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

I have a old Dubuque photo. I will admit I did make a mistake on two players, but not the "kid", as Comiskey was called in 1882 by his team mates.

I stand by my insight without any reservation. Hopefully this photo will not be lost again, but if so at least this photo is known to exist.

The question I ask why the Ear Thing comparison was fabricated??--and why was I advised to hurry and sell--?

*grabs popcorn*

Here is I believe the original thread

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163481


I wasn't a member then. I looked over the thread and tried to be as objective as one might be. Whatever you may believe about the photo, I do not think there is enough evidence to present the image as comiskey. To me after looking at several similar discussions, the burden has to lie on proving it is someone, not proving it is not. This is especially true where value is involved.

One saying one ear compared to another 150 year photo found to satisfy them and hopefully others to me isn't proof either?

So now what?

Please tell me there is more to your jaw-dropping expose than "I stand by my insight without any reservation." :confused:

Lance,
Please don't feed the troll.
No amount of evidence will convince him. There is no point responding.

The only advice I know about was the advice I gave to a major auction house upon request - I told them to give your photo back to you, and they wisely took the advice.

My only mistake was not seeing Lordstan's post before I made mine.

:)

Did you know Comiskey was once shown a photograph:

Quote: Comiskey was once shown a photograph which he didn't even own a copy. He pointed out Reis and Alveretta, the acrobat. Adding This was a good team.

My revelation--

Which photo was Comiskey describing mine or the composite? I really do believe he was referring to my Dubuque baseball team photograph? Hence my corrections

I have shared my photo with the Comiskey family and she was happy and thrilled to see my photo, and that's really all that matters to me--

I appreciate this forum letting me post my work! Its a great site! I really do enjoy reading the threads and I don't by any means wish to cause any bad feeling-just facts! thanks again, Tom

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

Ken

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.

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?

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--

+1

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

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.

It's not even close.

.
 

.

Apology not accepted

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

http://i.imgur.com/f6due.gif

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

http://i.imgur.com/f6due.gif

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.

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.

While I do agree with you Scott about stopping certain topics when they run their course, it probably does eventually help out bad auctions like this Comiskey. I'm a religious reader of Net54 but somehow missed it the first time around and that thread last week was my first view of the bogus id of him. Now I can't say I'd have been fooled by a dishonest AH slipping this in their auction (for God's sake anyone can tell it ain't him!!!), but other could have. This tread though redundant may have saved someone a bundle.

Whatever AH does put it (and that phoney Joe Jackson military) in their auction should be held responsible by the hobby. knowingly putting that junk up for auction is in my opinion worse, more dangerous and incredibly costlier than the usual Coach's Corner hijinx we see every month.

Question: Have you ever had someone say to you. Hello, why after all these years, you haven't change a bit. (Did they look to your face, or your ears?)

So in retrospect are the opinionate saying , the Kid's face is a dead ringer for Comiskey. The Facts may be too convincing so he ears comparison may be the only way out?--

Here is something I really find troubling. I was told, just write the names on the back, everyone is doing it! Sorry now that's fraud.

Why is everyone up in arms when another hobby collector has another opinion?

Quote Runscott--It's Ok for two people to have a disagreement.

Jerseygary: There is a much more here at stake than money.

Please don't ask to censor future new ideals or opinions on this forum, that could be dangerous too.

FYI: I mailed my work to the HOF, the Chicago History Museum, the Smithonian, the Comiskey family and emailed SABR.--( Fact: not to any auction company as claimed )--

Fact 1: I received a hi-res scan of your photo from a major auction house in 2011. They said it was from a consignor (or perhaps they meant a potential consignor). If it did not come from you, where did they get it?

Fact 2: Your photo will actually appear in a SABR newsletter that will come out very soon. Should be interesting.

I'm glad that you don't always do what the little voices tell you to.

Tom,
No one and I do really mean no one here is saying that the rest of the kid's face looks like Comiskey. For myself, I don't think the kid looks even remotely like Comiskey, even without the ears.
Let me try to be as clear as possible.
What we are saying is that photos of 2 people can have many facial features match, but if one feature doesn't, then it isn't the same person. It doesn't matter which feature matches or doesn't. It could be the eyes or chin or jaw or any number of things. The point is that only one feature need to not match to show that the photos are of 2 different people. The fact that the ears are so different between your photo and any other known Comiskey photo prove, regardless of any other feature, that they aren't the same person.
Also, your point about a friend stating you look the same proves nothing. Most people pay very little attention to details. This is why so many famous people have stand ins that no one notices.

Mark,
Please make sure you post a link to the newsletter once it's done.
Perhaps you should send it to the HOF, Chicago Museum, Comiskey family, and the Smithsonian as well.

Mark

Thanks, nothing lost nothing gained, a article about my Dubuque baseball team Photo. About time. It only took twenty five years to finally get the hobby's attention!--I'm thrilled.

