Net54baseball.com Forums - 1879 Dubuque Photo -Will the Real Comiskey please stand up or sit down?

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)

- - 1879 Dubuque Photo -Will the Real Comiskey please stand up or sit down? (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163481)

1879 Dubuque Photo -Will the Real Comiskey please stand up or sit down?

Who's the real Comiskey?-- Both photos taken in the Dubuque studio of HA Jordan-one in 1879 the other 1887--Will the real Comiskey with the widows peak hair-line and funny ears please stand up or sit down!

That 1879 photo seems like a cool piece but do you have any solid evidence to indicate that it is indeed Comiskey vs just a town team? Not trying to give you a hard time but a 2006 newspaper article stating that it's Comiskey doesn't seem too definitive.

The Dubuque photo is bogus. The Radbourne ID is absurd. The Comiskey ID was dealt with in another thread and is repeated here. He is not in the photo. That is almost certainly not the Dubuque 1879 team.

The real Radbourne with Dubuque 1879 is below left. Just a little different, I think. And the uniform isn't quite right, is it?

This is a classic case of someone finding a 19thC baseball photo with someone who vaguely resembles a well-known figure (this is easy to do), in this case Comiskey, and then finds a buyer who believes him (also unfortunately easy to do).

This photo also appeared (reproduced microscopically) in the Dec. 2007 issue of Sports Collector's Digest with the same false claims:
http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.co..._cabinet_cards

Mystery Photograph--My case

My 18 year old Comiskey compared to a 26 year old Comiskey in the other Dubuque photo. Sorry the ear look the same to me?

Really this is pretty much just simple shape matching. Even though you chose an extremely blurry photo for your Comiskey exemplar (below far right), it is still clear enough to see that ear shape is very similar to that of Comiskey (center) and very different than that of of the "Dubuque" guy. Ears remain virtually unchanged during the time span represented by these photos.

So, how do you explain the uniforms, and do you really think that guy front row right looks like Radborune?

What you have is a kid's team. I hope you didn't spend too much money buying it and then blowing it up to massive size.

Thanks, now your being contructive, but I will be honest, in my opinion your middle photo of Comiskey facial features actually resembles my photo better than my example. Athough studing your comparions the ears still look the same to me in my example on the right. In the book 1919 Commy by GW Axelson its mentioned when Comiskey came to St Louis for a exhibition game their uniform resembled pajamas, so who knows what they had available at different times. Yes I agree a 18 year old is a kid and back then I suppose many young players smoked cigars like Cliff Carrol is holding. Again I believe I have a good case!-the ear appears to have a slight indentation, not perfectly straight!

I'm always constructive.

>>>in my opinion your middle photo of Comiskey facial features actually resembles my photo...the ears still look the same to me...

I have no doubt that to you they look alike. However, with all due respect, that means very little when the ear shapes are grossly different. The back edge of Commy's ear is long and fairly straight, the back edge of the Dubuque player's ear is very curved. If you can't see that I can't help you.

Hopefully enough people can distinguish a straight line from a curved line so that if this photo ever comes on the market the demand will be nill (I think that's constructive).

No problem and thanks again for the opinions, I am posting some later photos of other players I believe are in my photo-any other experts out there??--thanks for looking!--my Comiskeys ear is not curved as can be seen in the better but not hi-res team photo?

Your photo of Jack Rowe just above is actually Dave Rowe - that's a known NYPL Spalding Collection error. You can read about it here (page 13):

https://sabr.box.com/shared/static/t...lum70lefpk.pdf

So that implies that you are saying Dave Rowe is in your photo. If so, then it's not Dubuque because Dave Rowe was not on the team.

You will not be able to establish that any of those people are in your photo. Yeah, that's just my opinion.

Having blown this photo up to 3 by 4 feet and having already written these names over it, I just don't think you will ever be rational about it. Again, just my opinion.

So - are you the same Tom from the Sports Collectors Digest article (and the above Telegraph Herald article) that "found" this photo?

