Interesting info on REA lot 41 Four Base Hits card
 

Very interesting information.

How does this even come to the attention of the SABR pictorial history research committee? And how does one become a "noted facial-recognition expert"? Sounds cool. I'm just a regular schmoe that works for an insurance company. Doesn't sound cool.

Maybe the guy on the card is also an uncool insurance guy. He certainly dresses the part.

Not sure I understand that question. It is claimed to be a 19thC major league baseball player photo, is it not?

Beats me. How does one become an uncool insurance guy?

Very interesting Mark.

Could this be Chicago teammate Tom Daly? Probably not since I suspect you already studied it against Daly images, but that is the first person I thought of when looking at the face.

Joe - It's not Daly. If it is a player, I don't think it's an easy one. The guy does have a distinctive face, so I would expect him to be recognizable, even with a mustache.

Mark:

Interesting you brought this up.

As I was perusing the catalog initially and saw that the player was listed as Van Haltren I was skeptical, but just wrote it off as a poor knee-jerk reaction on my part simply because the pictured subject did not have a mustache and most of the Van Haltren images with which I am familiar show him with a mustache.

In the side-by-side comparison, however, the eyebrows, hair line and ears all look to be wrong for an image of Van Haltren.

Kevin

Are you charged w/ reviewing any previously unknown/undocumented 19th century card, or do you pick and choose what gets reviewed for facial recognition? What about 20th century stuff? And is this your "real job" or a side project job?

If it's your "real job", then I simply can't help but to quote Deuce Bigelow: "I'm gonna kill my guidance counselor!"

There are plenty of mistakes from that period. Here's one of Mark's threads on the subject: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=119053

https://www.gfg.com/oldjudge/yumyum%20anson.jpg

I also thought it looked kind of like Daly

http://www.capanson.com/pictures/1887chicago.jpg

How to become an "uncool insurance guy":

Easy - grow up in Houston, graduate with a double major in Finance/ International Business at Georgetown University, swim for a few years while at school, injure your back and meet your swimming buddy's girlfriend's roommate from the bleachers at the swim meet you would otherwise be swimming in, fall in love, move to Boston to be with said girlfriend, but commute to Concord, NH where she and her family live by taking a two hour bus ride to/from Boston, meet an actuarial student on said bus, get offered a job, move full time to Boston, break up with girlfriend, date at least six more women in the Boston area, fall in love again, settle down with that one, make a baby, buy a house in the 'burbs, find a way to keep your job through four "restructurings" and two mergers/acquisitions and keep telling yourself: "how in the hell did I end up with this job??". That's how you do it my friend!

Well, you did ask.

I kinda think what you do is cool. Just wondering if you "fell into it" or if it's your passion. I'm guessing it's the latter, but how in the heck do you do it? And is there some huge database of head-shots somewhere??

I'm no "facial recognition expert", but it does look a lot like Daly, at least compared to the image that Scott provided.

...

No one is charged with "reviewing any previously unknown..." - the world isn't that organized. The SABR Pictorial History Committee is charged with trying to maintain a correctly identified image index for major league players, coaches, umpires. However, SABR is a volunteer organization - you do what you want. My interest is 19thC and Deadball Era, so that what I write and post about.

You should say "facial comparison" as opposed to "facial recognition." Any perception of expertise on my part is based on published articles and net54 postings dating back to 2008. There are people who do that for a living working for major police departments, FBI, etc. I am not one of them, but I try to learn from them.

If you're really interested in all this, IMO - the best thing I have written on this subject can be found on pages 1-3 of:
http://sabr.box.com/shared/static/10...092a683653.pdf

So, you're looking at your young friend who is fretting over his prematurely receding hairline. He is opting for Rogain, but you tell him all he has to do is tilt his head a little and his problem will go away.

BTW, I was quoting REA's description of you as a "facial-recognition expert". And I agree, there is absolutely no way that both players are Van Haltren!

Derek - I don't doubt that in your mind he resembles Daly. If that is the case, probably others also feel that way. However, with all due respect, that type of judgement is often wrong (you can read about it in my posted SABR link).

