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)