Interesting info on REA lot 41 Four Base Hits card

[oldjudge]

Mark--not a composite, but a clear picture

[bmarlowe1]

OK - that's the same one I used above from SABR's 1984 The National Pastime. After magnification you see the printing dots. The only way to do better is to get a hi-res scan of the original.

[barrysloate]

It's kind of funny, because Bruce owned this card for around 35 years, and neither he nor anyone who saw it ever mentioned that the player didn't look like Van Haltren.

[RUKen]

It might be Dell Darling:

[Jacklitsch]

David suggested Sullivan. I don't think so.



Sullivan has his own Four Base Hits...not mine...

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by RUKen

It might be Dell Darling:

No - it's immediately obvious that it can't be Darling because the ear is grossly different and Darling's hairline has receded way too far. As I posted above, this person is NOT in the Chicago 1887-1888 teams composites and if he is a ball player he is not likely to be anyone you've ever heard of.

This is an open forum and it should be - so people can post what they want. So, I will post my opinion - With a all due respect, post's like Ruken's indicate that he has no idea how to do this. I don't plan to do a side-by-side for every wild guess someone throws out. If you think I'm wrong - please create your own side-by-side for your guess, and also please explain why the guy on the card isn't Moolic. That's just my opinion.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

It's kind of funny, because Bruce owned this card for around 35 years, and neither he nor anyone who saw it ever mentioned that the player didn't look like Van Haltren.

Barry - That is simply because the card said "Van Haltren." This distorted the perception of the observers. This is a common phenomenon and has certainly happened with other well-known photos. It is explained to the best of my ability on pages 1-2 of:
http://sabr.box.com/shared/static/10...092a683653.pdf

Please read it. Yeah - I know, it's the 2nd time I've posted the link on this thread, but I think it explains why this often happens.

[Peter_Spaeth]

People have seen the 52 Topps Mantle so many times, and it's so iconic, that they lose sight of the fact that if you look critically, it barely looks like him.

[oldjudge]

Peter--now that I look at it more closely, I think the image on the '52 Mantle is really Don Mossi

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

People have seen the 52 Topps Mantle so many times, and it's so iconic, that they lose sight of the fact that if you look critically, it barely looks like him.

...or that it isn't even his rookie

Actually I opened up the original type 1 photo sold in May 2012 Legendary auction and an image of the card and I think it a pretty decent artist rendition I the eye brows look a little close, but it really does look like the picture.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

...or that it isn't even his rookie

Actually I opened up the original type 1 photo sold in May 2012 Legendary auction and an image of the card and I think it a pretty decent artist rendition I the eye brows look a little close, but it really does look like the picture.

I have seen the photo and obviously the pose is similar but to me something got lost in the translation.

[buchner]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

It's kind of funny, because Bruce owned this card for around 35 years, and neither he nor anyone who saw it ever mentioned that the player didn't look like Van Haltren.

Barry...This card was known not to be Van Haltren back in 1983 and probably before. Lew Lipset noted this in his 1983 Encp. of BB cards, Vol. 1, 19th century page 58. As you know there are many errors in the set as mentioned, also the card of Daly is a photo of Sunday and Sunday's card is a pictured of Mark Baldwin, which you also probably know. My vote goes to Moolic as the Van Haltren. John

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by buchner

Barry...This card was known not to be Van Haltren back in 1983 and probably before. Lew Lipset noted this in his 1983 Encp. of BB cards, Vol. 1, 19th century page 58. As you know there are many errors in the set as mentioned, also the card of Daly is a photo of Sunday and Sunday's card is a pictured of Mark Baldwin, which you also probably know. My vote goes to Moolic as the Van Haltren. John

I never knew that it was already established that it wasn't Van Haltren. I don't think Bruce even knew it.