As for a comparison with Tom Daly, see below. Daly's ear is noticeably smaller (relative to the size of his head) from lobe to top of the ear.

The blue arrow points to a horizontal crease across Daly's chin (this is sometimes called a mentolabial groove). It is a persistent characteristic that some people have and some don't. For this who have it, it may be closer to or farther from the lower lip. The guy on the card doesn't have it, but he does appear to have a dimple just below hi lower lip that Daly does not have.

Daly has a turned up nose, the guy on the card does not.

These differences are significant and distinguish these men as two different persons.

Let me add that the man on the card does not appear on either the 1887 nor the 1888 Chi NL composites.

Comparing the person on the initial card being talked about and players on that team composite, I would say the player is Sullivan.

Sullivan doesn't have a mustache, has a nose like Daly and parts his hair on the right side.

If I am right then it is just dumb luck because I am neither a facial recognition expert nor an insurance salesman...

David

As might have been expected, the same mistake shows up in the Yum Yum set

The question that now remains is who this image is. The images in the Four base Hit set were shared with the Yum Yum and G&B sets. With the small number of images in the set, one wouldn't think that identification could be screwed up, but in at least two cases now it was. To mess up Van Haltren is somewhat understandable, he was a new player to the league. To mess up Anson shows that whoever did these cards was not a baseball fan.
The Four Base Hit set also included actors/ actresses and maybe other personalities. It is entirely possible that this image is not of a baseball player. I was one of the people who said that if this was the image of another baseball player other than Van Haltren then the price should not be affected much. However, if this is the image of someone other than a baseball player then the value would be significantly affected. After all, the rule for 19th century cards is that when there is a conflict between the image and the name on the card, the image determines the card's identity. The Williamson image with an Anson name is a Williamson card. If this image is of an actor, then it is an actor card, not a Van Haltren card, and it is relatively worthless.

Interesting that VCP already recognizes that the Yum Yum card does not portray Van Haltren.

This stuff never ceases to amaze me. What do ya' think? He sure parts his hair in the right place, he has the recessed area under his lower lip.

Maybe it's just the image, but Moolic's ears look too big and his nose looks wider.

Oh, the irony!
 

The visible ear for each image is measured via the yellow lines - they seem to match.

Arrows indicate similar features including hair part (blue), hairline characteristics (green), recessed area under lower lip (brown). With one face turned and the other straight on, I can't directly measure nose width, but my estimate is there is no discrepancy. Basic face shape and feature locations and proportions match.

I would like to have a better exemplar before saying that I am sure about this, but it looks really good. Perhaps this will help the auction value for the card. Note that I did not find this guy, it was suggested to me by Pete Nash.

There is supposed to be a photo of Moolic in an 1886 team composite that may be more clear. Does anyone have the book, "A Cunning Kind of Play" by Warren Wilbert?

Mark--not a composite, but a clear picture

OK - that's the same one I used above from SABR's 1984 The National Pastime. After magnification you see the printing dots. The only way to do better is to get a hi-res scan of the original.

It's kind of funny, because Bruce owned this card for around 35 years, and neither he nor anyone who saw it ever mentioned that the player didn't look like Van Haltren.

It might be Dell Darling:

David suggested Sullivan. I don't think so.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5...ensCabinet.jpg

Sullivan has his own Four Base Hits...not mine...

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5.../sullivan4.jpg

To me it looks like you cut off part of the chin on the picture on the right.

It could be a non-baseball image from the set, but it could also be any portrait photo the photographer happened to have taken and gotten mixed up with the ones for cards. The fact that so many of the images are incorrect leads me to believe that there was a fairly large mix-up of photos, like when you drop a pile of pictures on the floor (but a bad analogy as we're probably talking about mixing up glass plate negatives), and in the process of figuring out who was who, mistakes were made.

So this could be Joe Blow who just happened to have his portrait taken at around the same time as the ball-players.

By becoming an insurance guy :rolleyes:

No - it's immediately obvious that it can't be Darling because the ear is grossly different and Darling's hairline has receded way too far. As I posted above, this person is NOT in the Chicago 1887-1888 teams composites and if he is a ball player he is not likely to be anyone you've ever heard of.

