Honus and his buddies...
 

Can anyone help me identify any of the other players in this photo? I know Wagner is on the left but I am struggling with the others

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/65055576@N00/15064787782" title="photo by iraniantasmanian, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5594/15064787782_3ae44128ca_b.jpg" width="768" height="1024" alt="photo"></a>

John "Dots" Miller on the far right. Bobby Byrne holding the catch of fish next to Wagner in the front row.

Thanks Brian, these id's are tough and I am glad we have experts on the board.

Kiya,
I can't be sure who the rest are, but here is a link that might be able to help you:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...sburgh-Pirates

Best of luck,
Josh

Camnitz with the 'P' on his pocket

It's definitely Dots Miller on the other end. I'm thinking it's Tommy Leach with the P on his pocket.

It might not be Camnitz, but it's not Leach. Besides not looking like either an old or a young Leach, Leach's ears did not stick out that much.

On second thought I do think back middle is Hans lobert.

Agree on Lobert
 

Any chance the guy with the P on his pocket is Chesbro?

Happy jack is not present

I thought p on pocket was camnitz which was already mentioned

I think that might be Mike Trout...

One guess for the guy next to Wagner is wiltse, based on his right eye

No, that's Trout hanging on the line.:D

Back middle is Fred Clarke, Next to Wagner is Abbatichio. Guy in back next to Dots Miller is unknown, most likely local fisherman or guide. I have a companion photo which I've posted asking some of these same questions. Will try to locate it again.

Absolutely not Lobert.

???
 

absolutely??? Why so certain?

Absolutely! I have some other photos from this outing. It's Clarke.

I can't find the original thread from a couple of years ago but I'm not great at the search function on this site. Will try to re-scan over the weekend.

I'm 100 percent sure that back middle is not Clarke and 90 percent sure it is lobert. Lobert was from the Pittsburg area and early in his career played for the pirates. I'm standing by this whether you have other photos from the outing or not. Not not not clarke. But, being the self doubting person I am .... Maybe...

Abbaticchio however is a good call.

double post - see below.

Nice photo.

You can be sure that Lobert, Leach and Camnitz are not there. Miller, Abbatichio and Byrne are there as stated above.

For what it's worth I don't think it's Clarke either.

The guy middle back is with certainty not Lobert. He was gone from the Pirates years before Dots Miller arrived, and the guy in question has a nose that is grossly different than Lobert's.

Dots Miller and Ed Abaticchio were both 5'11''.

Howie Camnitz was 5'9"

This lobert is a much better angle comparison and the nose looks much less off. Also what says all the players in the picture have to be Pirates at that moment? Guys go fishing with each other on other teams. Wagner and Lobert were friends for 50 years.

The nose is still obviously grossly different. I have dozens of shots of Lobert and in each and every one (including the one you posted reproduced below left) he has a huge beak. Jimmy Durante type noses don't transform into "nice" noses with a slight turn of the head.

Also the jaw structures don't match well. Lobert had a significantly larger more prominent jaw. These two faces aren't even remotely similar.

If you want, you can see the old 2009 thread at http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=112788. It surely is the same fishing trip. I've posted 2 photos of Fred Clarke below left, the face in question from the current thread erroneously claimed to be Lobert (below 2nd from right), and the same guy from the photo from the 2009 thread below far right. Not only is he not Lobert, he is with certainty not Fred Clarke.

In the 2009 thread I wasn't sure. Back then I didn't have enough good images handy in order to make a case. Now I do.

For reasons similar to those given for Lobert, it is not possible for this guy to be Clarke. While a higher res scan of the 2 faces in question would help, the differences in nose, jaw structure and surface of the chin are substantial. For example, Clarke has a distinct horizontal crease (mentolabial groove) across his chin about 3/4" below his lower lip. It is located at the bottom of the shadow below his lower lip. The man in question has a similar feature, but it appears to be much closer to his lower lip (I believe that hi-res scans would show this even more clearly). Also Clarke has a very wide mandible - that's easy to see in the image 2nd from left. The man in question does not. Those are just a couple of points that can be made. Overall these are highly dissimilar faces.

