Any Idea of Why This Went So Cheaply?

[oldjudge]

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=16455

http://www.hickoksports.com/images/radbourn_charles.jpg

[slidekellyslide]

Is $1500 + juice for a cabinet of a guy who may or may not be Radbourn cheap?

[barrysloate]

I wasn't convinced it was Hoss Radbourne. Maybe Mark F. can comment further.

[Leon]

It might have been him, I am not a photo expert by any stretch, but it looks like another guy in a suit to me . Even if it is him!!

[bmarlowe1]

I doubt that it's him. I would need a higher res scan of the photo in question to prove it. If anyone has one - please post. Maybe the folks at Huggins and Scott will help us out.

[oldjudge]

Am I imagining it or are the noses entirely different?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

The other question is why did SGC authenticate it?

Mark - as you know, I recently submitted a team RPPC to SGC for slabbing with a notation of who was in it. Even knowing the player played for the team in the photo in the year of the photo and looked like the player in the photo and you confirmed the ID, they were very reluctant to slab it as such, until I provided them with further evidence. Unless I'm missing something, this seems to simply be a cabinet of a guy, with no reason to assume he's a baseball player; if they had the policies in place they were using for my submission when this one was submitted, I don't see any way this gets slabbed like that.

[bmarlowe1]

OK - I figured out how to see the H&G photo in Hi-res.

The left ears are similar (more so than I expected) - but they are different - it's not that hard to see. There are other differences (like the nose as pointed out above). The cabinet is not Radbourne.

And yes - why did SGC authenticate this?

[benjulmag]

"...while a reverse pencil notation, which confirms the hurler’s identity, factors into the technical assessment."

Such a pencil notation should never be used to confirm identity, only provide further support for what had already been determined. Years ago in the Copeland sale at Sotheby's there was a purported cabinet of Henry Chadwick, an ID confirmed by his alleged autograph on the verso. The image bore as much resemble to Chadwick as this one does to Radbourn (i.e., highly dubious) and needless to say it was later shown to not be him.

Absent further corroborating information not disclosed in the lot description, I think it was very irresponsible of Huggins & Scott to identify this image as being as being of Radbourn. And I think the low price is a reflection of the market's skeptism it is him.

[GaryPassamonte]

Mark,
I agree completely with you regarding the " Barnes " CdV. It is not Ross Barnes.

[oldjudge]

Mark did a great job proving this image not to be Radbourn. I'm not sure who sportscardtheory is, but I believe he should have looked at the evidence carefully before challenging Mark.
As for Huggins and Scott, as soon as it was pointed out that the image was not Radbourn they called and cancelled the sale. Well done guys!
This lot had been part of the Halper collection and apparently Barry believed it was Radbourn. Too bad he didn't have someone as sharp as Mark checking his items.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Mark did a great job proving this image not to be Radbourn. I'm not sure who sportscardtheory is, but I believe he should have looked at the evidence carefully before challenging Mark.
As for Huggins and Scott, as soon as it was pointed out that the image was not Radbourn they called and cancelled the sale. Well done guys!
This lot had been part of the Halper collection and apparently Barry believed it was Radbourn. Too bad he didn't have someone as sharp as Mark checking his items.

All I said was it looks like the same guy... not at all a challenge. I think you take yourself and this Mark dude a LITTLE too seriously.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

All I said was it looks like the same guy... not at all a challenge. I think you take yourself and this Mark dude a LITTLE too seriously.

That's not what you said. Your post omitted the "looks like" part. Your exact quote was: "That's the same person."


Had you said, "Gee, that looks like the same person.", then Mark's response would have been different.


And no, Net54 isn't some kind of "special club." Everyone can post, but you have to learn that some posters have special areas of expertise. In this case, Mark is well know and well respected in the field of vintage photo identification. (Although, I think he has a bit of an ear fetish. I'm just saying...) And you challenged him in his area of expertise.


You're not a new member, by any means, but you don't post often, so you have to recognize that this isn't your normal message board. The members here are ALL a little fanatical about something or other.

[JK]

Is it just my computer or did six pages of this thread just disappear?