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

Econteachert205 · #1 10-12-2014, 07:26 PM

So just to continue to play along (why not), comiskey is listed as 6 ft tall. Using some simple measurements the seated player purported to be comiskey measures about as tall as the average of the players standing in the back row. I would say it is very doubtful those players in the back row get to 6 ft tall, which given their approximate height to each other, they roughly all would. Very unlikely in 1880.

parker1b2 · #2 10-12-2014, 07:29 PM

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

TimCarrollArt · #3 10-12-2014, 07:37 PM

No matter how many times you call a dog a duck......it is still a dog.

Tim

frankbmd · #4 10-12-2014, 08:53 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 10-13-2014, 01:02 AM

Quote:

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 · #6 10-13-2014, 07:26 AM

Quote:

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 · #7 10-13-2014, 10:37 AM

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 · #8 10-13-2014, 10:39 AM

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

Runscott · #9 10-13-2014, 11:44 AM

Quote:

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 · #10 10-13-2014, 02:25 PM

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 · #11 10-13-2014, 09:11 PM

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!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hiding in Plain Sight	JollyElm	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	15	01-05-2014 12:49 PM
Topps is just plain strange.	steve B	Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present)	2	03-20-2013 09:09 AM
At the first pole ...... its REA's T210 Jackson by a nose at	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	04-11-2006 07:05 PM
Pete needs to wipe his nose better	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	0	08-22-2004 10:30 PM
Sometimes ebay sellers are just plain dumb	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	8	04-10-2003 05:12 PM