Its as Plain as the Nose on your Face-the Ear Thing isn't Gospel

[Directly]

I have a old Dubuque photo. I will admit I did make a mistake on two players, but not the "kid", as Comiskey was called in 1882 by his team mates.

I stand by my insight without any reservation. Hopefully this photo will not be lost again, but if so at least this photo is known to exist.

The question I ask why the Ear Thing comparison was fabricated??--and why was I advised to hurry and sell--?

[cubsfan-budman]

*grabs popcorn*

[Econteachert205]

Here is I believe the original thread

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163481


I wasn't a member then. I looked over the thread and tried to be as objective as one might be. Whatever you may believe about the photo, I do not think there is enough evidence to present the image as comiskey. To me after looking at several similar discussions, the burden has to lie on proving it is someone, not proving it is not. This is especially true where value is involved.

[Directly]

One saying one ear compared to another 150 year photo found to satisfy them and hopefully others to me isn't proof either?

So now what?

[thecatspajamas]

Please tell me there is more to your jaw-dropping expose than "I stand by my insight without any reservation."

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Please tell me there is more to your jaw-dropping expose than "I stand by my insight without any reservation."

Lance,
Please don't feed the troll.
No amount of evidence will convince him. There is no point responding.

[Directly]

Did you know Comiskey was once shown a photograph:

Quote: Comiskey was once shown a photograph which he didn't even own a copy. He pointed out Reis and Alveretta, the acrobat. Adding This was a good team.

My revelation--

Which photo was Comiskey describing mine or the composite? I really do believe he was referring to my Dubuque baseball team photograph? Hence my corrections

I have shared my photo with the Comiskey family and she was happy and thrilled to see my photo, and that's really all that matters to me--

I appreciate this forum letting me post my work! Its a great site! I really do enjoy reading the threads and I don't by any means wish to cause any bad feeling-just facts! thanks again, Tom

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Directly

--and why was I advised to hurry and sell--?

The only advice I know about was the advice I gave to a major auction house upon request - I told them to give your photo back to you, and they wisely took the advice.

My only mistake was not seeing Lordstan's post before I made mine.

[eastonfalcon19]

[CW]

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by CW

I think all future posts on this thread should just be +1 of CW!

Ken

[Runscott]

There is something wrong with this guy. I think it's great when someone with problems like he has, as well as no aptitude, is still interested in our hobby and gets enjoyment from it. But when he can't keep a low profile and listen and learn from people who know about 100x what he knows, and instead chooses to be a complete nuisance, he really should be shown the door.

[Directly]

Another collectors advise---Quote: Don't let the insults bother you!- You have a perfect right to be objective about your photo. Stick with the Facts!

If there is going to be a study of any antique portrait photo and one wants to compare the ear and stop because one ear may not appear to be a perfect fit when matching against another photo, is this a logical concept. Wouldn't it be fair to mention the antique photo's ear comparison may appear a little different, so there for not positively definitive.

Shouldn't any photo comparison theory greatly depend on each of a photo's factors--lighting, head positions, clarity, line of sight, age, condition of photo, the photographers process & touch-up, all the above, etc.

The Ear discussion is fine, but what about a overall point system.

Nose-----Mouth----hair-line---Eyes,---. Comparing two photos made around the same time, etc and other related facts.

A Ear comparison of my Lapham would be interesting.

So look, which ear might you pick for comparison?--to be fair my Comiskey is the fifth from the left--

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Directly

Another collectors advise---Quote: Don't let the insults bother you!- You have a perfect right to be objective about your photo. Stick with the Facts!

If there is going to be a study of any antique portrait photo and one wants to compare the ear and stop because one ear may not appear to be a perfect fit when matching against another photo, is this a logical concept. Wouldn't it be fair to mention the antique photo's ear comparison may appear a little different, so there for not positively definitive.

Shouldn't any photo comparison theory greatly depend on each of a photo's factors--lighting, head positions, clarity, line of sight, age, condition of photo, the photographers process & touch-up, all the above, etc.

The Ear discussion is fine, but what about a overall point system.

Nose-----Mouth----hair-line---Eyes,---. Comparing two photos made around the same time, etc and other related facts.

A Ear comparison of my Lapham would be interesting.

So look, which ear might you pick for comparison?--to be fair my Comiskey is the fifth from the left--

Tom,
You finally asked a reasonable question. Let's be clear about this though. You are not objective about your photo. You have a financial interest in proving this photo to contain the people you claim it does. No one here has any financial interest either way. The people on the board who have been trying to help you are the ones who have been objective. As a matter of fact, most here would be celebrating the historical significance of your photo, if it were true. Most here would love your photo to be what you wish it were and would love to be able to help you prove it were the real deal. Unfortunately for everyone interested in baseball history, it has been shown clearly in the previous thread not to be any of the people you claim them to be.

Now onto your thoughts. The reason a point system is not worthwhile is that you can have 20 features match, but if one, and it needs to be only one, doesn't match, all the rest don't matter, as it's not the same person. I think people focus on the ear for multiple reasons.