We should mention the Stars on the uniforms and the Star on Reis hat, this could be significant.

Any guess on the item on the floor by Laphams foot--??

Fact 1--good question on the Hi-res scan--wasn't from me.
Fact 2 --how can anyone write anything about my photo without my participation-? Shouldn't I be advised on the author?

I will call SABR for more information.--thanks again!

Stars could signify team captains? Object by foot could be (not joking) a crotch protector taken out for the sake of the photo.

Anyone can write anything they want about your photo.

So when I call SABR, who should I ask for?

I don't know. There are over 6000 members all across the country.

SABR will probably refer him to someone on this thread. Need the number?

I have a feeling you won't be so thrilled once you read the article. FYI, anyone can write about your photo or just about anything without your or anyone else's approval. Perhaps you have heard of the First Ammendment to the Constitution. You know the right to free speech.

I find it funny and sad that you keep bringing up player names, when you have yet to show any of the people in this photo are even on the same team, much less the people you wish they were.

There are now 6001 members!

You said it not me--"Free speech"--really, its my photo, and I can't even name my players!---

First off you're not naming them. You're identifying them and I never said you couldn't. I said it's sad and funny that you keep stating these names as if it's true, when you can't even prove that the players in the picture were even all on the same team.

Mark, I am completely against calling people names on the internet, but this guy is very similar to what I like to call "a Moron". I say "similar" because I see no reason to insult legitimate morons.

:p: LOL

Thanks. Now I have to clean the soda off my shirt.

Lordstan--

Please let me correct your phrase--I believe you meant to say how can I prove the players in my photo are those players.


When I sent copies of my photo I used phrase "my interpretation"

( Interpretation= to conceive in the light of a individual belief, judgment.)


--------I am just thrilled the photo has enough merit for any article. ( Even when it will be bad )

If everyone believes there is no possibility, that's the way it will be.

If a just few believe there is a possibility, that's the way it will be.

No need to correct me.
I said exactly what I meant. You not only have no proof that the names you have assigned are correct, you have no proof that all the players in the picture are even on the same team. The players are wearing at least 3 or 4 different uniforms. All of your identifications go out the window because your entire theory is based upon the idea that this is one team. It clearly isn't.

Lordstan: the photo expert "photo collector"--I really have other important things to do right now than try to answer your valued opinions:

So Per your set in stone theory since these players are not wearing the same uniforms they are not on the same team?-!!-I believe they could be!

If you believe you might know who these players are, I believe I might know who my players are!

Wow.
I guess Scott was right.

I never said I was an expert, but I can obviously do things that you cannot, like see ear shapes and facial shapes. I can also learn new things. For instance, when someone who is widely accepted in our hobby as an expert in facial comparison and identification, like Mark(Bmarlowe1) is, I tend to pay attention and listen. You obviously refuse to listen and use just about any excuse possible to try and negate his, and everyone else who has ever opined on the photo, opinion because his conclusions don't fit with your agenda.
You can keep on living in your fantasy world where just because you think you're right, logic and reason are rejected. Congrats on your photo of some random group of players that have absolutely nothing to do with Charles Comiskey.

Using your logic, I see we can finally agree on something. I don't know who the players in this last photo you posted are, and you don't know who the players in your photo are.

That's funny - you've finally posted a photo that actually does include Radbourn. It's a very well-known combined 1886 Bos NL / NY NL photo.

I thought you were some sort of photo guy?? I'm finding it hard to believe some of you will come on here and slam the OP with half-arsed opinions when it's obvious you know NOTHING!

Using the time-honored skills of facial-mustache recognition, it's plain to see that this photo doesn't just "include Radbourn." It includes 16 Radbourns!! (The guy in the top hat is Radbourn's twin brother.) My goodness, can't you see that! This is actually a well-known example of the first use of photoshop.

Ken

Ok after reading this thread I think you are all crazy. That is one of those old time photos of the Yankees/Red Sox. I won't give away all the ID's but the front row from left to right is Wade Boggs, Tino Martinez, Roger Clemens, Jim Rice, Bernie Williams, and Derek Jeter. The guy with the top hat is 100% Paul O'Neil.

Now I am no expert but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.:p:eek::D

This is pretty easy, the only guy in the t206 set with a mustache is titus. So every player in the picture with a stache must be titus. not sure on the clean shaven guys though.

I'm going to take the liberty of applying the above statement to everything I've ever posted here....thank you.

Here's a vote to change this site to "ScottIsRight.com"!

Even I would never claim that I was always right. But I've come to realize that the consensus is that when I AM right, I can be kind of pompous about it.

The only thing worse than that is being wrong and being pompous about it, which I think we are getting an overdose of in this thread.

