An update: I present to you.....

[bmarlowe1]

> old jerseys

Here you are refering to the original thread where I argued that based on Waner's DOB, it would be unlikely that as a teenager he would be on a team wearing collared jerseys. I said that alone made it "unlikely" that Waner was in the photo - I never said that was conclusive.

> The ear argument is weak. Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet..

Yes your feet spread out because you stand on them for thousands of hours during your life - do you stand on your ears? Ears change little from young adolesence (or earlier) to about age 60 or 70 on average. This is in the scientific literature (I can email you some recent papers if you like) and has really been well-established for over a century. The ear growth that does occur (small fractions of a mm) is not perceptible in a photo and does not change the ear shape. This is especially applicable to humans of ball-playing age.The ear argument is THE argument that is accepted by forensic practitioners, auction houses, law-enforcement, museums, etc.

Even beyond age 70 - what you usually see is drooping earlobes (due to years of gravity pull) and the top of the ear may curl over a bit, but the basic ear shape stays the same and if one is careful you can compare an old man's ears to that of a teenager.

You have a habit of making things up out of thin air.

[Brian Van Horn]

Mark,

Argue all you want. It is Paul Waner. The identity has been confirmed by a relative. By the way, because of the jersey, I asked the person in the title of the e-mail if the person in the photo was Paul Waner or his father Ora Lee Waner. The response:

It is Paul Waner.

This person volunteered in a phone conversation with me as well that the family has numerous photos of the brothers prior to submitting the e-mail with an attachment of the photo in question. These other photos would cover all ages. Let's review.

There are only two gentlemen this could have been in the photo.

1.) Paul Waner
2.) Ora Lee Waner who was good enough as an amateur pitcher to be offered a contract by the Chicago White Sox. He declined the offer.

Who is the gentleman in the photo?

The answer:

Paul Waner.

[Tao_Moko]

As long as Brian owns it then it is Waner. Pretty certain it's that simple from what I read. So, nice Waner Brian. The jury is only important if it sold as Waner definitively.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

As long as Brian owns it then it is Waner. Pretty certain it's that simple from what I read. So, nice Waner Brian. The jury is only important if it sold as Waner definitively.

Tongue-in-cheek. Thank you.

[robertsmithnocure]

This would make an interesting poll. My vote would be that it is not Paul Waner.

I would think that it would be the differences in images that would be the tell-tale sign, not the similarities.

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Tongue-in-cheek. Thank you.

My point was that you are not attempting to raise its value for resale so no reason to get all twisted up over it. This hobby has mostly turned to sh*t because the joy of collecting has been overtaken by ear forensics and grading companies that are all flawed and riddled with human error and a lack of scientific controls that would not be accepted almost anywhere else. I don't remember 30 years ago bickering over qualifiers and ear lobe growth. Not sure why I came back and commented so I'll crawl back under my rock. Basically, enjoy the card for what it is to you and tell some kids about who Paul and his brother were.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

My point was that you are not attempting to raise its value for resale so no reason to get all twisted up over it. This hobby has mostly turned to sh*t because the joy of collecting has been overtaken by ear forensics and grading companies that are all flawed and riddled with human error and a lack of scientific controls that would not be accepted almost anywhere else. I don't remember 30 years ago bickering over qualifiers and ear lobe growth. Not sure why I came back and commented so I'll crawl back under my rock. Basically, enjoy the card for what it is to you and tell some kids about who Paul and his brother were.

Bravo!

Couldn't agree more. +1!

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

My point was that you are not attempting to raise its value for resale so no reason to get all twisted up over it. This hobby has mostly turned to sh*t because the joy of collecting has been overtaken by ear forensics and grading companies that are all flawed and riddled with human error and a lack of scientific controls that would not be accepted almost anywhere else. I don't remember 30 years ago bickering over qualifiers and ear lobe growth. Not sure why I came back and commented so I'll crawl back under my rock. Basically, enjoy the card for what it is to you and tell some kids about who Paul and his brother were.

