An update: I present to you.....
 

Paul Waner.

Just confirmed with a relative of the Waners.

Thank you,

Brian Van Horn

As anyone involved with serious photo ID would tell you, relatives often suffer from the same wishful thinking as do collectors. I am just guessing this person who offered the ID did not know Waner as a young person.


A relative's opinion pales in probative value compared to an ear mismatch.


See post #29:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345

No hard feelings.

?

The cheekbones and the relative trump the ears.

No hard feelings.

So sharing some portion of DNA gives one some enhanced ability to ID a kid in a 110 year old photo. That's as illogical as everything else you have said on this subject.


And, the cheekbones do not match. In any case, any apparent particlular feature "match" would not trump an ear mis-match, at least according to the scientific literature and practice by any major law-enforcement agency. So you can go with that, or you can go with Mr. Van Horn.

No hard feelings. Enjoy looking at Paul Waner. :D

The #1 rule of photomatching game worn jerseys, is to look for differences not similarities. Differences always overrule similarities.

I would think that rule applies to photomatching almost anything, including people.

yes

I hate telling you this, but the jerseys could be explained simply by the part of the country. Old jerseys, yes, but could they still be worn years after other parts of the country changed? Yes.

Enjoy Paul Waner

P.S.

The ear argument is weak. Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet. I graduated with size nine feet. They are now ten and a half.

> old jerseys

Here you are refering to the original thread where I argued that based on Waner's DOB, it would be unlikely that as a teenager he would be on a team wearing collared jerseys. I said that alone made it "unlikely" that Waner was in the photo - I never said that was conclusive.

> The ear argument is weak. Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet..

Yes your feet spread out because you stand on them for thousands of hours during your life - do you stand on your ears? Ears change little from young adolesence (or earlier) to about age 60 or 70 on average. This is in the scientific literature (I can email you some recent papers if you like) and has really been well-established for over a century. The ear growth that does occur (small fractions of a mm) is not perceptible in a photo and does not change the ear shape. This is especially applicable to humans of ball-playing age.The ear argument is THE argument that is accepted by forensic practitioners, auction houses, law-enforcement, museums, etc.

Even beyond age 70 - what you usually see is drooping earlobes (due to years of gravity pull) and the top of the ear may curl over a bit, but the basic ear shape stays the same and if one is careful you can compare an old man's ears to that of a teenager.

You have a habit of making things up out of thin air.

Mark,

Argue all you want. It is Paul Waner. The identity has been confirmed by a relative. By the way, because of the jersey, I asked the person in the title of the e-mail if the person in the photo was Paul Waner or his father Ora Lee Waner. The response:

It is Paul Waner.

This person volunteered in a phone conversation with me as well that the family has numerous photos of the brothers prior to submitting the e-mail with an attachment of the photo in question. These other photos would cover all ages. Let's review.

There are only two gentlemen this could have been in the photo.

1.) Paul Waner
2.) Ora Lee Waner who was good enough as an amateur pitcher to be offered a contract by the Chicago White Sox. He declined the offer.

Who is the gentleman in the photo?

The answer:

Paul Waner.

As long as Brian owns it then it is Waner. Pretty certain it's that simple from what I read. So, nice Waner Brian. The jury is only important if it sold as Waner definitively.

Tongue-in-cheek. Thank you.

This would make an interesting poll. My vote would be that it is not Paul Waner.

I would think that it would be the differences in images that would be the tell-tale sign, not the similarities.

Finally got around to this amusing, but false statement:

"You have a habit of making things up out of thin air."

You have a record of flat out being wrong.

No hard feelings.

>> you have a record of flat out being wrong.


Like I said, you have a habit of making things up out of thin air.


>> The identity has been confirmed by a relative


That is false. You can only say that a relative thinks it is Waner. We know nothing about this relative and there is no reason to think his or her judgement is any better than that of anyone else, particularly given the easily discerned ear evidence for which you have yet to provide a sensible response.


Relatives are often wrong as to who is in an old photo.

So, a relative with a large inventory of photos of the family history is wrong. An inventory that would include pictures of Paul and Lloyd at all ages. A relative that discerned Paul from Ora Lee to clear away that possible argument of mistaken identity.

Excuse me for a moment.......

