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

[bmarlowe1]

Some actual arguments were made, so I'll concur with what Lordstan said and specifically respond.

Directly: If there is going to be a study of any antique portrait photo and one wants to compare the ear and stop because one ear may not appear to be a perfect fit when matching against another photo, is this a logical concept [?]

I did not say your guy is not Comiskey because the ear is "not a perfect fit", I said he is not Comiskey because the ear is obviously grossly different in shape - not even remotely close.

Directly: The Ear discussion is fine, but what about a overall point system.

An "overall point system" is just something you made up. I prefer to listen to forensic experts. When the ear is grossly different, any other "points" you may have don't matter. There appear to be other significant differences - the nose, your guy probably had blue eyes, etc., but in your photo the ear difference is by far the easiest feature to see with certainty for comparison purposes and alone is enough to show that your guy is not Comiskey.

Directly: Comparing two photos made around the same time...

Ear shape is the most stable thing to compare. It stays virtually the same from about age 8 until the 60's. Ear changes are rarely visible in a photo until old age.

Directly: Shouldn't any photo comparison theory greatly depend on each of a photo's factors--lighting, head positions, clarity, line of sight,...

In the 2 photos below, the line of sight (i.e. head positions relative to the plane of the camera) are nearly the same (frontal view with very slight turn to the viewer's left). The ears being compared are not in significant shadow. The shape of the left outer ear (viewer's right) is easy to see even in Directly's grainy photo.

[Econteachert205]

It's not even close.

[FourStrikes]

.