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

[Directly]

Later I will compare Loftus and Carroll--that would make five Northwestern baseball players---until!--

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Directly

Just recently on 60 minutes they interviewed the soldier that killed the most wanted man in the world. The soldier said he was trained with photographs to study the facial features to identify his target. He went on to say when he confronted the man in Pakistan, BL appearance had changed, he had changed his beard,etc--There was only one facial feature that CONFIRMED his man--do you know what it was???---

You are masterful at providing "evidence" that could only be even vaguely described as somewhat circumstancial.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Directly

Later I will compare Loftus and Carroll--that would make five Northwestern baseball players---until!--

Can't wait. Just keep on plodding along with your blinders up and your fingers in your ears.

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by Directly

Next lets discuss the Radbourn comparison--unfortunately the hat hides the hair-line.

Just recently on 60 minutes they interviewed the soldier that killed the most wanted man in the world. The soldier said he was trained with photographs to study the facial features to identify his target. He went on to say when he confronted the man in Pakistan, BL appearance had changed, he had changed his beard,etc--There was only one facial feature that CONFIRMED his man--do you know what it was???---

I'm not sure what this obsession is with hairlines, since that's a feature that changes over time. But since hair was mentioned, notice how the hair in the fake Radbourn is a medium shade, leaning toward light, while the hair that can be seen in the photo of the real Radbourn is jet black (although the photo quality is poor). In a recent post in another thread here in the memorabilia section, artist Graig Kreindler also portrays Radbourn with black hair, and I believe he bases his paintings on period photographs.

Greg

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Directly

Next lets discuss the Radbourn comparison--unfortunately the hat hides the hair-line.

Just recently on 60 minutes they interviewed the soldier that killed the most wanted man in the world. The soldier said he was trained with photographs to study the facial features to identify his target. He went on to say when he confronted the man in Pakistan, BL appearance had changed, he had changed his beard,etc--There was only one facial feature that CONFIRMED his man--do you know what it was???---

The only way to identify a Radbourn photo is by his middle finger.

[Runscott]

Who needs hairline analysis? I'm fairly sure that you could use simple algebra to prove that Radbourn's grandson is Comiskey’s grandfather and that Comiskey is the ghost of his own father.

(they used to do this all the time)

[ctownboy]

If the OP continues at this rate, he will also find Pud Galvin, Willie Keeler, John Clarkson and King Kelly in the photo.....

In my opinion, I think two things should now happen:

1) The OP should stop with his sales pitches here and just see if any major auction house will accept this piece.

2) Everybody should just stop responding to whatever the OP writes. It is obvious the OP wont listen to anything people are saying and just "KNOWS" what he has is real and has Comiskey in it. So lets just stop wasting our time with him and let him continue down the Cobb/Edwards road....

David

[bmarlowe1]

Comparing the "Dubuque" player claimed to be Radbourne c1879 (left) to the real Radbourn in 1882 (right), we can see how far delusion can carry a photo owner.

The exposure on this thread will hopefully make this item very hard to sell.

One major auction house has already rejected it.

[ctownboy]

Bmarlowe1,

"One major auction house has already rejected it.".

That is my point. If the OP is wanting to sell this piece and REALLY thought Comiskey was in the picture, he wouldn't be spending so much time on this board trying to convince us Comiskey was in the picture but would, instead, be spending that time talking to different auction houses seeing what the best deal on consignment fees he could get.

Since he wasn't doing that, I came to the conclusion that he had already been rejected by an auction house and was on here fishing to see if he could come up with a person who had experience in this area of photo identification to back him up. Once he had that, I assumed he would disappear.

David

[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.

[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 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.

[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?

[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]

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

[springpin]

Leon,

How much money would each member have to pay the board to make this thread stop? There is nothing of redeeming value about it anymore. Please?

[perezfan]

Agree...

Please put us out of this misery, and lock it. I was hoping that we as a group could resist the urge to respond to this nonsense. But apparently the urge to set the OP straight was too overwhelming...

It's time to say sayonara...

