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

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by parker1b2

The photo looks like all the players are children or early teenagers, not men in their late teens or early 20s

Is it possible to have a 'stache if one isn't old enough to shave? Just wondering.

[Directly]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Is it possible to have a 'stache if one isn't old enough to shave? Just wondering.

Is this Bill Gleason he doesn't have a "stach" after 1887, so is Gleason even in the 1887 St Louis team photo, is Comiskey.

In my opinion if my Comiskey isn't Charles, then it his brother.

I can present a photo sold by Sotheby's in the description was listed it's was thought the player is so-n-so, etc.--Really???--by whom??

[RUKen]

Originally Posted by Directly

Is this Bill Gleason he doesn't have a "stach" after 1887, so is Gleason even in the 1887 St Louis team photo, is Comiskey. In my opinion if my Comiskey isn't Charles, then it his brother. I can present a photo sold by Sotheby's in the description was listed it's was thought the player is so-n-so, etc.--Really???--by whom??

No, actually the player in the cabinet card is Kid Gleason, who was a 21-year-old rookie with Philadelphia in 1888 and was not on the 1887 Browns.

The members of this board are well aware that auction houses have placed photos and other memorabilia up for bidding that have had unsupportable or just plain wrong identifications, and some of us (including myself) have contacted auction houses to explain why identifications are incorrect. In most cases, when presented with the evidence, the online descriptions of the items are changed to reflect the new information, and sometimes this results in items going unsold. No reputable auction house wants to sell something that is not what it is claimed to be, whether through fraud or honest mistake.

(This message was edited after posts on another thread indicated that many members will not contact an auction house regarding an incorrect ID, even if the correct ID devalues the item.)

[Lordstan]

Hmm. Perhaps you should educate yourself about baseball history instead of relying on Wikipedia.

The first card, which is the same photo you posted is William "Kid" Gleason. He was a pitcher who's career started a bit later than 1880. Unfortunately, someone posted that photo into Wikipedia as the other Bill Gleason.

William Gleason was a shortstop on multiple teams with Comiskey. He is the other 2 photos.

Perhaps you could address the questions that I and Mark raised.
1) How can you prove the photo is from Dubuque?
2) How can you prove that all the players in the picture are on the same team?
3) How can you get around the fact that major facial features, including the ears, don't match Comiskey?
4) Who is your expert and what facts are their opinion based on?
5) After being so sure of your player identification "without reservations," you are now backing off of the names of all the other players. Why now, should we believe that your Comiskey ID is correct?

And now, you are backing up again stating that if it isn't Charles, it is his brother. Do you have any proof of this or are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

[Lordstan]

Sorry. Photos didn't upload the first time. Here they are.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Directly

In my opinion if my Comiskey isn't Charles, then it his brother.

You are getting closer. If it's not his brother, then it is his friend. If it is not his friend, then it's another guy on the planet who lived in the same century.

You'll get there.

[Dave Grob]

Dear Tom,

You have failed to make a logically defendable and objective argument for your case. This has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with your assessment of the facial characteristic on the proffered Charles Comiskey. Assumptions are made when there are gaps in your factual information, but as more of the argument relies on assumptions, the weaker the argument is and less convincing it is likely to be.

FACT: Charles Comiskey played in Dubuque during the period of 1878-1881.

FACT: Charles Comiksey would have been 19-22 during this period.

Assumption: The person you have identified in the image is in fact Charles Comiskey.

Assumption: The person identified as Charles Comiskey is between 19-22.

Thus you are offering an argument that says since Comiskey played in Dubuque in 1878-1881, and was 19-21 during this frame, and I believe that the person identified as Charles Comiskey appears to have certain facial characteristics that feel are consistent with what I believe he looked like at this point in time and age, then this must be Charles Comiskey while in Dubuque during the time frame in question.

You can use assumptions to bridge information gaps, but you cannot use them as confirmations of other assumptions in order to establish facts. Facts must always stand on their own merit. Facts are also used to establish context or a nexus between various facets of information offered in an argument.
A much stronger argument would start with a fact that:

This photograph was taken in Dubuque during the period of 1871-1881. This can be substantiated by the photographer/studio information or the some other contemporary annotation.

Then there might be some logical progression to the inferences you make about the age and facial characteristics. Your theories on the pedigree of the image and the assumed travels of it from Dubuque to St. Louis are not relevant to the fact pattern since they do not objectively confirm the date or location of the point of origin of the photograph (when and where the picture was actually taken).

Dave Grob
DaveGrob1@aol.com

[Directly]

Runscott: sorry but thanks for wasting the space to this forum discussions.

Lordstan, thanks for your questions, sometimes our emotions can run high when different points of views are discussed, I appreciate your taking your time to express your thoughts!
#4--Sorry I will not disclose the names of the other people involved due to respect!
Comiskey's brother never played in Dubuque, I was being sarcastic and just repeating a statement of another person.

If you don't mind I really would like to understand Dave's interesting points of advise.

Dave what would help constitute the time of the photo's exposure to help substantiate the facts?---Thanks!

[Dto7]

"Have you no sense of Decency Sir?" - Welch-McCarthy

[Dave Grob]

Tom,

With no contemporary annotations or secondary information/data contained within the image itself, there is nothing that can be used as a factual point of reference to claim the image was one taken in Dubuque during the time frame in question. In short there is no factual contextual information to support the assumption that the person in the photo is Charles Comiskey based on a relationship to time and place. Assumptions cannot be used to create a supporting fact pattern by linking them through some assumptive symbiotic relationship.

By this I mean it is flawed logic to proffer:

“I assume this picture was taken in Dubuque during the 1878-1881 because I assume this Charles Comiskey; ergo because I assume this is Charles Comiskey during the 1878-1881 timeframe the photograph must have been taken in Dubuque.”

Your argument is therefore based on two assumptions:

1. That the image was taken in Dubuque during the time frame in question at the exclusion of all other possibilities.

2. That the person you have identified as being Charles Comiskey is in fact Charles Comiskey at the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Since there is no way to overcome either of these assumptions (establishing them as objective matters of fact), your position and theory as to who the player in question is and where/when this picture was taken will always remain a speculative theory.

This is a theory that others can agree with or not, but it is not one supported by logical and objectively defendable argument. Please know I offer this as someone who has actually taught critical thinking and reasoning as part of my professional background outside of the sports memorabilia field. I hope you will take these comments in the spirit in which they are being offered.

Dave Grob
DaveGrob1@aol.com

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Directly

Runscott: sorry but thanks for wasting the space to this forum discussions.

The mirror, Directly, the mirror.

[Directly]

Dave, thanks again for your valued input.

(Sorry I had cropped my Dubuque photo)

The baseball team Cabinet photograph is stamped "DUBUQUE"---"H.A. Jordan" "Artist"

#1) Fact: This establishes without question the location of the photo being Dubuque.

#2) H.A. Jordan -(Artist)-Dubuque Photographer (date range) Per research by the Center for Dubuque History. Loras College, Dubuque,Iowa

Quote: Director/Locas College, Dubuque Iowa: ---" Indeed the first listing of H.A. Jordan Photographer, appears for the first time in the 1881 Dubuque City Directory. We find his name in the city Directories up to and including 1890 when he disappears from the listings."
( Most business requires some start-up time, so its feasible the Jordan's Studio opened earlier?)

I might point out a five cent cigar would be expensive for most children.

The uniform question: I can only point out it appears Mr. Jordan high-lighted a "Star" on Reis's baseball hat. This to me is significant.

I still believe to have a very good case!--Thanks again!