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

[Directly]

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!

[aquarius31]

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.

[bmarlowe1]

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.

[bmarlowe1]

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

[bmarlowe1]

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

[Directly]

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?

[Directly]

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!

[bmarlowe1]

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).

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Directly

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

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.

[barrysloate]

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.

[bigfish]

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

[Directly]

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!

[Directly]

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!

[packs]

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.

[Directly]

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.

[packs]

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?

[bmarlowe1]

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.

[Runscott]

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.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Directly

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.

[Directly]

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.

[Runscott]

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

You have lost your mind.

[sayhey24]

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

[Directly]

Sorry its news to me and to the best of my knowledge my Dubuque Comiskey photo has never been offered for sale with any major auction house! I'm definitely not interested in a no reserve auction which has been discussed.--I did reject a offer to consign my photo without a RESERVE----sorry!

Tom Loftus was born in St Louis in 1856 and died in Dubuque in 1910--he played for St Louis in 1977 and again in 1883 but was best known as a manager. My Player resemblance number four-- Tom loftus.

[perezfan]

This guy doesn't believe in these phony IDs any more than we do... He's simply trying to get a rise out of you (his on-line version of Punk'd.)

If everyone can just refrain from responding, this thread will quickly drop off the front page, and die a swift/necessary death.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by perezfan

This guy doesn't believe in these phony IDs any more than we do... He's simply trying to get a rise out of you (his on-line version of Punk'd.)

If everyone can just refrain from responding, this thread will quickly drop off the front page, and die a swift/necessary death.

Mark, He's not going away. I have no idea what his goal here is, as he's presented this to experts and is getting ridiculed, so all this thread is serving to do, is to document how absurd his premise is; i.e-this thread is negative advertising for his piece, and certainly for him as well. I can't imagine anyone considering anything he's selling after reading this thread.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Directly

Sorry its news to me and to the best of my knowledge my Dubuque Comiskey photo has never been offered for sale with any major auction house! I'm definitely not interested in a no reserve auction which has been discussed.

Really - I've had a hi-res scan of your photo since 2011 - that is what I used to create the face comparisons I've posted on this thread. So, how did I get it?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Directly

Sorry its news to me and to the best of my knowledge my Dubuque Comiskey photo has never been offered for sale with any major auction house! I'm definitely not interested in a no reserve auction which has been discussed.

Technically he's right. Since it was rejected by the auction house, it "has never been offered for sale with any major auction house."

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, he insisted that the AH market it as a photo with Comiskey in it, and include a reserve commensurate with such, and the AH (rightly) refused to take it on those terms and sent him and his photo packing. Had he dropped the whole Comiskey shenanigans, there are plenty of places that would sell the photo for what it actually is, but it's not going to bring the retirement money that he's looking for. By continuing this charade though, he's reducing his chances of anyone wanting the photo under any terms.

[Directly]

WOW--a HI-RES SCAN--where it the world did you find that--??????--I never posted a scan of the original--???



Fact: For over one hundred years my Comiskey Dubuque Photograph was lost.--I rejected a consignment offer to sell without a reserve--sorry--again!

Should we ignore all the facts and forget the photo it exist , or is there something else at stake here?--Hair-line is very important, Why--because match is perfect--

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Directly

Fact: For over one hundred years my Comiskey Dubuque Photograph was lost.

Should we ignore all the facts and forget the photo it exist , or is there something else at stake here?

Showing us pictures that you think match are not facts. Sorry. What else would be at stake here? Do you think this is a conspiracy by Net54 to lower the value of your photograph? Do you think if one of us owned it that the verdict on this photo would be any different?

[Directly]

Samuel (Cliff) Carroll was born 1859 in Clay Grove, Iowa died 1923 in Portland, Oregan. He played for several different ball clubs in his eleven year career and played for St Louis one year in 1892. He transfered in 1879 from Peoria to Dubuque along with the Gleason Brothers, Lofton, Rowe and Radbourn.

Player resemblance number five--Cliff Carroll---(not to mention Ted Sullivan =6 )

Yea, just brush it under the rug--and it will all go away--Sorry it wasn't me that brought all this up --

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Directly

--Sorry it wasn't me that brought all this up --

Have you lost your mind? (rhetorical question) - did your child steal your i.d. and start this thread?