Thats OK-I'm here for the help and appreciate any other help or constructive imput --Jack and Dave Rowe both played for Rockford in the North Western League. I will be rational and I'm here for the wise. It's just the odds of a very old Dubuque cabinet photo found in St Louis with a young player thats a spitting image of Comiskey astronomical--anyone have a copy of his Old Judge Baseball card, the one showing him sliding I believe says World Champions?--let me know--thanks again

Note: Both Jack Rowe and Carroll joined Ted Sullivan in Dubuque around 1879, so yes they knew Comiskey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1088883)

Thats OK-I'm here for the help and appreciate any other help or constructive input ----- It's just the odds of a very old Dubuque cabinet photo found in St Louis with a young player thats a spitting image of Comiskey astronomical-

Tom,
You edited your 11:55 PM post where you had originally asked for other opinions "for the love of the game." Really? - I am guessing it has more to do with you having tried to sell this piece fairly recently.

You are very confused about the issue of probability. As far as spitting image - no, some resemblance, yes. If you were going though a lot of old baseball photos specifically looking for someone that resembled Comiskey - that would certainly take some time but the odds of finding one would not at all be astronomical. Of course, it is the odds of the player actually being Comiskey that would be astronomically against you.

If you instead go through a lot of old baseball photos looking for a player who resembles any prominent 19thC player with some connection to Missouri - that is actually very easy to find. Again, the chance of the ID being correct would be very small.

Mr. Jordan the Dubuque photographer who made this image was in business until around 1890. We know Mr Jordan and Mr Comiskey knew each other. So I own a Dubuque Cabinet photo found in St Louis, with a player who with his distictive widow peak haircut "resembles" Comiskey during a period when Comiskey would have been playing ball in Dubuque. I am pleased the
discussion has elevated from not even close, and no comparison to resembles. I am very open to more serious research and any upper level discussion!

I have seen tests and discussions with other important baseball images where they do all kinds tests with lines across, up and down and around and around, etc-etc. A more complete complex computer proportion evaluation.

A brief history of my photograph: About twenty years ago while browsing through a St Louis Antique Shop I found this photo in a stack of other Cabinet photographs. I purchased it and took it home and put it in a box. Thats where it rested for another eight years until one evening while reading The Offical Encyclopedia of Baseball I happened to come acoss the article about Ted Sullivan forming the NW League which included Loftus, Comiskey and Radbourn. I remembered the baseball Photo I purchased was stamped HA Jordan- Dubuque. Of course I went to find and retreive the photo. Around that same time I had purchased a substantial Brooklyn Dodger collection. When a buyer drove down from Michigan to look, he purchased the entire collection. He asked if there was anything else I would be interested in selling. I showed him the photo and he asked if it would be OK to take it back with him-Sure no problem-. I quess around two months later he returned and bought my beautifully signed 1950's snow white Brooklyn Dodger baseball and returned the photo with the reasoning none of the players sported mustaches.-Sure no problem-, so again I took the photo home and again put it away in a box.
About year later I came across the St Louis Browns photo I had purchased in the early 1980's from a shop in Ste Geneiveve Missouri. When viewing that photo is when it hit me--most importantly it showed Comiskey not wearing a cap. It took me a little while to locate my cabinet photo which I finally found at the bottom of a box. I then contacted and sent photocopies of both images to a authority on sports memorabilia and autographs. After studing the two photographs in his opinion -quote- "I can't see how anyone can say it isn't Comiskey " and put a value on the photograph at that time around $1500.00.

I hope this clears up any intentions I intended to fabricate some fictitous silly get rich quick scheme. I will continue to research avenues of authentication when I have the time. So for now this will conclude and end my discussions. Someday I will attend another National Sports convention or the Chicago Sun show with the actual photograph. I do appreciate the response + the contructive discussion. I can be contacted by email tsc@mvp.net-- Thanks again. Tom

Are you sure thats not Ty Cobbs? It looks like Cobbs to me :D

>>I am pleased the discussion has elevated from not even close, and no comparison to resembles.

You remain completely confused. Resembles + ear mismatch means that we know with certainty it is not Comiskey.

>>I have seen tests and discussions with other important baseball images where they do all kinds tests with lines across, up and down and around and around, etc-etc.