[slidekellyslide]

There's nothing in this thread that warrants it being locked. No name calling, no nastiness. While we all may agree there is nothing to debate here and Directly hasn't exactly given us any real facts it's an on topic post.

[perezfan]

It may be "on topic", but what exactly is the topic?

1. Dimentia
2. Derangement
3. Denial
4. Blindness
5. Stupidity
6. Greed
7. Wishful Thinking
8. All of the above

Any subject matter involving baseball players would rank behind those topics, IMHO

[bmarlowe1]

I am sympathetic to the sentiments recently posted, though I think in the end Dan is right.

The the responses to Tom (AKA Directly) continue perhaps due to a concern is that in the future someone might read the first post of the thread and then perhaps jump to a final post or series of posts on the thread by Tom that were not responded to, and then think the photo may be good. Perhaps we shouldn't worry about someone being that stupid.

[Directly]

The prosecution for the record has admitted my player resembles Comiskey. If there is any probability, then what? We should add into the formula all the facts-for a non-bias evaluation, correct. So with all the facts, there is a very high probability my player is indeed the 19 year old Charles Comiskey.

If the audience will please review this entire forum and read between the lines I have been called, deceiving, out of my mind, bogus, ridicules, fake, in so many words a crook, etc, etc, etc-+++ (WHY?) -even my grammar, really composition got something to do with the facts--it appears some are trying every angle of demeanor to try to convince the jury I'm wrong, and they were correct with a inaccurate evaluation. Even years ago, before they took into account all the facts. Then to go as far in writing I had consigned my Comiskey photograph, which was not true or factual .

Its been posted and confirmed any expert can make a mistake, that's comforting.

Sorry, comparing the facts and his facial features. I win.

[Directly]

Thanks Slidekellyslide I appreciate you comment.

I'm just presenting facts, nothing more nothing less. This is still American right? Where collectors can have the right to a public forum to discuss their opinions be right are wrong.

Please calm down and relax, why all the name calling and yelling asking to shut down a important forum just because someone disagrees with another's opinion. I am rather disappointed the facts aren't relevant but its understandable its extremely tough to swallow my 1879 Comiskey photo exist.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Directly

The prosecution for the record has admitted my player resembles Comiskey.

That would me me, For the record I said, "This is a classic case of someone finding a 19thC baseball photo with someone who vaguely resembles a well-known figure…..I have no doubt that to you they look alike. However, with all due respect, that means very little when the ear shapes are grossly different.

I don't care about your grammar. Other posters are hard on you mainly because what you have posted shows that you are completely unable to comprehend and respond to simple logical arguments, and your "thinking" on this issue is representative of problems that have plagued the hobby for a long time.

As for the auction house, you definitely submitted your photo to a major auction house in 2011 with the Comiskey claim. They did not accept the claim.

[Lordstan]

Tom,
The reason you have been described in that way is because you are either unwilling or unable to see the facts that have been laid before you. What is happening here is that you have been informed by every single person who responded to your post, that it isn't Comiskey. In multiple posts, we have presented unrefutable evidence that this isn't Comiskey. Still you refuse to believe, and have hung onto the idea that the kid may slightly resemble Comiskey combined with a whole bunch of circumstances that aren't even known to be factually true. I'm sorry guy, but that isn't evidence.

One more time let me help you understand the correct way to analyze this information...
It doesn't matter that you think they have a couple features in common.
It doesn't matter that Comiskey was in Dubuque in 1879 and possibly knew the photographer.
It doesn't matter that the pic came from St Louis and some players on the Dubuque team wound up in St Louis. This is your wild assumption and not in any way a provable fact.
Even if all your assumptions were shown to be true, it still wouldn't matter.

WHY?

None of the above matters because the ears don't match.

Why is this important?

The ears are a facial feature that don't change as we age. Therefore, if they are clearly visible, ear shape comparison can be used with virtually 100% accuracy to match photos of people. In your picture, the ears of the kid in question don't match the ears of Charles Comiskey in pictures that we know for sure are him.
The reality is that you could have a thousand other pieces of circumstance that you feel somehow ties Comiskey to this picture, but the kid's ears still won't match. FACT: If the ears don't match it isn't him.

