Getting the Record Straight Shoeless Joe Jackson Military service

[bmarlowe1]

Josh - Glad to hear it.

[the-illini]

While you are correcting things, this is not an N173 Old Judge cabinet, despite what the SGC flip says...

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=77141

Chris Bland

[the-illini]

I would also question how this was determined to be Amos Rusie....

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=77112

Chris Bland

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by the-illini

I would also question how this was determined to be Amos Rusie....

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=77112

Chris Bland

Chris,
Who knows.
This photo was discussed here.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ght=amos+rusie

It's difficult to tell from the photo who it is. The only thing identifying Rusie is the writing on the back that had to be put on in after the late 70's as that is when he was elected to the HOF.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Chris,
Who knows.
This photo was discussed here.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ght=amos+rusie

It's difficult to tell from the photo who it is. The only thing identifying Rusie is the writing on the back that had to be put on in after the late 70's as that is when he was elected to the HOF.

Surprise, surprise - another EVAJOY91 mystery photo.

[Nashvol]

Not sure if this is from a Net54 board member, but this post was on Twitter (@ToddRadem) earlier this afternoon regarding the subject matter at hand:

"Another clue that it's modern? Inch marks as opposed to true quote marks. Done on a computer, not composed in metal type"

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Nashvol

Not sure if this is from a Net54 board member, but this post was on Twitter (@ToddRadem) earlier this afternoon regarding the subject matter at hand:

"Another clue that it's modern? Inch marks as opposed to true quote marks. Done on a computer, not composed in metal type"

I assume, he is referring to the Jackson broadside. Correct?
If so, I would've never thought of that. Wow. Another research fact to put in the memory banks. The depth of knowledge of this board always amazes me.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the-illini

While you are correcting things, this is not an N173 Old Judge cabinet, despite what the SGC flip says...

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=77141

Chris Bland

As I said earlier, I'm surprised AH's don't hire someone with broad vintage experience to go over items before publishing.

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by Runscott

As I said earlier, I'm surprised AH's don't hire someone with broad vintage experience to go over items before publishing.

This is an interesting point. I don't have the requisite knowledge to join but it would be interesting to have a select group of forum members view privately created threads by auction houses here for a charge. Per diem outside consulting on questionable items.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

This is an interesting point. I don't have the requisite knowledge to join but it would be interesting to have a select group of forum members view privately created threads by auction houses here for a charge. Per diem outside consulting on questionable items.

Dennis, it really only takes one person with broad knowledge (not necessarily 'expert' knowledge), who can sniff a rotten egg. This person smells a rat and passes it on to an expert, who then determines it's not the real deal...or it is. But if such a person were on board, they would have questioned this one, run it by a facial recognition expert like Mark, or a Jackson expert such as BlackBetsy, and they would have saved the AH some embarrassment.

Same for the 'Fleetwood Moses' photo - that one was even more ludicrous.

Another example - 10-12 years ago I acquired a town ball uniform with cap. I sold the set to a guy on ebay, who then consigned the cap only, through a major AH, as a game-used Cleveland Indians or Chicago White Sox cap (I forget which). I ratted them out and they took the item down, but this new job role I've described would have said "Hey, what provenance do you have?" and when there was none that was credible, they could have gone to someone in the vintage uniform collecting area and it wouldn't have taken 3-4 emails for me to end up finding out about it...before the AH embarrassed themselves.

[Econteachert205]

I agree but there are a lot of different kind of experts here, like autos jerseys ojs, so the right person isn't always the same person. Part of what makes this place amazing.

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by Runscott

As I said earlier, I'm surprised AH's don't hire someone with broad vintage experience to go over items before publishing.

This isn't the first time SGC got a cabinet wrong that sold in Huggins and Scott:

http://dec09.hugginsandscott.com/cgi...l?itemid=16455

Chris Bland

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by the-illini

This isn't the first time SGC got a cabinet wrong that sold in Huggins and Scott:

http://dec09.hugginsandscott.com/cgi...l?itemid=16455

Chris Bland

They really need to switch over to the more reliable 15 women at a vase party method of photo identification.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Bicem

They really need to switch over to the more reliable 15 women at a vase party method of photo identification.

Damn, Jeff! Be careful. I almost spit out my beverage when I read that!

[Nashvol]

Mark, yes, I assume so. I should have said that, sorry.

Skip

[WillowGrove]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Damn, Jeff! Be careful. I almost spit out my beverage when I read that!

+1. Great thread.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Damn, Jeff! Be careful. I almost spit out my beverage when I read that!

Why don't we see if a late night show host will do a street poll - at least more random than 15 pottery collecting women. We could develop criteria like if 6 out of 10 agree then it must be true!?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by the-illini

While you are correcting things, this is not an N173 Old Judge cabinet, despite what the SGC flip says...