What a kind and thoughtful response. I need to be more like this more often.

[RCMcKenzie]

I thought the guy in the front row, to the far left, looked a lot like Johnny Evers, but I'm really bad at i.d.'s. What I've learned, is that a lot of people look alike...Rob

[brianp-beme]

Eddie Collins went from angelic to creepy looking old guy over the course of his baseball card career.

Brian (not that this is relevant, but ears to you all anyhow)

[asoriano]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I thought the guy in the front row, to the far left, looked a lot like Johnny Evers, but I'm really bad at i.d.'s. What I've learned, is that a lot of people look alike...Rob

I thought it looked like a young Rube Marquard myself!

[Brian Van Horn]

Finally got around to this amusing, but false statement:

"You have a habit of making things up out of thin air."

You have a record of flat out being wrong.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

>> you have a record of flat out being wrong.


Like I said, you have a habit of making things up out of thin air.


>> The identity has been confirmed by a relative


That is false. You can only say that a relative thinks it is Waner. We know nothing about this relative and there is no reason to think his or her judgement is any better than that of anyone else, particularly given the easily discerned ear evidence for which you have yet to provide a sensible response.


Relatives are often wrong as to who is in an old photo.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> you have a record of flat out being wrong.


Like I said, you have a habit of making things up out of thin air.


>> The identity has been confirmed by a relative


That is false. You can only say that a relative thinks it is Waner. We know nothing about this relative and there is no reason to think his or her judgement is any better than that of anyone else.


Relatives are often wrong as to who is in an old photo.

So, a relative with a large inventory of photos of the family history is wrong. An inventory that would include pictures of Paul and Lloyd at all ages. A relative that discerned Paul from Ora Lee to clear away that possible argument of mistaken identity.

Excuse me for a moment.......

Bwahaha! Of course you will now make the hilarious argument I am making up the relative. No. I do not make up information out of thin air. The relative, who if they want to reveal their identity is up to them not me.

The relative's ID of Paul Waner flatly carries more weight than your argument. It is Paul Waner. Kindly deal with it.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

>> The relative's ID of Paul Waner flatly carries more weight than your argument.


It's not my argument, it's 100 years of forensic science for which you have yet to provide a response.


We all have access to many Waner photos. Why don't you request scans of the young Paul Waner photos upon which the relative based his opinion for us all to see? Would not it have been prudent to do that even before you started this thread so we all could see? or is it just easier for you to assume a relative can't be wrong because it suits your purpose? Is this relative any good at facial recognition - how can we know?

[bmarlowe1]

>>... I don't remember 30 years ago bickering over qualifiers and ear lobe growth


That's right, and there were a lot more mis-identified photos sold in the hobby. You think that was good?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> The relative's ID of Paul Waner flatly carries more weight than your argument.


It's not my argument, it's 100 years of forensic science for which you have yet to provide a response.


We all have access to many Waner photos. Why don't you request scans of the young Paul Waner photos upon which the relative based his opinion for us all to see? Would not it have been prudent to do that even before you started this thread so we all could see? or is it just easier for you to assume a relative can't be wrong because it suits your purpose? Is this relative any good at facial recognition - how can we know?

My response has already been given. Go back and review. The relative outweighs you in this matter. The photos on the end of the relative back it up.

[Bram99]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Yes your feet spread out because you stand on them for thousands of hours during your life - do you stand on your ears? Ears change little from young adolesence (or earlier) to about age 60 or 70 on average. This is in the scientific literature (I can email you some recent papers if you like) and has really been well-established for over a century. The ear growth that does occur (small fractions of a mm) is not perceptible in a photo and does not change the ear shape. This is especially applicable to humans of ball-playing age.The ear argument is THE argument that is accepted by forensic practitioners, auction houses, law-enforcement, museums, etc.

Even beyond age 70 - what you usually see is drooping earlobes (due to years of gravity pull) and the top of the ear may curl over a bit, but the basic ear shape stays the same and if one is careful you can compare an old man's ears to that ...

Tell that to poor Don Mossi.