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).
Last edited by bmarlowe1; 02-16-2013 at 07:21 PM.
|