Bwahaha! Of course you will now make the hilarious argument I am making up the relative. No. I do not make up information out of thin air. The relative, who if they want to reveal their identity is up to them not me.

The relative's ID of Paul Waner flatly carries more weight than your argument. It is Paul Waner. Kindly deal with it.

No hard feelings. :)

My point was that you are not attempting to raise its value for resale so no reason to get all twisted up over it. This hobby has mostly turned to sh*t because the joy of collecting has been overtaken by ear forensics and grading companies that are all flawed and riddled with human error and a lack of scientific controls that would not be accepted almost anywhere else. I don't remember 30 years ago bickering over qualifiers and ear lobe growth. Not sure why I came back and commented so I'll crawl back under my rock. Basically, enjoy the card for what it is to you and tell some kids about who Paul and his brother were.

>> The relative's ID of Paul Waner flatly carries more weight than your argument.


It's not my argument, it's 100 years of forensic science for which you have yet to provide a response.


We all have access to many Waner photos. Why don't you request scans of the young Paul Waner photos upon which the relative based his opinion for us all to see? Would not it have been prudent to do that even before you started this thread so we all could see? or is it just easier for you to assume a relative can't be wrong because it suits your purpose? Is this relative any good at facial recognition - how can we know?

>>... I don't remember 30 years ago bickering over qualifiers and ear lobe growth


That's right, and there were a lot more mis-identified photos sold in the hobby. You think that was good?

Front row, second from right?

What’s stamped on the back if that is a postcard?

See link at end of post #2

Bravo!

Couldn't agree more. +1!

My response has already been given. Go back and review. The relative outweighs you in this matter. The photos on the end of the relative back it up.

Can a higher resolution scan be taken of the postcard?

Do we know anything about the team? Is it a minor league team that would've had stats in the local newspaper?

Do the uniforms or equipment help date the photo?

In the thread from a couple years ago, a member compared that postcard to one he claims might be of the same teammates from a couple years before. If true (same teammates via scientific facial recognition), can any of the above questions be answered with respect to THAT postcard? See post #15 here:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345

Do we know what teams Waner played on in his late teenage years?

Do we have any high resolution scans of Waner during his adolescent years that we can compare to his older years to see how much his facial recognition features (ears/nose) changed (or didn't)?

What is the provenance of the postcard? Was it purchased from a random dealer on ebay or was it found in a pile of Waner family keepsakes?

Picture from my phone coming. I'll try to hold the phone steady. No illness, just the truth that goes along with me not making things up. Nothing against you, just keeping this on an even keel following a previous accusation in this thread.

Also, if we CAN get a higher res of the postcard, there are a couple players with a patch or writing on their left shoulder / sleeve. That might help give a clue for team identification?

And as ksfarmboy mentioned, is it a postcard back or blank back?

>>My response has already been given.

Oh yes, your ears are like your feet. That was rich.

>> The photos are on the end of the relative back it up.

Can you say that again in English?

So in the short span of time this thread has been running I got 4 emails and 1 PM requesting photo ID help. I wonder how many Mr. Van Horn got?

One in particular is on point. It is from a relative of a 19thC player well-known to us all. There is a team photo owned by the family. One current relative has identified one team member as the ancestor, while another relative disagrees and says it is another team member. That's would be enough to make Mr. Van Horn's head explode. I will just compare the ears.

As promised. A photo from my phone. Hope the resolution is sufficient. For what it is worth, and I noted this in a previous posting in another thread, Paul Waner is pictured as a left handed pitcher which was his original position in the minors.

>> just keeping this on an even keel following a previous accusation in this thread.

You have trouble understanding things. The stuff about how ears grow like your feet grow - that you made up. It has no basis in fact.

Can you say that again in English?

If I have to, I'll put it in pigeon English.

The relative has a huge collection of photos. The photos are more than you and I could ever possibly hope to attain for a collection. Those photos back up the ID of the player being Paul Waner. It doesn't mean the relative has pictures of Paul in this uniform. It means the recognition is that this IS Paul Waner. This has to be explained?

No hard feelings.

You're zero for two. :D

https://www.doctoroz.com/blog/arthur...ue-grow-we-age

But, of course, I am just making that up......Not.