Now all I want to know is who that guy is

L-R
Edward James Abbaticchio, Dots Miller, Honus Wagner, Captain Fred Clarke, Unknown(my guess is local river man)
Tell you how I know later

All I want is closure.

With all due respect, this is a good lesson in how far such self-delusion can go, even for an experienced collector, and even when faces are so strikingly different. This is why so many misidentified photos are bought and sold, and it would be equivalent to someone 100 years from now saying that photos of Jeter and Andy Petit depict the same person.

There is no background "story" that can overcome the forensics here. What would enhance the discussion is a posting in hi-res of the face in question.

Let's start with the logical agreements.
1- The two photos are from the same trip.
2- The guy in back #4 from left is the same person as #4 from left in both photos.
Everyone on board so far?

Here are some facts.
Clarke was referred to by his players generally and especially by Wagner as "Cap". Enclosed here is a scan from page 45 of The Devaleria's biography of Wagner. There are many other sources as well. If Wagner referred to Clarke as Cap it's logical to assume Ed Abbaticchio sitting two chairs away did as well.

The other scan is the back of the second photo.
The writing is in Ed Abbaticchio's hand.
He identifies himself and his companions as:

EJA (Abbaticchio), Miller, Wagner, Cap, And what appears to say Rivers.

Clarke was known as "Cap" to his players. He is clearly identified as such in the second photo. #4 is the same person in both photos. Therefore, hence and even ergo- #4 in photo 1 is Clarke.

Now someone find out who Rivers is.

This was all discussed in 2009. As I recall from the thread, you were the only one who was "sure" that "Cap" meant Clarke in this case. "Cap" could also be the name of a fishing guide - far more likely given the gross dissimilarity of the faces. It could also refer to a location, like "Cap River."

Regardless of what was written on the back of the photo (a major source of fraud in the hobby) and what the handwriting folks may say about who wrote it (they are not always right), letting that trump major differences in skull stucture and facial features (none of which you have been able to explain) is an unwise pratice.

Note also that we have a lot of photos that were for sure annotated by major figures (like Spalding and McGreevy for example) that are loaded with ID errors.

You might do well to read pages 1 and 2 of http://sabr.box.com/shared/static/10...092a683653.pdf
Even if it doesn't help you , it may help others. Keep in mind that you are claiming that these 2 guys are the same person:

Very interesting stuff. I find it odd that the young man id'd only as rivers or rivere is sitting on the lap of the much debated older man. Perhaps they were a father son set of guides, or if the debated man is a player, the younger man who looks much younger than the rest, is his son?

You did really well with the above part.

To be fair to Bob, there are plenty of people who simply don't recognize faces. People in that situation have no choice but to go through the same sort of exercise that Bob did with the remainder of his post, relying exclusively on other cues (such as the notes on the back) to provide what they need. I know people who can meet the same person several times, and never remember their faces - not through rudeness, but simply because the features of a face don't provide them enough information to identify people.

Scott - I try to not make it too personal, but I consider these kind of things to be "teaching moments." I used the term "self-delusion" but I did not intend to be mean. This is really what happens, even to very smart people. All it takes is a small clue and a big desire for it to be true, and then the brain's facial recognition response (which in any case varies greatly among individuals) can get very distorted. Such conformation bias is a measurable phenomenon.

I understand the part about the brain's facial recognition response, but some people really can't recognize faces. I live with such a person, so I am constantly being surprised by it, even knowing what it is.

There are many many images from this era where men are sitting on each others laps, holding each other close, etc. You'll see them when you type in "gay interest vintage photo" for an ebay search. It was a common practice and not at all indicative of familial relationship. You will see soldiers and men in studio settings holding hands, arms around each other and sitting on laps.