Most likely, they were written by me. In your case, the ear mismatch is all we need.

>>I then contacted and sent photocopies of both images to a authority on sports memorabilia and autographs. After studing the two photographs in his opinion -quote- "I can't see how anyone can say it isn't Comiskey "

First - who was he? Second, "authoriies" on sports memorabilia and autographs are almost never authorities on facial comparison. Third, why don't you tell us about when you tried to consign this photo - what happened?

>> So I own a Dubuque Cabinet photo found in St Louis, with a player who with his distictive widow peak haircut "resembles" Comiskey during a period when Comiskey

Below is the real Comiskey in a Dubuque uniform - not a widows peak. In any case, a lot of people have them. As far as the value of your own judgments about all this, see post #4 above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1089530)

any upper level discussion!

Translation: Affirmation from anyone who agrees with me.

You discount the simple "ear test" that Mark has presented, which compares distinct features which cannot be altered, choosing instead to lean on the hairstyle the guy is sporting? A feature that could be altered at whim? Do you seriously think that Comiskey was the only guy sporting a widow's peak in that area/time?

Here's the thing about comparing photographs of people to determine identity: all it takes is 1 feature that doesn't match up to render any number of similarities moot. If 1 guy's ears are lower on the head than the other's, it's not the same guy. If 1 guy's eyes are closer together than the other's, it's not the same guy. Same goes for location of nose on the face, jaw structure, eye color, etc. And yes, shape of the ears as well. It doesn't matter if the rest of the facial features appear to match up completely, if there is 1 unalterable feature that DOESN'T match, it's not the same guy. You couldn't change the spacing of your eyes, or move the location of your nose on your face, or change the color of your eyes (in that day and time, at least). And unless you are suggesting that the gentleman in your photograph sheared off the lower part of his ear between photographs, he couldn't have changed the shape of his ear so drastically either.

Think of it like you're on the jury for a murder case in court: You look at all the evidence presented, and make your determination based on that evidence. If there is 1 factor that introduces reasonable doubt, you don't find the defendent guilty. If all the evidence matches up except that the defendent is on surveilance video in Phoenix at the time the guy was murdered in DC, you don't say, "well, I still think he looks like a killer, so I'll say he's guilty." It doesn't matter how many people concluded he was guilty prior to that one key piece of evidence being presented. If they, like you, made their judgement in absence of that key piece of evidence, they made the wrong judgement. It's not a comment on the intelligence or expertise of those who made faulty judgements before (well, depending on how obvious the new evidence is), but cases are overturned all the time based on the introduction of new evidence.

I don't know who the other "authority on sports memorabilia and autographs" was that you consulted, but I would not be so quick to discount Mark's very simple and thorough presentation of new evidence. When the opinions of two authorities differ, you then have to look at why they differ. Mark has explained very clearly why his opinion differs from your authority's. The ears are something that I too have often overlooked when comparing photos, but that was through my own neglect, not because they are unimportant. If your authority has an explanation for the difference of the shapes of the ears other than "I hadn't considered that factor," I'm sure we would all be glad to hear it.

Notice the two darker spots in the ear of each photo--they are identicial. Also if you have the ability to drag the photos over each other try it --its amazing--I will be happy to email the photos to anyone if you would like to try it--thanks again

When ask to consign my Dubuque photo--the auction house mentioned "NO" Reserve--I SAID NO WAY--SORRY, I REJECTED THEIR OFFER TO CONSIGN!

Geez - I thought you said you were done. What people should know is that Tom recently tried to consign this photo (at least once) for sale as an image of Comiskey and it was rejected. My guess is that he will continue to try and strike out.

Due to the blurryness and slight difference in head angle of both photos just above, overlaying them is essentially worthless. If you want them to seem alike badly enough - they will seem to be alike. This is not responsive to any of the points made (by me or Lance).

The dark spot near the top of the ears is what nearly everyone will have when lit from above due to the overhang of the helix. The other spot is the opening to the inner ear - don't you have one (actually two)? If you actually look carefully at post #7, you will see that the dark spots are not identical. In any case, none of this addresses the major ear difference shown in post #7. Try reading Lance's post again.