[Directly]

I own the Comiskey photo so let me retort the chain of events in the order they transpired twenty years ago.

1)Fact:--True, I had a hunch since my photo was from Dubuque.

2)Fact:--True, In 1992 I did allowed the photo to leave my hands.

3)Fact:--True, my photo was returned because "Quote" the players didn't sport mustaches.--"No problem"

4)Fact:--True, "LATER" by chance I ran across the 1887 Dubuque Comiskey St Louis Team photo.

5)Fact:--True, They wanted the photo back again. I was asked to mail the photo or drive it in.

6)Fact:--True, I didn't.---so is this a consignment???





Quote: (Showing us pictures that you think match are not facts. Sorry. What else would be at stake here? Do you think this is a conspiracy by Net54 to lower the value of your photograph? Do you think if one of us owned it that the verdict on this photo would be any different?)--

Reply: Conspiracy of course not, why would I ??. I do believe when a well known collector, dealer or Auction House presents a item, some people are inclined to agree with them.

Note: Net54 is a great forum to document my legal ownership.--Thanks!

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Directly

I own the Comiskey photo so let me retort the chain of events in the order they transpired twenty years ago.

1)Fact:--True, I had a hunch since my photo was from Dubuque.

2)Fact:--True, In 1992 I did allowed the photo to leave my hands.

3)Fact:--True, my photo was returned because "Quote" the players didn't sport mustaches.--"No problem"

4)Fact:--True, "LATER" by chance I ran across the 1887 Dubuque Comiskey St Louis Team photo.

5)Fact:--True, They wanted the photo back again. I was asked to mail the photo or drive it in.

6)Fact:--True, I didn't.---so is this a consignment???





Quote: (Showing us pictures that you think match are not facts. Sorry. What else would be at stake here? Do you think this is a conspiracy by Net54 to lower the value of your photograph? Do you think if one of us owned it that the verdict on this photo would be any different?)

Reply: Conspiracy of course not. I do believe when a well known collector, dealer or Auction House presents a item, some people are inclined to agree with them.

Note: Net54 is a great forum to document my legal ownership.--Thanks!

Who is "They"? And why do you need Net54 to document legal ownership of the photo?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Who is "They"? And why do you need Net54 to document legal ownership of the photo?

I didn't realize that talking about something in public proved legal ownership.


Now I'm talking about this town ball photo. Since I've now established ownership, please tear it up and throw it away. Thanks.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Directly

Note: Net54 is a great forum to document my legal ownership.--Thanks!

Sweet, I didn't realize it was that easy!



People of Idaho...I now own your fair state. I will be instituting a flat tax of 2%, payable directly to me, effective April 1st. Sorry Idaho-ians, that's how it goes. Apparently all I have to do is discuss you and show your picture and you are legally mine. I may also at a later date decide to change the state's name to something that will allow you to refer to yourself as something that rolls off the tongue more fluidly than Idaho-ians. Suggestions are welcome, but remember, I make the final decision. I own you after all. Legally. Fair and square. No givesies-backsies.

[slidekellyslide]

Maybe this is a new take on "adverse possession"? The internet version of squatter's rights?

[Runscott]

Now let's talk about America. There, I guess I own it.

I know there's probably going to be some legal issues with the state of Idaho, so I'll defer ownership to the guy who recently established ownership by talking about that particular state (but all other 49 states are MINE!).

Here's our new t-shirt:

[dgo71]

I like it!

[Directly]

Again for the Record--Why these Facts adds up positive my baseball player is Charles Comiskey than not!---

1) My photograph was taken in Dubuque.

2) My 1879 photograph was taken during the same time frame Comiskey lived and was playing baseball in Dubuque.

3) Comiskey eight years later ask Dubuque photographer Jordan to take his St Louis team photo, so Comiskey knew the photographer. There were at least two other Studio's in town, but Comiskey again chose Jordan's!)

4) My Dubuque photograph ended up in St Louis, where several of the baseball players ended up.

