Hake's Auction #214 Now Online Negro & Cuban League Rarities, MLB Stars & Much More

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

See item 889
http://www.hakes.com/item.asp?Auction=214&ItemNo=141400

The description says, "The prominent figure on this item is James Leslie Wilkinson who stands at center of the back row wearing suit and hat"

Unfortunately they continue to perpetuate the myth that the man below right is J. L. Wilkinson. He is not. The real Wilkinson c1910 appears below left.

Do you have any idea where the myth started, Mark? From a layperson's view I can see some similarities, but I will leave it to you guys that do this stuff all of the time for the best id. At the price the postcard is at right now, it's not that bad of a buy as a completely generic, old and interesting baseball team...

[bmarlowe1]

Leon - I sometimes do find out where these things start, but in this case I don't know. It's usually either wishful thinking or someone wanting to make a few extra bucks (or some of both). I agree it's still a nice item. As for price, I'm not an expert on that.

The real Wilkinson had almost no cupids bow at the bottom of his philtrum. The guy in question has a deep and very distinct cupids bow. Also the left (viewer's right) ear and nose do not look right.

I've included another c1910 image of Wilkinson below left. When you have photos of the same person, it's usually obvious right away and you don't have to look too hard for similarities.

I should add that I had contacted them privately about this and received no response.

[GoldenAge50s]

Hake's seems very reluctant to change once they list something.

A few auctions ago they had mis-identified a couple of players on some '50's gum machine charms & had no identities on a couple of others.

I wrote a nice EM, told them I had been studying & collecting these charms since childhood, corrected the ID's for them and received a reply that they appreciated my info & would indeed correct the listing.

They never did.

[FirstYearCards]

Instead of trying to prove who it isn't, is it possible to prove who it is?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by FirstYearCards

Instead of trying to prove who it isn't, is it possible to prove who it is?

What's important is that it is claimed to be an early image of a HoFer, which it is not. Why should one have to first or instead prove who it is?

In any case, go ahead.

[Huysmans]

There's some great items.

[FirstYearCards]

In full disclosure I do own one of these cards. That being said, I couldn't care less about proving or disproving the man's identity. However, if auction houses and grading companies say it is while Mark says it isn't, I should think a little more research into who the man is should be added to claims that most people/companies have it wrong.