Top eight constructive things to watch out for when a big name is claimed to be in a 19thC baseball photo:
(1) Owner thinks he has a great find
(2) ID primarily based on owner’s subjective impression
(3) Similarities are pointed out while significant differences are ignored
(4) Owner has a bad track record for face ID (e.g see Radbourn claim above)
(5) Identification of other players who should be in the photo seems to be very difficult
(6) Not in known uniform
(7) No provenance
(8) Owner presses on undeterred even when some claims are shown to be ludicrous (see jack Rowe/Dave Rowe issue above).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1089814)

You do realize that the person you are disagreeing with on this photo is pretty much the foremost expert on baseball player photo identification don't you? That's not to say that he's above questioning, but you're just plain wrong here. That's not Comiskey.

I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen someone who found a 19th century photograph, and was certain there was a Hall of Famer in it. And roughly 95% of the time, the identification has been wrong. Everybody wants to make a great find, and believe they were just a little smarter or a little luckier than everyone else. Or that they were in the right place at the right time when they stumbled into that antique store. This is yet another example of it. I say it's not Comiskey.

Mark is a photo identification expert. Not to mention the others who have weighed in. I think this one is dead in the water.

Let me be clear, I respect all opinions and I understand the powers to be. I did expect the skepticism and denials, but don't blame me, its not my fault, I just found the 134 year old photo.

First it was the ears, I showed they can match, just as I can show they don't. Then I dragged my photo image over the image showing Comiskey taken at Dubuque for comparison and its a proportioned match, yes the eyes, nose, mouth, chin, especially the widows peak (a extremely unique human characteristic) all match. (: Try it :) I'm then advised that procedure isn't exceptable, although just last week on national TV (Fox News) that same computer technique was used for a 1865 baseball Photo, the photo was dragged over another copy?

Fact: Mr. Jordan the photographer was in business when Comiskey was playing baseball at Dubuque.

Fact: Mr. Comiskey knew the photographer

Fact: The photograph is stamped "DUBUQUE" It is dim, so one must have hands on to see it, but its there. Jordan is easier to see. This is all from age + whoever owned the relic must have been very proud to display the photo.

Fact: The Dubuque photo ended up in St Louis,Mo. is this more than just a coincidence. Example: William Gleason later became a Fireman in St Louis. Sullivan, Loftus and Comiskey all played baseball there.

Fact: If the origin would have NOT been stamped or was stamped other city say as one example Marshalltown Iowa, I would NOT be having this discussion.

Fact: I'm not the only one that believe it's Comiskey.

Fact: There are dealers on here that asked to sell my photo?

Fact: It ain't over till its over --

------Now you can all go at it-----

I appreciate my chance to present my card and I hope this hasn't damaged or caused any hard feelings, its been a pleasure ,and God bless!

>>>Fact: The Dubuque photo ended up in St Louis,Mo. is this more than just a coincidence. Example: William Gleason later became a Fireman in St Louis. Sullivan, Loftus and Comiskey all played baseball there.

So what? None of these people are in your photo. Anyone who lived, worked, or played ball in Dubuque at any level could easily later move to St. Louis or send the photo to friends or relatives there.

For any rational person, nothing you have said comes close to proving that this is what you claim it to be. No, you did not show that the ears can match. Good luck finding a major auction house willing to sell this as Comiskey. It's already been rejected. After this thread it probably won't be so easy to find a smaller AH to willing to take it.

The photos overlayed on Fox were virtually the same photo (two sides of a stereo pair of team photos) - this has nothing to do with facial comparison. It is very common for the faces of two different persons to have similar proportions. Given the extremely poor quality of the photo you used for comparison, detailed matching is not possible. Your judgment on these kind of things is demonstrably bad. Did you try the overlay method for Radbourn?

Which one of these is not like the others?

The guy on the left has blue eyes and the other three have brown eyes.

One of them is actually Lee Harvey Oswald.

Your photo features distinctly different uniforms from the confirmed Dubuque team photos with Comiskey or any other confirmed player. How do you explain this disparity? Everyone has a different uniform on. It looks like a town team.