No hard feelings. Just let me know if you'd like more from that made up, oh, what should we call it......oh, wait......Fact. :D

The team name is as it says on most of the jerseys: "All star", but they use an actual star instead of the word "star." So apparently it is an all-star team. You won't get higher res from the OP - he probably doesn't know how and he already "knows" Waner is there, so why bother.

Just for complete disclosure, here is the back:

I did not say they don't grow and I did say that earlobes may droop when one gets old. I also correctly said they don't grow enough to be perceptible in a photo until one is well beyond ball-playing age. They certainly don't grow like your feet.

You've got an imprecise Dr. Oz blog post for popular consumption that you found and incorrectly interpreted after you made your assertion, I have this from "Ear Biometrics and Machine Vision", Burge and Burger, 21st Workshop for Pattern Recognition, Austria, 1997: "It is obvious that the structure of the ear does not change radically over time"... ""Ear shape and structure are relatively constant from about age 8 to age 70." "Forensic Art and Illustration", Karen T. Taylor, Ch. 8, pegs visible ear changing in photos starting beyond age 60. There is much, much more like this, but it is not easy reading (for you).

Face it. The ears, the nose and, in my case, the feet continue to grow. Is it possible, just possible in some of your IDs without this knowledge, without this made up, oh....fact, you may have made an incorrect conclusion in identity in your past? For all of the science that is out there, we are human first.

Your basis for ID is a uniform and an ear. There are different uniforms in the picture albeit all with the collar at the top of the uniform. Then there is the ear. One ear that, like the rest of the human ears on this planet, has cartilage that grows with age. Of course, there is also the ID from the relative with a very large number of photos of Paul from all ages. Hmmmm....may want to brush up on your ears and noses in the future. As for the throat, I am trying not to hiccup from something else this enthralling discussion is causing me. :D

Pleasant reading and no hard feelings.

>> Is it possible, just possible in some of your IDs without this knowledge...you may have made an incorrect conclusion in identity

No because I have had this knowledge for a very long time and understand it (you don't) - did you read my last post? It isn't that complicated - please read it. I actually read books on the subject before making assertions.

>> For all of the science that is out there, we are human first.

What does that mean?

>> Your basis for ID is a uniform and an ear.

No, please read more carefully. It is the ear. Other significant facial feature mis-matches are also there - but the ear is almost always the best thing to use if it is visible because it is nearly constant over the age-ranges of interest to us and does not vary with changing facial expression.

>> there is also the ID from the relative with a very large number of photos of Paul from all ages

So why can't we see what he used? We don't have to see the whole collection, just a few of the young Paul Waner photos he used. Also read (or re-read slowly) the last paragraph of post #30.

You are wonderful for my health. :D

" Is it possible, just possible in some of your IDs without this knowledge...you may have made an incorrect conclusion in identity

No because I have had this knowledge for a very long time and understand it (you don't) - did you read my last post? It isn't that complicated - please read it. I actually read books on the subject before making assertions."

So, how is it on something you stated I made up-the growing of the ears and nose-is a fact. A fact that I have known since the age of eight. I am now 53.

You identify people in photos, but somehow managed to miss that basic fact and, to boot, accuse me of making it up.

They say laughter is the best medicine. I never figured science would make laugh so hard.

No hard feelings. :D

I did not miss that fact (it is in the stuff I read 15 years ago). What you missed is that the growth is not enough to affect ear comparison in photos of men of ball-player age. If I am doing this wrong, so is the FBI.

What you made up was asserting that the relatively microscopic yearly growth in ear cartilage is anything close to what can happen to your feet.

Your either not reading what I post or you can't understand it. So why can't we see a few of the young Waner photos your relative used? Are you afraid the comparison won't look so good?

LOL!

You clearly stated that I made it up.

"The stuff about how ears grow like your feet grow - that you made up. It has no basis in fact."

Now, what I in fact said was:

"Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet."

Your response:

"Oh yes, your ears are like your feet. That was rich."

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

If you can't admit your error....well.......

Tell that to poor Don Mossi.

No, why don't you use the full quote of what you said:
Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet. I graduated with size nine feet. They are now ten and a half.

The clear implication is that ears also grow a lot -enough to be visible in photos (I guess from the time of graduation to in your case age 53). How else should your statement be interpreted? There is nothing to support that assertion. The scientific evidence is contrary.

