlie Sheen. ( This type ultra-high level collector )

Great - you are finally admitting that you can only sell this through a disreputable auction house, or to an idiot with a lot of money.

It's good that you have finally come around.

Not sure it is even worth mentioning at this point, but dismissing the other players in the photograph and focusing on the one thought to be Charles Comiskey does not address the contextual aspects of analysis. If the thought is that these other players don’t matter and may not be the members of the Dubuque Rabbits as first thought, then who are they and why would the proffered Comiskey have been photographed with them? From a logic and analytical standpoint, if you espouse merit in the concept of contextual analysis as part of this process (which I believe you have), then you can’t forego it as part of your assessment and return myopically to a reliance on facial references only, and then for only one person in a group photograph. To do so is tantamount to rejecting the value of contextual analysis.

Please know this and my other posts are about my interests in process/protocols and not product (this particular photograph). Unless someone has any questions about process and protocols, I think I have reached my saturation point with this thread.

Dave Grob
DaveGrob1@aol.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Grob (Post 1330625)

Dave from someone that's hopes they learned something from you wonderful posts in this thread Thank you for the info Sir.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1330595)

I have been advised to focus and concentrate with the Comiskey image....I have heard the mustache theory before, sorry I can't locate any photograph of Comiskey with mustache....

If you can't support your other IDs, and for example apply your "point system" to "Radbourn", why would anyone think you're right about Comiskey? And as Dave said, why would Comiskey be there if the others were not?

You don't understand the mustache theory (nor anything else), no one expects to see Comiskey with a mustache

Dave, thank you so much for your valuable insight. - In my opinion by just two short paragraphs you solved the mystery about my Dubuque photograph more than all of us put together X 100---everything you said is completely relevant and true to my photograph-- it hit me after reading your articles and thinking about what you are saying it suddenly became very clear to me, everything you wrote should be in a future SABR article-thanks, Tom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1331081)

Dave, thank you so much for your valuable insight. - In my opinion by just two short paragraphs you solved the mystery about my Dubuque photograph more than all of us put together X 100---everything you said is completely relevant and true to my photograph-- it hit me like a hammer after reading your articles and thinking about what you are saying it suddenly became very clear to me, everything you wrote should be in a future SABR article-thanks, Tom

Trolling behavior.

Dave's input didn't imply to me my player can't possibly be Comiskey. He did point out Comiskey played baseball in Dubuque for four years, (the Comiskey age factor of 19-22). Comiskey did in truth play baseball with several different Dubuque baseball teams and ball players during those four years. So in truth the photograph could have been produced within any of those four years 1878, 1879, 1880 up to 1881. In fact the Rabbits team toward the end of 1881 was made up of anyone who wanted to play baseball.

So in retrospect Comiskey might had my photo taken with several different teammates within those four years!

I may someday take my Dubuque photo either to the Chicago Sun-times show or the National. thanks so far to the forum, members and readers for their patience.

Holy crap.
How dense are you?
You will say anything you can to prove it is what you think it is.

For the last time...
1) The team doesn't match therefore the context of a Dubuque team is gone. There is nothing in the photo to suggest it is from Dubuque.

2) The face doesn't match Comiskey.

It isn't Comiskey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1331081)

-- it hit me like a hammer

Two more hammer hits and I think you'll have it.

(I realize you edited out the word "hammer", but I think you got it right the first time)

Question: Why does one item after another from this particular seller/source have recent notations that were added, presumably to enhance value? It seems like there is a distinct pattern here to deceive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MW1 (Post 1331193)

Yup :rolleyes:

Haven't looked at this thread for a few
days. Amazing that this discussion continues.

if you have to work really hard to convince yourself that something is what you hope it would be,

how hard do you have to work to convince some one else that it is?

or put another way

what a f'in a**hole I am for believing this story and spending the money for this that now I need to find another a**hole to buy it from me

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigtrain (Post 1331242)

Haven't looked at this thread for a few
days. Amazing that this discussion continues.

Same or me. Entertaining, no doubt.

A Legitimate 1913 Liberty Nickel is Condemned as a Fake?--here is the article:

George Walton was killed in a car accident heading to a 1962 coin show supposedly with his 1913 Nickel.

There was much speculation about the whereabouts of the coin. Some people were certain that someone had stolen it, while others felt it had been lost at the scene. Apparently Walton's heirs never clarified matters. They had found a 1913 Liberty Head Nickel in Walton's effects at home following his death, and taken it to a leading numismatic firm for authentication. The experts at this firm condemned the coin as a fake (stating that it was a genuine coin which had been altered.) Following this news, the Walton heirs kept quiet about things and for forty years, nobody knew what had ever happened to the Walton specimen.

By this time, the Walton heirs had seen many photos of the other genuine 1913 Liberty Nickels, thanks to the Internet. Careful comparisons had been made, and they became convinced that their coin was worth another look, perhaps by a different expert. Imagine the stunned surprise when a Walton family member showed up at that 2003 World's Fair of Money to have their specimen examined! At least SIX different world-class experts examined the Walton coin, and they unanimously agreed that the coin was genuine! The lost 1913 Liberty Nickel had been found!

When I sent my photo to the Museum's, HOF and others, all I ask the photo be saved in their computer system for historian studies.

If some can't understand, then some are not collectors. I have owned the photo for 25 years--another 15 years is OK with me!

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 as to how as to ID Comiskey?

Your bogus "Reis" is below left. The real Reis from the 1878 Chi NL composite is below center, and Reis from the actual 1879 Dubuque photo is below right. So, it appears that in 1878 and 1879 the real Reis had curly hair (and an inconvenient mustache). I guess for your photo he must have had his hair straightened. He also had a very different skull and jaw geometry compared to your photo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 (Post 1333008)

Why are you bothering?????????

Quote:

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan (Post 1333016)

Why are you bothering?????????

For one, because it's clear that Directly is intent on having his own faulty summary, complete with photo labeled the way HE wants it to appear, be the final post in this thread, probably hoping that whoever happens upon this thread later will see how incredibly long it is, skip ahead to the end, and accept his faulty summary as the real conclusion of the matter.

This whole thing is less like a single expert telling you that your prized rare nickel is a fake, and more like a panel of experts advising you that it is in fact a quarter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas (Post 1333043)

This is exactly why, despite the fact that I think attempting to convince him is a waste of time, I have continued to reply.
He is clearly trying to manipulate the wording of posts in this, and the previous thread, to create the appearance that the people here agree with him. It is apparent, if you read either thread that no one, who has posted a reply, even remotely agrees with him.

The fact that he WANTS the kid in the photo to be Comiskey is clear. The fact that it ISN'T Comiskey has been proven over and over again. This should also be very clear.

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=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!

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.

The photo looks like all the players are children or early teenagers, not men in their late teens or early 20s

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

Tim

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lordstan (Post 1333234)

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?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by parker1b2 (Post 1333230)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1333264)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1333264)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1333264)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1333269)

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??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1333320)

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.)

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?

Sorry. Photos didn't upload the first time. Here they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1333320)

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.

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

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!

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

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1333611)

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

The mirror, Directly, the mirror.

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!

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1333909)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1333909)

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.

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1334205)

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 (Post 1334269)

So, did you send corrections to The Comiskey family, HoF, SABR, Charlie Sheen, The Smithsonian, The Dubuque Telegraph-Herald and Sports Collectors Digest?

:) ;)

:eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 (Post 1334269)

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--

*********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!

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).

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, 1<sup>st</sup> column about half way down explains how to do it. No contribution is too small.