Even if it is stamped Dubuque, that doesn't make it the Dubuque team. There were lots of teams from New York City who weren't the Giants.

It's been a while since I posted as I just got busy with life, but I am amazed by this thread.

The OP comes on asking the question "Who's the real Comiskey?" He gets an answer he doesn't like and then refuses to believe it. Hmm.
By the initial question, it seems clear to me that he sees there obvious differences between the 2 players pictured. Is there a similarity? Sure, but as Lance very clearly explained, if one difference exists then it isn't the same person.
The grouping of facts is interesting. The first five certainly do show that it is possible for Charles Comsikey to be in this picture, but those items do not prove in any way that it is in fact Comiskey pictured. The last 2 don't prove anything either. Many people thought the earth was flat until they found out it wasn't.

Am I some known picture expert? No
Can I see clearly what is laid in front of me? Yes. The OP's inability to see the difference between the straight line of Comiskey's ear and the curved line of the guy in his picture is somewhat surprising.

I've added a couple of pictures, hopefully, to help the OP out.

I added the red line to show the extra piece of ear the OP cut out in his attempt to compare ears.
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=10063 http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=10062

Next, I added something to Mark's comparison pictures that I noticed about the inner ear shape. I added the Blue lines to show how the shape of Comiskey's inner ear arches up and back. The unknown player's inner ear tissue projects forward and downward.
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=10060

Best,
Mark

At this point, I think the OP should get in contact with Cobb and Edwards and see who they had to test the paper of their "T206 Wagner". Next, he should get Mike O'Keefe and ESPN involved. Then, he should see if the new CNBC TV show has any interest in doing a segment on this piece. Finally, he and Cobb and Edwards should go on a road tour with their "famous" baseball items.

After that, maybe they can get ESPN to do a LIVE auction of their famous pieces....

David

Huge difference comparing the 1879 Dubuque town population to New York City for local baseball teams--don't you think?

Will the real comiskey please stand-up--please stay tuned---thanks!

Can you please address these questions?

Your photo features distinctly different uniforms from the confirmed Dubuque team photos with Comiskey or any other confirmed player. How do you explain this disparity? Everyone has a different uniform on. It looks like a town team.

Persistence can pay off

Some are asking me to compare my original 1879 Dubuque baseball photo with another composite type baseball Dubuque team
Photo?

Please don't.----This has always been my major point--?--- Why ?--Because my photo shows Comiskey posed with a couple different "Northwestern League" baseball players from the time. ( hence the different uniforms )

I will admit as mentioned, my example was rather grainy ( that was my bad, since I used a copy) so I have tried to post a better scanned image from the original photo.

A short history of the 1879 Northwestern League:

#1--( Special to the 1910 "Sporting Life" Tom Loftus Dead ) In 1879 Thomas J. Loftus along with Radbourn, Jack Rowe, Jack and Bill Gleason & Cliff Carroll all transferred from Peoria, Illinois (Peoria Reds) to Dubuque to become teammate with "Comiskey" under the management of Ted Sullivan.

The Northwestern league organized Jan 2, 1879 consisted of four different baseball teams, Dubuque, Rockford, who had Jack Rowe & Dave Rowe, Davenport and Omaha. This league lasted only two years.

Can we agree one of these players once owned this rare photo? Both Gleason Brothers were born and died in St Louis, so it's probable this photograph once belong to one of the Gleason Bros. ( hence my referral to William Gleason who later became a career Fireman in St Louis)--his daughter also lived and died in St Louis, its possible there could be relatives
still residing in St Louis. Note: The Gleason Bro. both were born in St louis, played baseball there, worked there and Died in St Louis--see his daughter photo--(Find a Grave Site:Mrs Kathryne Loretta "Kitty" Gleason Riley)

Now back to a Comiskey ear comparisons. I have attached for study another Comiskey photo, showing his head slightly tilted down. Please carefully observe my 19 years old Comiskey photo. In this another example of Comiskey if we could slightly tilt the head back to more of a level position,The ear structures match.
Also Comiskeys other ear in my photo is more vertically straight due to the position of his head and our line of sight. If a computer program could be used to simulate a small head turn , I believe we would see the straight line
ears begin to appear as shown with the other examples with my Comiskey.