No dog in this fight but what is that PC worth even if it is Waner? 250 bucks?

Chris - it's not about the money. What I don't like for starters is that the OP's style of photo ID had resulted in many mis-identified photos in SABR publications (and other baseball history books) over the years. Of course there is also the problem of people getting a lot of money for photos that don't depict what is claimed (though I am sure the OP really believes the guy is Waner). Over the past 15 years or so I've been a proponent of methods that reduce the problem. Some auction houses have rejected a lot of consignments that would have been accepted in the past. The photo ID in SABR publications is really good now. A lot of people understand what I do and that their gut reaction and hope with respect to a photo may be wrong.

Of course some can never understand.

Just call mine a lucky guess!

Paul Waner is listed at 153 pounds and 5'8" born in 1903. Lloyd is listed as 150 pounds and 5'9" born in 1906. Both born in the same city in Oklahoma. Not sure what that's supposed to tell us...

What a kind and thoughtful response. I need to be more like this more often.

I thought the guy in the front row, to the far left, looked a lot like Johnny Evers, but I'm really bad at i.d.'s. What I've learned, is that a lot of people look alike...Rob

Not my cards or a self-portrait of my later years
 

Eddie Collins went from angelic to creepy looking old guy over the course of his baseball card career.

Brian (not that this is relevant, but ears to you all anyhow)

Actually, the ears have aged just as described - a little curling at the top, otherwise a very strong match.

As an experiment, I wonder what the relatives of Hap Felsch would say, if you asked them about the guy in the top row, far right. Looks a lot like Hap to me, and the collars on the uniforms might be a closer period match too.

Laughter is the best medicine. Given what you have reiterated, you have added 15 years to my life. Bless you.

Now, as for reading comprehension.......wait, I'm wrong. You've now added 16 years to my life. Thank you!

Here he is in 1926. Id say Mr Van Horn is on the mark with his assessment.

I'll agree that's the same.guy

Not sure I can see how anyone would call these different people

Waner
 

no hard feelings

I thought it looked like a young Rube Marquard myself! :D

These photos that were used in the other thread are what convinced me that it was not Paul Waner. The nose on Waner does not match up to me. Waner appears to have a down-turned, “hook” nose as compared to the image in question. I agree that the players look similar, but I don’t see how you could say that the noses are the same.

:D

"Your nose, which is comprised of bone, soft tissue/skin, and cartilage, may change shape as you age. The structures and skin of the nose lose strength with time and, as a result, the nose stretches out and sags downward"

https://www.newfaceny.com/blog/how-d...ange-with-age/

Rob,

Just asking. If you add in Joe's exhibit of Paul Waner which does not include the down-turned hook nose, but is nonetheless Paul Waner, does that change your opinion at all?

Thank you.

of course. This whole thing seems pretty nonsensical to me. A family with obvious high level access and multitudes of other items says it's him; it looks like him, and there are other images from the period that look very similar; but we're(you're) going to be to told that's all incorrect because pictures from 25 years later seem to potentially, maybe indicate a curling of the nose downward?

Or we're going to assume exceptionally grainy images of one side of an earlobe may not match perfectly to more clear images from a different angle?

pure hogwash.

People age, body parts sag, especially those with little to no bone structure. The images from his 1920's postcards match very nicely to your new image. I'd stop sweating it - albeit both annoying and hilarious; it's nonsense.

I only have remotely strong feelings about this because my grandfather had a very similar facial construct. He had a upturned/button on the end of his nose in his youth, that turned over and sagged downward as he hit his 50's+. this would be like someone telling me my own images of my grandfather, weren't actually of him, because they didn't "like the way he aged"

I am with Mark (bmarlowe1) on this and all other photo identifications. I have read many of the articles he has posted and I would rather trust an expert than someone who is hoping they found a diamond in the rough (or others who post links to articles on the internet who have never studied this to the extent Mark has). Thank you Mark for all of the help you have provided to board members over the years. Personally, I really appreciate it and hope others do too.

Alan Elefson

Aging can cause a lot of differences

Alan,

All I ask is that you remember that I confirmed with this with a Waner family member and that my factual claim about the growing of the ears and nose with age was accused of something be made out of thin air. This of course was revised to something the accuser later said he knew for years. Hmmm.