1) The ear is easy to see in many photos and therefore comparison images are often available.

2) The shapes are very distinctive and differences are often easy to see in comparison to jaw width, eye distance, and other things that require some more skill to create reference points to be able to match up photos.

3) The scale doesn't matter. You can compare a larger image to a smaller one because the shape won't change regardless how big or small the photos are.

4) The ear shape doesn't change from the teens to late 70s. This allows the photo of a younger person to be compared with an older image with a high degree of reliability.

5) The ear shape doesn't change with weight gain.

All the things you brought up, lighting, etc, are taken into consideration when attempting to match facial features. We all know, and Mark(bmarlowe1) will tell you clearly, that not all photos can be used for comparison. Reasonable comparison images were found to use with your photo and it showed it to not be him.

My final thought of my last reply to this thread is this. I really wish you would stop calling the kid in your photo Charles Comiskey. It isn't him.

Sorry everyone, I couldn't help myself.
Mark

[bmarlowe1]

Some actual arguments were made, so I'll concur with what Lordstan said and specifically respond.

Directly: If there is going to be a study of any antique portrait photo and one wants to compare the ear and stop because one ear may not appear to be a perfect fit when matching against another photo, is this a logical concept [?]

I did not say your guy is not Comiskey because the ear is "not a perfect fit", I said he is not Comiskey because the ear is obviously grossly different in shape - not even remotely close.

Directly: The Ear discussion is fine, but what about a overall point system.

An "overall point system" is just something you made up. I prefer to listen to forensic experts. When the ear is grossly different, any other "points" you may have don't matter. There appear to be other significant differences - the nose, your guy probably had blue eyes, etc., but in your photo the ear difference is by far the easiest feature to see with certainty for comparison purposes and alone is enough to show that your guy is not Comiskey.

Directly: Comparing two photos made around the same time...

Ear shape is the most stable thing to compare. It stays virtually the same from about age 8 until the 60's. Ear changes are rarely visible in a photo until old age.

Directly: Shouldn't any photo comparison theory greatly depend on each of a photo's factors--lighting, head positions, clarity, line of sight,...

In the 2 photos below, the line of sight (i.e. head positions relative to the plane of the camera) are nearly the same (frontal view with very slight turn to the viewer's left). The ears being compared are not in significant shadow. The shape of the left outer ear (viewer's right) is easy to see even in Directly's grainy photo.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by CW

+1

[parker1b2]

I still think it is just a bunch of kids in the photo, not men.

[Runscott]

Guys, I know you are busy analyzing the studs in Directly's photo, but you absolutely won't believe who these guys are. I will let you ponder for a while, then I will post their names.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Guys, I know you are busy analyzing the studs in Directly's photo, but you absolutely won't believe who these guys are. I will let you ponder for a while, then I will post their names.

Front right is David Thelwis

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Front right is David Thelwis

Nice try, Grasshopper, but it is actually.....wait for it





Charles Comiskey!!!!

Notice that the man in my cabinet photo is clearly looking in EXACTLY the same direction as Charles Comiskey on the right. What are the odds?

And there won't be any 'ear' arguments with this guy.

The nose? Clearly a nose is going to begin drooping as the years pass. My calculations show that the amount of elongation of Comiskey's nose is absolutely perfect for his age.

[Nashvol]

Looks like the manager was one second short in getting the bunny ears up on the player sitting in front of him...

[cubsfan-budman]

One guy has a hat. The other guy has no hat.

Can't be the same guy.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Guys, I know you are busy analyzing the studs in Directly's photo, but you absolutely won't believe who these guys are. I will let you ponder for a while, then I will post their names.

I have no idea. But I really want to know the identity of the perhaps now "missing" member of the team who got all of them with the old "look I cut your tie instead of doing a magic trick" gag.

Steve B

[granite75]

Back middle is Herman Munster

[Lordstan]

Finally! I am so glad that you will stop posting on this.
To present the facts, I will summarize.
First, there is nothing, and I do mean nothing , in that photo to suggest it is from Dubuque. Even more obvious is that there is nothing to suggest the players pictured are all on the same team. These facts make all your timeline points about who lived where and when totally meaningless with regard to this photo.
Second is that the facial features don't match Comiskey. This is not only my opinion. This fact has been proven by the person considered the foremost expert on facial identification. Apparently in your house research means polling 15 women and having them agree. I wouldn't bring Missouri into it as I am sure there are many people there, outside of your home, that realize what real research looks like. The entire world calls what you have done with this photo stupidity.
Please notice that I didn't call you stupid. I am calling your entire thought process, rationale, and refusal to accept the facts stupid.
Good bye. I can't wait for the SABR article that will shine a light on what this photo is and is not.