Another important point, if several different Comiskey pictures are used for comparison must we not take into account age difference? My 1879 Dubuque photo image of Comiskey shows a lanky 19 year teenage youth. My later 1887Dubuque photo for example he would have been around 27 years old, and with the 1890 era example's he would have been in the 30 plus year range.

Why the no rational to even consider while Comiskey was playing baseball in Dubuque he and his teammates along with Cliff Carroll and Jack Rowe from the Northwestern circuit went to Jordan's Studio to have this 1879 photograph taken?

#2--(-St Louis Globe Democrat Oct 8 1885-) Charles A. Comiskey is the youngest field captain probably of any professional team, and has no superior. He is a good coach and a favorite with his men. He is a native of Chicago, 24 years of age, and took his first lessons in ball-playing as a boy on the vacant lots around the city. His first professional engagement was
with the Dubuque Club, where he played first base with Radbourn, the Gleason brothers, Carroll and other noted players.
This club won the Northwestern League pennant in 1879, and in the same year beat every team that visited Dubuque. Comiskey remained with the club until 1882, when he came to St. Louis. As a first baseman he has few superiors, is a good, free, hard hitter, and an excellent base runner. Under his captaincy the discipline of the Browns has been excellent, and petty
jealousies are unknown.

FACTS:--I have documented #1 a 1910 article, Carroll and Jack Rowe had joined Comiskey and #2 another 1885 article documenting Carroll had played baseball with Comiskey.

Now my question?: Why doesn't the other composite photo show Carroll and Rowe in the photograph--its well documented they were Comiskey's teammate and played baseball with him, especially infielder Ted Sullivan he was on the 1879 team?

This authentic relic of baseball history shows valid facts & points adding up to deserve a thorough " hands on " critique.

Thanks again for your patience to my persistence.--Until.

You're rationale isn't clicking with me. You're saying because the Gleason brothers lived in St Louis, they probably owned this photo. How could anyone agree with that?

You say this is a grouping of players from different teams. The men you've identified as belonging to the same team, are wearing different uniforms even amongst themselves.

Lastly, why haven't you used the 1879 composite of the known players in their known uniforms as a source of photo matching?

Correctly executed ear comparison for Comiskey using photos from similar angle - see post #3 above.

Radbourn comparison - see post #4 above. This one is of course ludicrous.

>> Now back to a Comiskey ear comparisons.....

Your lack of skill in evaluating what you see in a photo is made clear by your ID of Radbourn.

>> Why doesn't the other composite photo show Carroll and Rowe in the photograph

Your photo shows neither.

It doesn't resemble Comiskey to me, other than both players have heads.

But what's up with your drawing an outline over this guy's ear, that doesn't follow the shape of his ear? Why don't you just paste the real Comiskey's image over your photo?

I'm baffled by this discussion - it's almost as ludicrous as the 'TY COBBS' thread.

http://net54baseball.com/attachment....1&d=1361063307

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1093986)

Can we agree one of these players once owned this rare photo? Both Gleason Brothers were born and died in St Louis, so it's probable this photograph once belong to one of the Gleason Bros. ( hence my referral to William Gleason who later became a career Fireman in St Louis)--his daughter also lived and died in St Louis, its possible there could be relatives
still residing in St Louis.

NO, we CANNOT agree on that, not based on the "evidence" you have provided. That one or all of the players later moved to St. Louis, where you found the photo, proves nothing. I have thousands of photographs of ballplayers from other states, none of whom have ever lived in Tennessee. You do realize that these things move by other means than just the back of the family's moving truck, don't you? If you had purchased the photo at an estate sale from someone with the last name Gleason, then you might have a connection, but you would still have to research to be sure that it is the same Gleason family. But you didn't. You purchased it in an antique shop in St. Louis. What city/state you picked the photo up in, (some 115 years after it was produced), has no substantial bearing on its provenance. Pickers have been buying and relocating cabinet photos from their place of origin since loooong before the 1990's.