Just please also look at the exhibit posted by Joe as well as the later pictures on either side of my postcard posted by Rob. Between the 1926 exhibit of Paul Waner and the Yankees picture is a difference of 19 years. Please look at the difference in the nose.

>> A family with obvious high level access and multitudes of other items says it's him

We don't know that a "family" is saying anything whatever that means. As far as I know it was one person. I don't know what you mean by "multitudes of items." What is relevant are photos and for some odd reason we haven't seen any of them. As I pointed out, it is not uncommon for family members to disagree as to who is depicted in an old photo.

>> It looks like him...

It looks like him to YOU and the OP. To other people it does not look like him. This is a purely subjective assessment that we know collectors often get wrong. That is why we try assess individual facial features which can be much less subjective.

>> grainy images of one side of an earlobe...different angles

In the 3 side-by-side photos the center and left photos are at virtually the same angle. See post 29 for best available quality, https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345

I am not keying in on the earlobe. The overall shape of the ears are very different and that is evident in spite of the not-so-great quality of the OPs image. It's not hard to see. As Drs. Bruge and Burger said, "It is obvious that the structure of the ear does not change radically over time" That doesn't mean that the ear doesn't grow, just not enough to be noticeable in photos until about age 70 on average.

>> Mr. Van Horn: All I ask is that you remember that I confirmed with this with a Waner family member and that my factual claim about the growing of the ears and nose with age was accused of something be made out of thin air. This of course was revised to something the accuser later said he knew for years. Hmmm.

You continue to have trouble distinguishing fact from fantasy. Back in the 2017 thread where you started this fairy tale I said the following in post 38 https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345
"The ear growth of which you speak is so small that it would not be noticeable even when comparing a photograph of a teenager to that of a man in his 40's. It rarely becomes apparent until much later, and even then it is usually just some ear lobe droop - not a gross change in shape.

Nose tip also can droop when we get old - but nowhere near enough to account for the gross difference seen here, and anyway in the exemplar photos of Waner he is not that old."


So it appears your assertion that I never said this before is dead wrong. I didn't revise anything.

So, uh, now the nose is left out of the equation because of the difference between the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture? Just so we're clear on the math, Paul Waner would be either 41 or 42 in the Yankees photo as opposed to 70. Hook nose and all. In the 1926 exhibit he is either 23 or 24 sans hook nose.

Please check the ear in the 1926 exhibit against the ear in the postcard.

LOL! Once again you're lack of reading comprehension has bolted to the fore.

You indicated that I made things up out of thin air.
I quoted you and will quote you again:

"The stuff about how ears grow like your feet grow - that you made up. It has no basis in fact."

You misquoted me, but that has already been corrected. Still it is par for the course you.

Then I provided a link:

https://www.doctoroz.com/blog/arthur...ue-grow-we-age

Then, you, in post #41 stated:

I did not miss that fact (it is in the stuff I read 15 years ago).

Wow! From me making it up to you reading about it 15 years ago. Thank you, Houdini.

Almost forgot. No hard feelings.

No way
 

No way this is Paul Waner

So, I went ahead and put the side by side into a little vector scenario I drew.

The chin is an obvious match; and I went ahead and ignored the button nose drop that I think we've already pretty well defined as being unimportant.

What would not have changed is the relative psition of the bottom side if the nose (where it meets the face), in relationship to the inside and outside corner of the eye, and the corner of the ear.

I created the vector from the straight on image of the postcard that was clean, then overlayed it onto Brian's photo, and rotated it on its axis to match the head tilt in that image, and boy oh boy; that again seems close enough for me!

Well done, sir!

Now to hear from our esteamed......err.....esteemed colleague.

By the way, crow is being prepared as a special meal for our colleague.

>> So, uh, now the nose is left out of the equation because of the difference between the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture? Just so we're clear on the math, Paul Waner would be either 41 or 42 in the Yankees photo as opposed to 70. Hook nose and all. In the 1926 exhibit he is either 23 or 24 sans hook nose

As usual you are wrong. The noses in the 1926 exhibit and the Yankee and Pitt photos are consistent. For some people, especially those with large noses, just starting to smile or grimace will case the nose phlange and nostrils to pull up at an angle relative to the tip of the nose. This is evident in the Pitt. and NY images and is exaggerated in the Pitt image because his head is tilted forward. In the 1926 image he is expressionless and the camera is slightly low (his head is tilted slightly back relative to the plane of the camera.