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=77141

Chris Bland

And it's more likely that "Pugg" or possibly "Rugg" is not a tobacco plant but a photographer.

Steve B

[Directly]

I would enjoy replying to this post with my opinion what I call the Ear-thing. I thought it might be better to first ask to allow a heads-up because each time I have a different point of view, insight or even think outside the box, it infuriates a few, and that's not my objective but politely in good taste my goal is to debunk the Ear-thing theory being the 100 percent gospel, I might want to start a new thread--??

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Directly

I would enjoy replying to this post with my opinion what I call the Ear-thing. I thought it might be better to first ask to allow a heads-up because each time I have a different point of view, insight or even think outside the box, it infuriates a few, and that's not my objective but politely in good taste my goal is to debunk the Ear-thing theory being the 100 percent gospel, I might want to start a new thread--??

Oh, this should be good.

Yes, please do start a new thread. Let's not hide your insight at the end of this dying one.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Directly

I would enjoy replying to this post with my opinion what I call the Ear-thing...my goal is to debunk the Ear-thing theory being the 100 percent gospel, I might want to start a new thread--??

It's funny, the OP really did remind me of Directly. Anyway, if he wishes has can try to debunk the following;

From “Foresnsic Art and Illustration,” Chapter 9, CRC Press, 2000, K. T. Taylor (available on Amazon.com):
When comparing faces [in photos], Bertillon placed particular importance on the configurations of the structures within the profile ear. His approach is still valid today. I have often referred to Bertillon’s suggestions, relying on ears for reliable comparisons. Figure 9.1 shows an early photo-to-photo comparison by Bertillon in which the structure of the ears revealed the identity of a man, although his appearance has changed considerably over a 7-year interval.

From “Ear Biometrics,” H. K. Lammi, Lappeenrenta University, Information Processing Lab, Lappeenranta, Finalnd:
Basically the human ear shape is the same during the whole life and the growth is proportional. However, the gravity can cause ear stretching. The [rate of] stretching is about five times greater...after about [age] 70.

From “Photo Fakery,” D. A. Brugioni, Founder of the CIA Photo Interpretation Center, Brassey Press, 1999:
In discussing the detection of a fake photo of Mao, he states, “The ears gave the double away…Police and investigative units frequently use the physical characteristics of the ear…By carefully matching the differences become very apparent…In advanced age, the lobe will usually lengthen.

[Econteachert205]

I'd like to debunk this gravity, science and math thing while we're at it.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Directly

I would enjoy replying to this post with my opinion what I call the Ear-thing. I thought it might be better to first ask to allow a heads-up because each time I have a different point of view, insight or even think outside the box, it infuriates a few, and that's not my objective but politely in good taste my goal is to debunk the Ear-thing theory being the 100 percent gospel, I might want to start a new thread--??

There is not much in this world that is 100 percent gospel. Old, b&w, grainy images being compared at different angles and different sizes is no exception. I do believe, however, that ears compared side by side of the same person/different images(if they are clear and concise comparisons) is pretty damn scientific though. The key is getting the correct/clear comparisons imo. I would love to hear what you have to say in another thread actually and I am sure it will provide net54 with a lot of hits.
I can guarantee you one this is for sure.. no F N way this is the same guy.

[FourStrikes]

+1000

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I can guarantee you one this is for sure.. no F N way this is the same guy.

Now that's a classic, Ben!!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

There is not much in this world that is 100 percent gospel. Old, b&w, grainy images being compared at different angles and different sizes is no exception. I do agree that ears compared side by side of the same person/different images(if they can be clearly compared) is pretty damn scientific though. The key, is getting the correct/clear comparisons imo. I would love to hear what you have to say in another thread actually and I am sure it will provide net54 with a lot of hits.
I can guarantee you one this is for sure.. no F N way this is the same guy.

That's the same guy you just got a picture of the before and after Tyson fight.

[CW]

Ben, that is hilarious!

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

The key is getting the correct/clear comparisons imo. I would love to hear what you have to say in another thread...

Ben - You can see what he had to say here: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163481 If you see anything rational, let me know. Be sure not to miss posts 37 and 50.

He claimed and apparently still believes that these two are the same person. It's more than clear enough to see what we need to see.

[jerseygary]

Wow, I thought you were joking with the 2 pics of that supposed "match" until I went back and read the thread you linked to it. You could tell by the uniforms alone that was a dubious "match" but the whole ear thing takes that into a new realm of impossibilities.

Some sly picker or shady wholeseller must have a stack of these nameless 19th century team pictures and gleefully unloads them on romantic wishful thinkers, then sits back and watches the chaos ensue as he counts his Benjamins.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Ben - You can see what he had to say here: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163481 If you see anything rational, let me know. Be sure not to miss posts 37 and 50.

He claimed and apparently still believes that these two are the same person. It's more than clear enough to see what we need to see.

Uhhhh.... Yeah. I would say that this one in particular is gospel.