I was really hoping that your "stay tuned" announcement would produce something in the way of a reasoned argument, but all you have done is re-hash what you said previously and add some name tags to the guys in your photos. Show the photos you are using to compare to yours to arrive at the other ID's, show the "overlay" technique you're supposed to have used, show any other "evidence" you have, show something besides dogged determination, please.

Please Say hello to William Gleason

I did paste my Comiskey image with the other 1887 Comiskey Dubuque image-- They match???

1879 Dubuque Nortwestern League photograph with William Gleason and later in 1884. (The Gleason Brothers were both born in ST Louis, played baseball there, worked there and both died there.)

William Gleason was born in St Louis May 12 1858. He began his baseball career in Peoria Illinois (Peoria Reds) along with Tom Loftus, Charles Radbourn, brother Jack Gleason, Cliff Carroll and Jack Rowe. These players transferred early in 1879 to Dubuque to join Charles Comiskey.William Gleason was born in St Louis May 12, 1858 and died there July 21, 1932.

Sitting in both Dubuque Photos first we find the 20 year old little William Gleason with Comiskey for their 1879 Northwestern players Photo and again nine years later as major league players in 1884.

1887 was the last year on record Gleason played with Comiskeys St Louis team batting .336 In 1889 he ended his playing career with Louisville batting .216.

He played 8 years in 795 games with a .275 a lifetime batting average.

Gleason was 5'8", Comiskey was 6'0".

You have lost your mind.

Oh my, this just keeps getting funnier and funnier.
How can you compare heights when in one photo the people are sitting and in the other they are standing?

Also how did "Gleason" in the 1879 photo go from looking like a 14 year old boy to a very mature looking man in the span of just five years?

Greg

Quote:

Originally Posted by sayhey24 (Post 1097942)

Oh my, this just keeps getting funnier and funnier.
How can you compare heights when in one photo the people are sitting and in the other they are standing?

Not only that, but they're not sitting at the same level! Is Gleason is also standing in a hole in the photo you showed? Because in your photo, your "Gleason" is seated on something lower than your "Comiskey", as evidenced by comparing their belt lines...

+++ Now we have my 1879 Minor league Gleason who resembles Gleason in his St Louis major League 1884 photo--WOW+++
Several have looked at the two different ---DUBUQUE-- photos.They believe the two 1879 Comiskey photos indeed are the same player---thanks this is getting good.

So if Gleason is actually sitting lower thats a great point, meaning he is taller than the photo suggest.

Theatre of the Absurd!
It's been good for a while now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1097964)

It's a one-man 'Cobb & Edwards' show.

This is turning out to be what we call on the poker forums a "level" (ie. to post something which is intentionally deceptive, typically with the hope of eliciting a certain predictable reaction).

It is entertaining, I'll give him that.

Guys, this is really freaking me out, but I just realized.....

I AM CHARLES COMISKEY!!!!! :eek::eek::eek:

I was only a kid at the time, and had no idea, but now it's all creeping back into my consciousness, and it's tough. Someone please help.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1098032)

Post Of The Day!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1098032)

Yup, head's exactly the same size. We have a match!

Wait, do you live in St. Louis...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1098032)

Always thought you were a hot dog Scott. Which one are you in the picture?

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...psad9fc1ee.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 1097964)

Several have looked at the two different ---DUBUQUE-- photos.They believe the two 1879 Comiskey photos indeed are the same player

We don't know who "they" are, and in any case as anyone who is actually knowledgable about this subject will tell you, that means very little. Finding a person in an old photos that (to some) resembles a famous person is a very common occurrence. You certainly have succeeded in taking it to an absurd level.

Next lets discuss the Radbourn comparison--unfortunately the hat hides the hair-line.--Is there any photo existing showing Radbourn without his mustache for comparisons?

Just recently on 60 minutes they interviewed the soldier that killed the most wanted man in the world. The soldier said he was trained with photographs to study the facial features to identify his target. He went on to say when he confronted the man in Pakistan, BL appearance had changed, he had changed his beard,etc--There was only one facial feature that CONFIRMED his man--do you know what it was???---