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

[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)

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by 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)

Actually, the ears have aged just as described - a little curling at the top, otherwise a very strong match.

As an experiment, I wonder what the relatives of Hap Felsch would say, if you asked them about the guy in the top row, far right. Looks a lot like Hap to me, and the collars on the uniforms might be a closer period match too.

[phikappapsi]

Here he is in 1926. Id say Mr Van Horn is on the mark with his assessment.

I'll agree that's the same.guy

[phikappapsi]

Not sure I can see how anyone would call these different people

[ALBB]

no hard feelings

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by ALBB

no hard feelings

[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!

[robertsmithnocure]

These photos that were used in the other thread are what convinced me that it was not Paul Waner. The nose on Waner does not match up to me. Waner appears to have a down-turned, “hook” nose as compared to the image in question. I agree that the players look similar, but I don’t see how you could say that the noses are the same.

[phikappapsi]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

These photos that were used in the other thread are what convinced me that it was not Paul Waner. The nose on Waner does not match up to me. Waner appears to have a down-turned, “hook” nose as compared to the image in question. I agree that the players look similar, but I don’t see how you could say that the noses are the same.

"Your nose, which is comprised of bone, soft tissue/skin, and cartilage, may change shape as you age. The structures and skin of the nose lose strength with time and, as a result, the nose stretches out and sags downward"

https://www.newfaceny.com/blog/how-d...ange-with-age/

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

These photos that were used in the other thread are what convinced me that it was not Paul Waner. The nose on Waner does not match up to me. Waner appears to have a down-turned, “hook” nose as compared to the image in question. I agree that the players look similar, but I don’t see how you could say that the noses are the same.

Rob,

Just asking. If you add in Joe's exhibit of Paul Waner which does not include the down-turned hook nose, but is nonetheless Paul Waner, does that change your opinion at all?