Uh, postcard experts, a little help please......

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

...there is something in the jaw line and in the way he comports himself in the photo, as well as his size, that tells me it's Gandil.

The jaw lines don't match (yes I know you can't perceive that). And, "the way he comports himself" - what the heck does that mean? As to his size - what can you tell about his size unless you know the size of the players next to him? 3 strikes in one post - yer out!

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

The jaw lines don't match (yes I know you can't perceive that). And, "the way he comports himself" - what the heck does that mean? As to his size - what can you tell about his size unless you know the size of the players next to him? 3 strikes in one post - yer out!

I have asked you for your opinion and you insult me. Not good. As for being very bad at this, I have successfully identified in previous posts of items Roxy Walters:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...highlight=Roxy

Fritz Mollwitz:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...light=Mollwitz

Bill Carrigan, Ray Collins and Johnny Evers, although I miscounted and I'll give you credit for the proper counting in IDing Evers:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...light=Carrigan

Yeah, I really suck at this. An admission. Please note that I have not insulted you at any point in this post . I may be wrong on the Gandil, and you may disagree with me on the Waner, but it is Paul Waner.

[seablaster]

I think a poll on that Waner would prove most interesting.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by seablaster

I think a poll on that Waner would prove most interesting.

Feel free, Karthik. I have never minded being in the minority.

[bmarlowe1]

Brian - Any insult would have been in my first post -- at that point you didn't seem to take offense. The second post emphasized what I think was at best very fuzzy "thinking" as to your reasons for the Gandil ID. If you are offended by that I don't care.

Thanks for posting your facial ID resume. As a consultant on this particular subject (sometimes even paid) for major AH's, grading companies, Library of Congress, Boston Public Library, Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum to name a few (and even for non-baseball folks such as at the Harriet Beecher Stowe Museum), and having published literally a few hundred pages on the subject for SABR, I can tell you that people who have problems with this don't get them all wrong - they get a fair number of them right. The problem is that they can't tell the difference between when they get it right vs. when they are asserting an ID that is beyond ludicrous. Your Mollwitz ID was nicely done, but Your Gandil and Waner IDs are beyond ludicrous. If you are offended, I can live with that.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Any insult would have been in my first post -- at that point you didn't seem to take offense. The second post emphasized what I think was at best very fuzzy "thinking" as to your reasons for the Gandil ID. If you are offended by that I don't care.

Thanks for posting your facial ID resume. As a consultant on this particular subject (sometimes even paid) for major AH's, grading companies, Library of Congress, Boston Public Library, Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum to name a few (and even for non-baseball folks such as at the Harriet Beecher Stowe Museum), and having published literally a few hundred pages on the subject for SABR, I can tell you that people who have problems with this don't get them all wrong - they get a fair number of them right. The problem is that they can't tell the difference between when they get it right vs. when they are asserting an ID that is beyond ludicrous. Your Mollwitz ID was nicely done, but Your Gandil and Waner IDs are beyond ludicrous. If you are offended, I can live with that.

We agree to disagree on the Waner. As for the Gandil, I may be wrong. Still, on other fronts, even with all the care that can be taken, even the most studied and precise of men can be wrong. Not an insult, just an observation from experience.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

We agree to disagree on the Waner. As for the Gandil, I may be wrong. Still, on other fronts, even with all the care that can be taken, even the most studied and precise of men can be wrong. Not an insult, just an observation from experience.

So we trade study and precision for your gut feeling which you can't support in a clear manner? That's OK for religion, but not for this.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

So we trade study and precision for your gut feeling which you can't support in a clear manner? That's OK for religion, but not for this.

Well, I'm not a religious man, but I dated the minister's daughter. That said, I have noted before and will note again that I have seen hundreds of Paul Waner photos over the last thirty plus years. It is Paul Waner. If you want to contradict that, it is your choice. By the way, one more thing to note is that Paul is pictured as a pitcher in the photo. Just like his father, Ora Lee, Paul was a star amateur pitcher. It was not until he was in the PCL that his manager, Dots Miller, a former Pirate and member of the 1909 World Series Champion Pittsburgh Pirates (gotta get in a prop for the home team) switched him to the outfield. Also, as you are aware from "The Glory of Their Times" that the reasons Waner became a major leaguer is that the scout, who was on his way to scout a player by the name of Flashkamper, went on a bender and ended up sitting down next to a conductor on a train who raved about Paul Waner. It didn't hurt Waner was dating the conductor's daughter at the time of the meeting. Interesting how a star pitcher turned out to be a 3,000 hitter with a lifetime .333 average.

[ramram]

Ok, if it ain't Chick, then we are back to square one. Who is Turd Furguson?

By comparison to Martin, he's around 6'-0" and 190ish

According to the notation on the back he played for the White Sox

There is no Furguson that shows up on the White Sox roster in that era

His hat appears to possibly be a White Sox hat

Looks to be in his later 20's / early 30's

There is no Furguson shown on the Quebec rosters

Uniform and player names likely place the photo around 1924

Mark can prove it's not Norm McDonald

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by ramram

...Mark can prove it's not Norm McDonald

The guy doesn't look Canadian to me, and over the years I've seen hundreds of photos of Canadians. So he can't be Norm McDonald

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by ramram

Ok, if it ain't Chick, then we are back to square one. Who is Turd Furguson?

By comparison to Martin, he's around 6'-0" and 190ish

According to the notation on the back he played for the White Sox

There is no Furguson that shows up on the White Sox roster in that era

His hat appears to possibly be a White Sox hat

Looks to be in his later 20's / early 30's

There is no Furguson shown on the Quebec rosters

Uniform and player names likely place the photo around 1924

Mark can prove it's not Norm McDonald

The reason I am stating that I could be wrong is that there is are a couple of important identifiers that neither I nor anyone can see and that is the eyes of the person, and the top part of his head, particularly the forehead. That does leave the comparison at a disadvantage. It is interesting that "White Sox" is listed on the back of the card, but it was as well for Martin and that may or may not be a mistake. That information, as well as a lot of the team information, is not available even with the links I posted.