For what it's worth, that ain't Clarke.

Mark, people who throw out the words "self delusion" like candy should occasionally take a look in the mirror. I wasn't making this personal "at all". Whether the photo turns out to be Clarke or someone else they call "Cap" (very unlikely considering the respect Clarke had), I could CARE LESS.

Where you are being "self delusional" is assuming someone you don't know has an "agenda" you understand. Why would I care if it's Clarke? To increase it's value?

I'm having fun with a "hobby". Based on the "evidence" I have, I think it's Clarke, you don't. Some grading companies might not believe it's Wagner, Miller or EJA. Who cares, that's what makes this fun.

So in that spirit, here's a couple more Clarke photos.

Honus, may I sit on your lap?

Just to let everyone know, the reverse of the photo in the OP also states similar names to the one Bobby has. I believe it says JA not EJA but then it has Wagner, Byrne, Miller and Cap as well.

So it seems we are certain that Wagner, Byrnes, Miller and Abatticchio are in there which leaves 3 unidentified for certain (Clarke is debatable apparently)

Bob - I didn't say you were making anything personal. To the contrary I wanted to be sure that my comments about you weren't taken as personally derogatory, though perhaps that goal is not possible to achieve. To understand that you might carefully read the 1st 2 pages of from the SABR link I posted (note that I am the author of the article).

You don't need to have an "agenda" for "self-delusion" to be at play in a case like this - in the portion of the article I am referencing, no one had an agenda. As explained, being smart and experienced does not inoculate one from making ludicrous face claims, especially if one is not knowledgeable with respect to facial comparison - this is a real subject with a pretty good body of literature.

I should add that we don't know whether the person who inscribed the back of your photo was calling someone "Cap" - it could be a reference to a location. There are at least 2 "Cap Rivers" that I could find, and it seems like it could be a common local name for many locations. Even if "Cap" refers to a person, it can't be Clarke because of gross facial structural differences - it's not even close.

As far as self-delusion on my part, please explain. And, what is my agenda? There is a big world of misidentifed baseball photos - I don't need to pick on you. (and BTW - please post (or email to me) a hi-res of that face so I can present a better analysis).

I think we all agree that the so called "Clarke" is at least the same guy in both photos, although he does seem to be about 4 or 5 beers deeper in your photo.

I had definitely deluded myself quite proudly into thinking I had id'd the right person. I looked at the parts of the faces that matched and did not notice the parts which didn't . It was really helpful to look at the methods Marlowe shared in the article.

Mark, the "delusion" I was referring to was your quote "big desire for it to be true" as referencing me. I had no such "desire". But, to be fair, I "assumed" you were implying I was looking for something to be gained so we'll call that a push. I never mentioned you had an agenda, I was saying I didn't have one. Let's move forward please.

10-20 pounds of off season weight gain and relaxation may not change skeletal structure, but it can make people look different, especially when using 2 barely decipherable 100+ year old photos.

Hoping more evidence turns up in the future for this one.

If you really want to give me a "teachable moment", any tips on scanning would be appreciated, but for now- try these if they help.

(Last thing, just for the record. If I was hoping for it to be someone, it wouldn't be Clarke. It would be Doheny, Veil or some other seldom photoed Pirate.)

The presence of Miller indicates that this photo is probably somewhat late for Doheny or Veil.

I can't be sure if your photo in hand is more clear than what you just posted, but when you post a photo on this site its resolution is automatically reduced.

So it would be better if you emailed the image to me. Scan it at 600 dpi if you can, save it as an uncompressed tif (or tiff) file if you can. Crop out the face that will hopefully reduce the file size so that it can be emailed.

Also - the OP's photo seems to be clearer than yours, it would be nice if he could do the same. My email address is:

bmarlowe@comcast.net

I'll try to do something useful (beyond mere words) with it later tonight.