Why am I frustrated? I am ticked because you come on here asking for help. You get answers you don't like and then either ignore them or attempt to invalidate them. You go from "experts aren't always right" to then suggesting that we, as a group, are somehow attempting to purposefully deny the photo's significance. When someone tells me that I don't know what I am doing or that I am lying, I do tend to take it a little personally.
Pretty much, all of the people who responded to you have many years of hobby experience. Many with photograph expertise. BMarlowe1, Mark, is one of, if not "THE" foremost picture identification expert in the entire hobby. If you had read previous threads on this forum, you will see that we are very supportive of individuals who make great "finds." No one here has any desire to disprove something that is real. Can an expert be incorrect? Sure. Being you like to quote about odds so much...What are the odds that when they all agree, they are all wrong together? Astronomical.

You obviously want this picture to be Comiskey, for financial and perhaps other reasons. No matter how hard you try it isn't and won't ever be him.

One last thing.
This is America.
This is not a public forum. It is a private forum. You had to apply to join. Neither you nor I have the "right" to post on this forum. We have the privilege to post our opinions on this forum. (To the Owners/Mods TYVM, BTW). The owners of this forum get to decide what is acceptable and what isn't.

Mark,
Your analysis hit the nail on the head. I asked Dan/Leon to close it so hopefully someone sometime wouldn't do exactly what you stated. We see his responses and assume he can't be this dense, so he must be attempting to defraud. I think policing the hobby is something most serious collectors are concerned about.

Dan,
I understand. I know locking threads is something you guys hate to do. This entire discussion just frustrates me.

[Directly]

I'm not the new kid on the block either. Before selling my retail building location in 2006 I was a SportsNet member and later DealerNetB2B. Many of those past contacts are probably gone, but If anyone out there is reading this topic-HELLO AGAIN!

Vaguely looks like Comiskey--PLease---any true baseball photo collector should know better--I own the photo and I am starting to believe thats the problem--is it?

Sorry--just another error who told you ears won't change with age?--Fact: Time will tend to cause our faces to change and the ears to droop, its call gravity.

The ear scenario presented as comparisons in my opinion is extremely so close, not to be conclusive at all. If I offended anyone due to this opinion, I'm sorry!

I hope the keepers of the NET54 forum monitor this topic and see my presentation as being in good taste, in a fair and dignified manner, constructive, informative and educational.----Thanks!

[Runscott]

Mark is our resident expert in facial recognition. You've lost him completely, and we all agree with him.

Strike 3. Go back to the dugout.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Directly

Sorry--just another error who told you ears won't change with age?--Fact: Time will tend to cause our faces to change and the ears to droop, its call gravity

Earlobes can droop with age - this typically becomes evident around age 70. This is almost never seen when comparing faces of men of ball playing age.The faces in post 3 were sufficiently young so that age droop would not be a factor. In any case, droop would not explain the obvious difference in shape in this case.

[Directly]

I have presented only the facts. If there is such a thing as destiny and I was allowed to find the photo, I can't answer this, if so I will do to my best to protect the photograph for the future generations.I will keep all the documentation with the photo so hopefully it will never be lost again for the time someone much better qualified and deserving than me to be its keeper. -I attached the 1910 photo of Comiskey looking out over his new baseball stadium! Please just take one last look, and thanks again!

Important note:--By the way this is the first scan of the original ever posted or released and its just at 12 megapixels--so is this a professional high res scan--please!!

Last final note for the record: The local Baseball team during the time my photograph was made were named the Dubuque Rabbits.--

I will be addressing my photo with a professional facial expert for a second opinion--.-one should always get a second professional opinion with a photo of this magnitude, don't you agree?--if its permissiable to the forum I may post their conclusion?--the conclusion either way could be a extremely interesting article ---

Comiskey was named the Old Roman--do you know why?--



--

I'm over 50 and I won't be put out to pasture--not just yet!--