5) My baseball Player strongly resembles Comiskey, what's the odds there was another teenager in Dubuque resembling Comiskey during the same time frame, not even calculating the astronomical probability of this Comiskey twin being in a baseball team photo--WOW---do the math on those odds?--If I had a photo of a kid in a suit & tie, I wouldn't be having this discussion--but in a baseball photo--PLEASE!

6) What's the odds other players in my Dubuque photograph resemble players whom moved over to Dubuque from Peoria, Illinois in 1879?

7) My Dubuque Comiskey photograph is possibly the only in existence. Probably nine or less were produced. Hence the extreme rarity.


Thanks again NET54 forum to established the facts.

--Until and have a wonderful day!

[GrayGhost]

Where is Tommy Roe when you need him? ....Dizzy. Im so dizzy, my head is spinning.....

I just have one simple question.

IS THIS COMMY OR NOT?????????????

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Directly

5) My baseball Player strongly resembles Comiskey, what's the odds there was another teenager in Dubuque resembling Comiskey during the same time frame, not even calculating the astronomical probability of this Comiskey twin being in a baseball team photo--WOW---do the math on those odds?

6) What's the odds other players in my Dubuque photograph resemble players whom moved over to Dubuque from Peoria, Illinois in 1879?

<5> As explained in previous posts, experience tells us that the odds against finding a photo of a player that to some resembles a famous player are not at all astronomical - it is common, even if the photo originates from a place where that person played. I can look in my high school yearbook and find faces that resemble famous people that come from this same region. Furthermore - the obvious ear mismatch (post #3) tells us with certainty that it is not Comiskey. The resemblance you claim means nothing.

<6> None of the others resemble the players you claim them to be, and some of your comparisons are laughingly ludicrous.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Directly

Again for the Record--Why these Facts adds up positive my baseball player is Charles Comiskey than not!---

1) My photograph was taken in Dubuque.

2) My 1879 photograph was taken during the same time frame Comiskey lived and was playing baseball in Dubuque.

3) Comiskey eight years later ask Dubuque photographer Jordan to take his St Louis team photo, so Comiskey knew the photographer.

4) My Dubuque photograph ended up in St Louis, where several of the baseball players ended up.

5) My baseball Player strongly resembles Comiskey, what's the odds there was another teenager in Dubuque resembling Comiskey during the same time frame, not even calculating the astronomical probability of this Comiskey twin being in a baseball team photo--WOW---do the math on those odds?

6) What's the odds other players in my Dubuque photograph resemble players whom moved over to Dubuque from Peoria, Illinois in 1879?

7) My Dubuque Comiskey photograph is possibly the only in existence. Probably nine or less were produced. Hence the extreme rarity.


Thanks again NET54 forum to established the facts.

--Until and have a wonderful day!

Fact: It was shown in post #3 that Comiskey is NOT in your photo, and could not possibly be the individual you had identified as him.

The rest of your "facts" are extrapolations and suppositions based on your original flawed identification of Comiskey in your photograph. It's all fruit of the poisonous tree so to speak, and the more you try to force the rest of the team into your photo, the more ridiculous you have made yourself look.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Directly

Again for the Record--Why these Facts adds up positive my baseball player is Charles Comiskey than not!---

1)

--Until and have a wonderful day!

I've replaced your list with the ones that are meaningful in identifying the players in your photo.

If you were sold this as being a photo with Comiskey, you should be able to use the expert advice given on this board, to get your money back.

[Directly]

You are kidding--right--your not serious. Are you saying experts can't be wrong?--not even ONCE?-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by slidekellyslide
Who is "They"? And why do you need Net54 to document legal ownership of the photo?

"I didn't realize that talking about something in public proved legal ownership."

OK- someday I try to contact a relative about my photo, because the photo was not offered for retail sales, is possessson 90 percent of the law?--In other words, would distant relatives have any rights to the photograph since it had been lost for say for 85 years. Is there a statue of limitations on collectibles, or can we use the old saying " finders keepers,losers weepers?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Directly

You are kidding--right--your not serious. Are you saying experts can't be wrong?--not even ONCE?-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by slidekellyslide
Who is "They"? And why do you need Net54 to document legal ownership of the photo?