As for the nose in your photo, it is not consistent with any of the 3 exemplars. It would take me a few hours to draw up an analysis - that is a waste of time becasue the ears don't match.

>> Please check the ear in the 1926 exhibit against is st the ear in the postcard

The ears in all 3 Waner exemplar photos match. The 1926 is not a great choice because of the differing angle, but it is still evident that it is longer top to bottom than the that of the guy in your photo.

I really didn't want to spend so much time on something so ludicrous, but here is probably the best side-by-side I can do with available photos (absent a scan from the "relative" - why can't we see even one?).

If you can't see the very gross difference in ear size and shape then you need to see an eye doctor (assuming he is properly disinfecting). Ears absolutely do not "grow" like this over whatever the age range between these photos is. They grow virtually imperceptibly and you can easily compare the ears of a teenager those of a man in his early 40s. These are 2 different humans.

that has to be easily the worst representations of dimensions ever. You started on a slope, you didn't adjust for pitch angles in either face; and you used arbitrary starting points, on subjects 25 years apart in age. .

I've spent about as much time as I'm willing to on this; but if I get bored; I'll tinker with your work; logically, and show you it actually is the same guy. note the top and bottom the the ear, in relation to the top and bottom of the nose; almost identical

They look like different people to me.

>> that has to be easily the worst representations of dimensions ever. You started on a slope, you didn't adjust for pitch angles in either face; and you used arbitrary starting points,

Actually it is by the book (or books) which I have read and you have not. Bear in mind that I have been schooled by an NYPD analyst, and have done work like this for Library of Congress, Boston Public Library, National Baseball HoF and Museum, major auction houses, other Museums and have helped numerous collectors get refunds. I also have produced a newsletter for SABR for the past 12 years that often addresses these issues.

The 3 points you made don't make any sense. These faces are at nearly the same angle (pretty much as close as you are going to get except for carefully done mugshots) They are more than close enough to support what I illustrated. When you do the same for 2 subjects that are actually the same person, the features can be seen to match. Keep in mind that we don't need accuracy to a fraction of a millimeter to expose gross differences.


BTW - your chin match is wrong - they don't match, you have no idea what you are doing, and in any case a chin match does not mean two faces belong to the same person if other features do not match. Is that not obvious?

I try to avoid chiming in on arguments on this forum but this intrigued me for several reasons. One, I am interested in identifying obscure player photos from the deadball era and this is an interesting example. I find it frustrating and very difficult, esp when I had poor photos (e.g. Spalding and Reach Guides) as my only exemplar.

Second, I appreciate the thoughtful posts by bmarlowe1. He explains in ways that make objective sense why he offers his opinions. This is so rare when it seems that for whatever reason, experience, professionals and logic take back seats often these days to hunches, hopes and biases.

I don't understand why the OP is upset at him. If all you care about is your own opinion then there is no reason to post on this forum and then continue to argue about it. If you do make a claim about a photo on this forum then it should be challenged if it is not proven to be correct. False public claims should be corrected. That is how we learn.

seriously tapping out after this because I just don't care nearly as much as my responses indicate.

but... Adjusted to create common head size; while rotating the axis slightly to account for the older picture being more from the profile.

Nose bridge, pupils and top of ear match perfectly, as does the the anterior nasal spine (which does not grow/move).

The ridges across the maxilla and premaxilla also match, but hey, that's just bones.

Wish I had better software to rotate this thing spherically and prove it without a doubt; but Brian - I'd buy this from you with confidence that it was Paul Waner - If I cared at all about collecting Paul Waner photos (I do not) but this was a fun albeit annoying distraction on a friday afternoon.

FWIW - If I was concerned about ANY aspect of these two photos it would be the vast difference in the palpebral fissure; which is stark. However; that can likely be explained by the fact that the kid in the first picture is outside in the daylight squinting, and the older Waner image appears to be taken in the evening or indoors

Red herring. Skin bleaching, excessive rhinoplasty and other facial surgery is not comparable to normal aging. Just look at Lisa Rinna and the late Kenny Rogers.