Context and an assessment of age
 

Charles Comiskey was born in 1859 so he would have twenty years old in the 1879 composite picture; Radbourn in 1854. By the accounts I have read, Comiskey was in Dubuque from c1878-1881. So in these images Comiskey would have been in the 19-22 year old range and Radbourn in the 24-27 year range assuming they were together all of those years. Since it is proffered that both Radbourn and Comiksey are the disputed group image, I would be curious as to reader’s thoughts on if the players identified as Comiskey and Radbourn appear to be 19-22 and 24-27 years old respectively.

A valid question would likely be that if this is in fact of these men during their tenure with the Dubuque Rabbits, do the other players in the photograph appear to be of the same or similar age given the purported context of the image? It is interesting to note that in the composite photograph of the 1879 team, a number of the men feature mustaches. Not that it counts for anything, but it is my opinion that the players in the disputed Dubuque Rabbits photograph appear to younger than what the context of what the image is purported to portray indicates I would expect to see.

Dave Grob
DaveGrob@aol.com

Dave - overall I agree. Note that the owner alleges that the boy below is 20.5 years old. Clearly very unlikely.

He has certainly gotten a lot of the most respected people in the hobby to waste a lot of their valuable time.

Scott - Overall, I agree.

A Beard or mustache will usually take 3-4 weeks.--

Here is a valid question. How old is the person on the left?

3-4 weeks for a full thick mustache on a 20yr old. Yeah, I don't think so. Maybe if he were a wookie.

Here's a valid question. Why are you here? Waaaaay back in the first thread, you stated you came looking for advice. You have gotten all the same advice from some of the smartest and most experienced hobby veterans, including the man considered THE expert on facial recognition, yet you still refuse to believe the evidence provided. You have wasted countless of our hours reading and replying to your inane nonsense. You try to come up with an answer to every piece of evidence and your answers make no sense. We have been trying to help you understand that your identification is incorrect. You refuse to believe it.
So again I have to ask, why are you still here? Nothing, and I really do mean nothing, you can say or show will refute the evidence that has already been presented. No one here will believe you and, fortunately, for the uneducated masses of sports memorabilia enthusiasts, no auction house of any repute will ever accept your photo for what you claim it to be.

Edit: I am not asking this question sarcastically. I really would like to know what you hope to accomplish by continuing. No one has agreed with any of your assertions, so my question is why continue the same argument?

Understanding Context
 

In response to your question about how old the person on the left is, I won’t venture a guess as it is not germane to the point I apparently failed to properly make or express in manner that was understandable. My apologies to you and the other readers for that. My post was about looking at the image with through the filters of context. Here we have the filters of age and the fact that these men are professional baseball players. Both the labeled 1879 Dubuque Rabbits photograph and the composite are proffered as being the same group of men from the same time frame.

Since there is single date offered (1879) as the basis of analysis, we can make observations based on the known age at the time of individuals and the group as a whole. We can also make observations that are contextual since these men (group or composite photograph) are then proffered to be the same group of professional baseball players. Using 1879 we can then state the men are:

Charles Comiskey: 20
Charles Radbourn: 25
Bill Gleason: 20
Tom Sullivan: 19
L.P. Reis: 21
Tom Loftus: 23
Jack Gleason: 25

Since the composite photo is used as the basis for comparative analysis to the offered photo of the 1879 Dubuque Rabbits, then you are left to decide if the players in the disputed photograph appear to be the same age as those in the composite, measured against the backdrop of what we know their ages to be at the common point of reference (1879).

Please know that my previous post and this one as well was intended to provide some thoughts on context as well as ways or metrics that can be used as perspective for the analysis and subsequent observations that you or anyone else might make. What conclusions individuals draw from using this information and/or protocols is up to them, be it for this issue or those in the future.

Dave Grob
Dave Grob1@aol.com

.

Guys, I know you are busy analyzing the studs in Directly's photo, but you absolutely won't believe who these guys are. I will let you ponder for a while, then I will post their names.

Front right is David Thelwis

Back middle is Herman Munster

Nice try, Grasshopper, but it is actually.....wait for it





Charles Comiskey!!!!

Notice that the man in my cabinet photo is clearly looking in EXACTLY the same direction as Charles Comiskey on the right. What are the odds?

And there won't be any 'ear' arguments with this guy.

The nose? Clearly a nose is going to begin drooping as the years pass. My calculations show that the amount of elongation of Comiskey's nose is absolutely perfect for his age.

Looks like the manager was one second short in getting the bunny ears up on the player sitting in front of him...

One guy has a hat. The other guy has no hat.

Can't be the same guy.

The guy in the back row alllll the way on the right looks a bit like Chest Rockwell to me.

Graig

Well, I was certain I knew who 7 of these guys were, but after talking with the g-g-g-g-nephews of 3 of them, and the g-g-g-g-granddaughters of 4 others, none of who ever saw any of the players I thought were in the picture...isn't that weird? ....I'm having to re-assess my thinking.