"I didn't realize that talking about something in public proved legal ownership."

OK- someday I try to contact a relative about my photo, because the photo was not offered for retail sales, is possessson 90 percent of the law?--In other words, would they have any rights to the photograph. Is there a statue of limitations on collectibles, or can we use the old saying " finders keepers,losers weepers?

Thanks for clarifying. I think that your post above summarizes your thoughts very well, and that we can finally let this thread die.

Great job explaining yourself.

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by Directly

You are kidding--right--your not serious. Are you saying experts can't be wrong?--not even ONCE?-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:


OK- someday I try to contact a relative about my photo, because the photo was not offered for retail sales, is possessson 90 percent of the law?--In other words, would they have any rights to the photograph. Is there a statue of limitations on collectibles, or can we use the old saying " finders keepers,losers weepers?

Of course experts can be wrong, but the ears don't lie. In this case the ears of the "fake" Comiskey and the real Comiskey clearly belong to two different men -- you don't need an expert for that, just a person with eyes.

Can someone clear something up for me -- am I recalling correctly that this is not an original photo, but a copy made much later. Wouldn't that mean it doesn't have much value regardless of who is in it?

And finally we have a Seinfeld quote in this thread -- "statue of limitations"!

Greg

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Directly

OK- someday I try to contact a relative about my photo, because the photo was not offered for retail sales, is possessson 90 percent of the law?--In other words, would they have any rights to the photograph. Is there a statue of limitations on collectibles, or can we use the old saying " finders keepers,losers weepers?

Is that your way of saying you don't actually own the photo? Because it sounds like you are now asking if it's okay to steal it from a family member. Or you're concerned that a family member will steal it from you?

It's very hard to tell exactly what you are asking with your brutalization of the English language. It actually sounds like 2 different people writing from one post to the next...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

It's very hard to tell exactly what you are asking with your brutalization of the English language.

Thanks - I needed that chuckle !!!

[Directly]

Ok, the experts claim these two people don't resemble each other whatsoever---- we can't help a picture tells a thousand words.

A photo is common showing a player whom resembles a famous player--Really--How common when the photo was taken during the same period in the same town and is a perfect match (please dont say hair-line isn't a major factor--you show it hundreds of examples--just recently too!) --please use common sense--whats everyone so worried of here??

[Lordstan]

OK. I have absolutely had it with this guy.
Hello....Is anybody home inside your head?

Let's summarize shall we?
1) First you ask if it's Comiskey in your initial post. You follow with a series of posts which attempt to disprove everything all the people who replied stated. Perhaps you should consider the fact that everyone who has replied to this thread feels that the person you identified is not Comiskey, except you!
2) In the 3rd post, the ears are clearly shown to be different and therefore PROVE WITHOUT A SHRED OF DOUBT that the player you identify as Comiskey cannot be him.
3) You then follow with some half ass drawing of the ears, which are obviously drawn by a blind man, attempting to show the ears are the same.
4) You create this cockamamie timeline about how because Comiskey was in Dubuque and knew the photographer. This was followed by the picture was found in St Louis and therefore was owned by a player because some of them wound up there later? Really? What are you smoking? Can I have some?
5) Somewhere in there you start in trying to identify a whole bunch of other people as part of the team Comiskey was on in Dubuque. Of course none of these match.
6) Next someone questioned that if they're all on the same team, why are they dressed differently? I count 5-6 different uniforms on these guys. They couldn't be the team you are referring to because they're not even on the same team period!
7) Now you start with some crap about ownership. Blah, Blah, Blah. It makes no sense and has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't Comiskey.
8) Most recently, you post another comparison pic stating that the 2 people resemble each other. Who cares? Resembling someone isn't the same, and doesn't prove they're the same person .

Finally and Hopefully forever, we can state definitively, without question or reservation, that Charles Comiskey is NOT in this photo!!!

I would hope Leon would consider locking this thread as this person clearly is trying to manipulate information he is being given in an attempt to justify his crazy and unfounded theory.

Best,
M@rk Vel@rde