This is an open forum and it should be - so people can post what they want. So, I will post my opinion - With a all due respect, post's like Ruken's indicate that he has no idea how to do this. I don't plan to do a side-by-side for every wild guess someone throws out. If you think I'm wrong - please create your own side-by-side for your guess, and also please explain why the guy on the card isn't Moolic. That's just my opinion.

As far as cutting off the chin - I guess you are refering to the location of the bottom-most red line that I placed across the side-by-side of the card guy and Moolic. Given that the Moolic portrait is a dot-matrix print - I can't be too precise about where his chin ends (i.e. the bottom of his chin) versus where the shadow begins - it is often gradual and a somewhat soft boundary point. What I did is an estimate based on doing this for many images. The relative size of the images was adjusted with reference to the eyes, base of nose (line not shown) and mouth.

My view is that it is very unlikley (though possible) for the card guy to not be Moolic given that Moolic's first name is George, he was a member of the 1886 Chi NL club and he also shares the physical characteristics with the card guy that I pointed out. Look at post 21 (without the arrows in the way) - the similarity of the dimple under is lower lip is remarkable. If you (or anyone) don't think it's likely to be Moolic, please tell me why.

This cannot be an exact science. After all, people DO change over the years.:D

Attachment 140008

Attachment 140009

So was it Peter Nash or John Thorn who identified the photo as Moolic?

It was suggested to me by Peter Nash. Why do you think it was JT?

Update: We have heard from John Thorn (extraordinary baseball scholar and the Official Major Historian for Major League Baseball) who has identified the image of the ballplayer on this card for us as that of George Moolic. This is particularly interesting as George Moolic played only one season in the Major Leagues in 1886, suggesting that the Four Base Hits set may date from 1886 as opposed to 1887. REA thanks both Mark Fimoff and John Thorn for their insight, efforts, and for taking the time to communicate with us!

That is funny :D. Be advised that some people reading your post won't get it and will think that those are the same person.

If Moolic played in 1886, it is most likely an indicator that the card was put out in 1887. The year after seems feasible.:)

If Mark says it's Moolic then I bet it's Moolic.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Credit should be given where credit is due--Peter Nash made the Moolic contribution. Also, Four Base Hits are not an 1886 issue as Kelly is shown on Boston. Just one other example--Marty Sullivan debuted in 1887 and he has a Four Base Hits card.

Barry - That is simply because the card said "Van Haltren." This distorted the perception of the observers. This is a common phenomenon and has certainly happened with other well-known photos. It is explained to the best of my ability on pages 1-2 of:
http://sabr.box.com/shared/static/10...092a683653.pdf

Please read it. Yeah - I know, it's the 2nd time I've posted the link on this thread, but I think it explains why this often happens.

People have seen the 52 Topps Mantle so many times, and it's so iconic, that they lose sight of the fact that if you look critically, it barely looks like him.

Peter--now that I look at it more closely, I think the image on the '52 Mantle is really Don Mossi

...or that it isn't even his rookie:D

Actually I opened up the original type 1 photo sold in May 2012 Legendary auction and an image of the card and I think it a pretty decent artist rendition I the eye brows look a little close, but it really does look like the picture.

Barry...This card was known not to be Van Haltren back in 1983 and probably before. Lew Lipset noted this in his 1983 Encp. of BB cards, Vol. 1, 19th century page 58. As you know there are many errors in the set as mentioned, also the card of Daly is a photo of Sunday and Sunday's card is a pictured of Mark Baldwin, which you also probably know. My vote goes to Moolic as the Van Haltren. John

I never knew that it was already established that it wasn't Van Haltren. I don't think Bruce even knew it.

I have seen the photo and obviously the pose is similar but to me something got lost in the translation.

Yep, I'd do that.

But my friends are used to that sort of humor from me.:D

Steve B

Bruce knew it wasn't Van Haltren
 

Hi Barry, When Bruce gave me a tour of his collection about 8-10 years ago, I had told him it wasn't Van Haltren. He didn't argue with me. I don't believe he cared about the player on the card, but instead was pleased that it obtained the grade it did for a Four Base Hits card. Best, Patrick

.....