[Directly]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Finally! I am so glad that you will stop posting on this.
To present the facts, I will summarize.
First, there is nothing, and I do mean nothing , in that photo to suggest it is from Dubuque. Even more obvious is that there is nothing to suggest the players pictured are all on the same team. These facts make all your timeline points about who lived where and when totally meaningless with regard to this photo.
Second is that the facial features don't match Comiskey. This is not only my opinion. This fact has been proven by the person considered the foremost expert on facial identification. Apparently in your house research means polling 15 women and having them agree. I wouldn't bring Missouri into it as I am sure there are many people there, outside of your home, that realize what real research looks like. The entire world calls what you have done with this photo stupidity.
Please notice that I didn't call you stupid. I am calling your entire thought process, rationale, and refusal to accept the facts stupid.
Good bye. I can't wait for the SABR article that will shine a light on what this photo is and is not.

Here he goes again--the loose cannon who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, you would think he owns the photo?-- OK Sir; Why don't you think the photo isn't from Dubuque?

Second I see nine players in a baseball uniform, so I guess you see a couple football or may be tennis players--does this guy know what a baseball team looks like?

Third--another expert told me the contrary--I sure wouldn't want your opinion one whom doesn't seem know what a baseball team looks like?--

If the entire hobby world is watching. about time--I have been asking for this 25 years.---What if I'm right?

[sayhey24]

Quote from directly/evajoy91 at 8:10:
"I'm happy-, but for the record not one time have I mocked, insulted, or name called anyone."

At 9:32 he calls Mark V. a loose cannon and insults and mocks him.

That didn't last long!

Greg

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Directly

Here he goes again--the loose cannon who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, you would think he owns the photo?-- OK Sir; Why don't you think the photo isn't from Dubuque?

Second I see nine players in a baseball uniform, so I guess you see a couple football or may be tennis players--does this guy know what a baseball team looks like?

Third--another expert told me the contrary--I sure wouldn't want your opinion one whom doesn't seem know what a baseball team looks like?--

If the entire hobby world is watching. about time--I have been asking for this 25 years.---What if I'm right?

Wow.
I don't know what I'm talking about! Really?
Let's get this straight, it is your responsibility to prove your facts to be true, not the other way around.

First, there is nothing in the photo that says Dubuque. There is no name of any city in the photo, so you stating the photo is from Dubuque is wishful thinking, not fact. Where is your proof that it is from Dubuque?

Second, I never said they aren't baseball players. I said that there is no proof that they are all part of one team. Perhaps you are unaware that baseball players on the same team wear the same uniform. I see players wearing at least 3 different uniforms. This would suggest to most people who are both familiar with sports and who have the ability to think that these players are on different teams. So to refer to Dave Grob's information on contextual probability, if they aren't all on the same team, as you believe, then it isn't the Dubuque Rabbits. If it isn't the Dubuque Rabbits then why would Comiskey be in it? The answer is that it is very unlikely.

Third. I stated that it was not only my opinion, but it was proven by the foremost expert in facial recognition in our area of interest. He is not just some random guy off the street. I formed my opinion based upon the FACTS he presented. We have asked previously who your "expert" is. You have yet to tell us, so for all we know he or she doesn't exist.

Now, If you combine the low contextual probably with the lack of facial similarity, it becomes obvious that it isn't him. This really shouldn't be that hard for you to follow.

What if I am right? Did you really just ask that?
You obviously need to work on your reading comprehension. It is true that a good amount of the most involved and passionate baseball history hobbyists will very likely read the article. It should also be quite obvious, if you had been paying attention, that the article will be written by Mark(Bmarlowe1), you know, the expert to whom I keep referring. Considering that he has been the person who has presented the facts, in this and the other thread, that that have proven the player's facial characteristics don't match Comiskey, I think I am pretty safe saying that you will be proven wrong.

[GoCubsGo32]

Originally Posted by Directly

If the entire hobby world is watching. about time--I have been asking for this 25 years.---What if I'm right?

What if you are right? We wish you were right.I think you are missing that part.We would love for that young man to be Comiskey. It would be an amazing historical artifact. Unfortunately..it is not. It is not Comiskey. Sorry man.

I would be careful calling out some of these board members.When they are trying to help YOU out for with their expertise advise. You should be grateful that there are board members on here that would share their advice for free to help people out.

I'm always open for a healthy debate and think it's a great thing to have.However, you have to present strong evidence to prove your side. In all your posts...you have not even come close.

Several expert members have answered your question(s) about your photo. Since I'm not in agreement with your logic or opinion. You can call me a "loose cannon" too...I guess OR a member of NET54 who's just trying to help out.Cause everyone who's here.. just trying to help you out.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Directly

Third--another expert told me the contrary--

Who is this expert and why is he hiding? What is he afraid of?

And why won't you (or your "expert") respond to post #97? In a few words it makes a good case that you have no competence in any of this. I'll repeat it here for your convenience:
So - what happened to all the other names you had for such a long time on your photo? On 9-25 you changed Rowe to Laurie Reis and Cliff Carroll to Alveretta. I thought you stand by your "insight without reservation." And now, you've taken all the names away except Comiskey. If you won't stand by your previous IDs, why should anyone think you have any idea how to ID Comiskey?

It's a simple question. Apparently you (and your expert) have no answer. Your silence speaks volumes.