After I get through 'lip matching' them against other possibilities, I'll update this post.

(But the guy who looks like Theulis REALLY is Comiskey)

Breshnan with the mask?

I think you're right because that's definitely Brock Landers back row left.

Quote: Dave Grob: Please know that my previous post and this one as well was intended to provide some thoughts on context as well as ways or metrics that can be used as perspective for the analysis and subsequent observations that you or anyone else might make. What conclusions individuals draw from using this information and/or protocols is up to them, be it for this issue or those in the future.



Dave, Thanks for the input. I appreciate your thought! I assume you will be the author in the future SABR article. Finally someone that will use context as well as ways or metrics that can be used as perspective for the analysis and subsequent observations that one might make. The conclusions one draws from this information is up to them.

I agree with you, my Charles Comiskey must be fully analyzed, more toward a Point type system.

Your statement makes perfect sense to allow a one ear example for any positive conclusion, is definitely not the use of context or metrics for a complete analysis.

That's funny. The "context" that Dave Grob pointed out was that of a professional minor league team c1879. He pointed out 2 metrics within that context.

1) First metric - Players' ages. Do the players in your photo appear to be the right age for a professional minor league team (Dave actually listed the ages of some of the players you claim are in your photo). The answer is no, the boys in your photo appear to be way too young.

2) The second metric was mustache frequency for an 1879 professional minor league team. Not one player in your photo has a mustache. What are the chances of that? I'll give you a good estimate.

Let's say that just 1/2 of minor league players in 1879 had mustaches (I think it is actually more, but let's be conservative), the odds of having 9 players with no mustaches is 1/2 raised to the 9th power - the same as doing 9 coin flips and having them all come out heads. This comes out to about 1 in 500. That alone makes your entire claim about your photo highly unlikely.

Add to that the fact the the only verified actual Dubuque 1879 photo shows 7 of 10 players with mustaches - a critical point you clearly did not understand based on your earlier response. How fast one could grow a mustache has nothing to do with this. Most of the boys in your photo were probably too young to grow a mustache - that's why you don't see any.

Lastly there is no "point system" for comparing faces in photos - you'll have to invent your own. You can start with your claimed 1879 Radbourn (below center) - on his left is the real Radbourn c1875 (from HoF), on his right is the real Radbourn 1882. How many "points" would you give your guy?

[note to Scott F., - be nice, I enjoyed creating this post]

There continues to be some confusion with the information I have been providing. I am NOT advocating ANY sort of “point system” for the evaluation of photographs. To be perfectly honest, I have never been a fan of point systems or the assigning of numerical grades to artifacts and memorabilia. The graphic I provided on Facial Reference (FR) and Context Reference (CR) is nothing more than a tool that facilitates the visual representation of various degrees of certainty that a person might have in their opinion when using the screening criteria of FR and CR. It also serves the purposes of highlighting these two areas, thus permitting someone to see the particular strengths or weaknesses in any argument or counterargument on the subject at hand. Please notice that the graph shows ranges and degrees from Low to High.

The use of numbers only serves the purpose of allowing folks to have a discussion using a common vocabulary or point of reference as they discuss what quadrant they feel their analysis and assessment might best fit in and why.

It is and was NEVER intended to be used as some device or protocol that says if you get “x” number of points, then the photograph is what is purported to be. I simply offered a tool that I think has merit in allowing individuals make and defend objective and informed assessments. Nothing more than that. All I am attempting to do (and it appears not very well) is to share information and protocols that I have used or leveraged over the past 20+ years as an intelligence analyst that might have utility in the area of evaluating memorabilia and answering questions about artifacts.

I am also not the author of the forthcoming SABR article. In the future, when time permits, I do plan on writing a piece that details the use of a grid system to facilitate facial recognition.



Dave Grob
Dave Grob1@aol.com

I have no idea. But I really want to know the identity of the perhaps now "missing" member of the team who got all of them with the old "look I cut your tie instead of doing a magic trick" gag.

Steve B

Dave, there isn't any confusion - 'Directly' is twisting your words, and those of others, as he sees fit. I have no idea what he is attempting to accomplish, but maybe it amuses him.

Dave,
To echo what Scott said, I don't think there is really any confusion about what you posted. I think it was very clear as to what your point is. I think even the OP understood it.

Though the OP didn't answer my question as to what he hopes to accomplish by continuing this conversation, I do have an idea. I think his goal is to twist the logic and rationale presented by the board to create the appearance that we agree with his assertions. He is hoping that we won't follow up with a comment clarifying our position so as to clearly state that we are not agreeing with him, like you did above, so that he can go to seller or AH using our words. I can see no other logical reason for him continuing this.

He's just throwing Hail Marys at this point. Any auction house that took this item would immediately be ostracized by everyone in the collecting world.

Two words
Coaches corner.