KS-Leaving current discussion aside, would love to see a back scan of your photo for personal reference.

See below.

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/s...psb7864075.png

Considering blurry photo, slight scale differences and 5-10 year time leap. Pretty close. Look at (his) left eye and how it comes to point vs. right eye. Can you chart that?

Actually I think that scale might have done more to convince me it is Clarke than otherwise but it is really hard to tell.

Considering it is my photo that started it all I am just wondering if whether or not it is Clarke makes the photo any more valuable?

On the lower (viewer's) right it's off by more than 1-1.5 inches when scaled up to life size - that's near the limit of human variability for an adult. You aren't likely to find a larger discrepancy between two different adult male humans. Can you imagine your jaw being an inch wider on one side? What it tells you is that they can't possibly be the same person.

10 Years for an adult can't account for that - jaw size is set by late teens. I can do the same comparison with later exemplars of Clarke and it comes out the same.

As for the eyes I have no idea what you are talking about.

I can do this with one Clarke frontal view after another - they will come up dead on. Why is your guy so far off? Here's Clarke in 1910 on the left.

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/s...ps85ba2384.png

Is it possible the photo quality could be playing a role? The shape of what I guess are called the eye sockets look very similar.

Maybe it is Charles Comiskey

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Oh you are a bad bad boy.
No soup for you!

The jaw boundary can reasonably be discerned. The lower right black arrows (overlayed on the face in question) are clearly well beyond the boundary of the jaw line and are far into neck territory.

One major discrepancy is enough to disprove the Clarke ID. Other similarities do not matter. In any case your photo is not clear enough to discern the shape of the eyes (try to draw that).

I should add that Clark had large nostrils on the sides of the tip of his nose with wide flaring nostril flanges (the flesh around the nostril). Look at the Clarke exemplars I posted. I know your photo is blurry, but we see absolutely no evidence of this in your photo. In spite of the blur we should probably see some hint of this. The noses seem to be very different.

I noticed a few other things that to me say it isn't Clarke.
1) The ears on the guy in question don't stick out anywhere close to the way Clarke's do. Granted, you don't get a super clear view of the ears on the unknown guy, but considering how much Clarke's ears stick out, I would expect them to be a little more prominent.

2) Clarke has a pretty significant hook at the tip of his nose. The unknown guy doesn't appear to have any sort of bulge in either photo.

3) Clarke's nose seems to start more narrow and become significantly wider in the middle. The unknown guy's nose appears pretty even from top to bottom.

All that aside, the one thing main point that I learned about facial recognition by watching Mark go through his facial analysis is this. It doesn't matter how many parts of the face do match, if one, and it needs to be only one, part doesn't match, it's not the same person. The exceptions are differences that can be explained by age, illness/surgery/injury, or weight gain.

In this case, the heavier man (unknown person), whom some believe is the off season Clarke, has the narrower jaw line. How could gaining 10-20lbs make his jaw more narrow? It should make it bigger. No?

I don't know who it is, but it isn't Clarke.

Edit: Mark, We were posting at the same time. You beat me to the punch about only needing one difference. Thanks for the education. Mark

Mark V. (Lordstan) - I guess previous "teaching moments" have had some effect.

The following might sound like common sense, but what the heck, we'll see if that sort of thing flies around here:

When someone states that a photo is of a specific person, I first ask myself: "Does it look like him?" If the answer is "no way in hell", then I'm done. If it sort of looks like him, and there is other documentation to indicate that it is him, then I might start looking more closely at features.

edited to add: if you get bored, you can always use google images to locate loads of photos of Fred Clarke, and you will find that, amazingly...they all actually look like the same guy (Fred Clarke). You won't find any 'old, fat' Clarke photos, or 'fuzzy, obscured features' Fred Clarke photos that do not look like him.

This photo fails the "Is it [person x]?" test resoundingly. Didn't even need Mark's teachings, although I have plenty of times in the past.