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

[aelefson]

I am with Mark (bmarlowe1) on this and all other photo identifications. I have read many of the articles he has posted and I would rather trust an expert than someone who is hoping they found a diamond in the rough (or others who post links to articles on the internet who have never studied this to the extent Mark has). Thank you Mark for all of the help you have provided to board members over the years. Personally, I really appreciate it and hope others do too.

Alan Elefson

[Jim65]

Aging can cause a lot of differences

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Aging can cause a lot of differences

Red herring. Skin bleaching, excessive rhinoplasty and other facial surgery is not comparable to normal aging. Just look at Lisa Rinna and the late Kenny Rogers.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by Michael B

Red herring. Skin bleaching, excessive rhinoplasty and other facial surgery is not comparable to normal aging. Just look at Lisa Rinna and the late Kenny Rogers.

I assume that he was making a joke.

[Brian Van Horn]

Somehow I managed to miss that statement by Michael B.

My fault.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I assume that he was making a joke.

I realize it. Just trying to play along. Sitting on the sidelines for this show can get boring.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Michael B

I realize it. Just trying to play along. Sitting on the sidelines for this show can get boring.

True. Oh, so true.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by aelefson

I am with Mark (bmarlowe1) on this and all other photo identifications. I have read many of the articles he has posted and I would rather trust an expert than someone who is hoping they found a diamond in the rough (or others who post links to articles on the internet who have never studied this to the extent Mark has). Thank you Mark for all of the help you have provided to board members over the years. Personally, I really appreciate it and hope others do too.

Alan Elefson

Alan,

All I ask is that you remember that I confirmed with this with a Waner family member and that my factual claim about the growing of the ears and nose with age was accused of something be made out of thin air. This of course was revised to something the accuser later said he knew for years. Hmmm.

Just please also look at the exhibit posted by Joe as well as the later pictures on either side of my postcard posted by Rob. Between the 1926 exhibit of Paul Waner and the Yankees picture is a difference of 19 years. Please look at the difference in the nose.

[bmarlowe1]

>> A family with obvious high level access and multitudes of other items says it's him

We don't know that a "family" is saying anything whatever that means. As far as I know it was one person. I don't know what you mean by "multitudes of items." What is relevant are photos and for some odd reason we haven't seen any of them. As I pointed out, it is not uncommon for family members to disagree as to who is depicted in an old photo.

>> It looks like him...

It looks like him to YOU and the OP. To other people it does not look like him. This is a purely subjective assessment that we know collectors often get wrong. That is why we try assess individual facial features which can be much less subjective.

>> grainy images of one side of an earlobe...different angles

In the 3 side-by-side photos the center and left photos are at virtually the same angle. See post 29 for best available quality, https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345

I am not keying in on the earlobe. The overall shape of the ears are very different and that is evident in spite of the not-so-great quality of the OPs image. It's not hard to see. As Drs. Bruge and Burger said, "It is obvious that the structure of the ear does not change radically over time" That doesn't mean that the ear doesn't grow, just not enough to be noticeable in photos until about age 70 on average.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Mr. Van Horn: All I ask is that you remember that I confirmed with this with a Waner family member and that my factual claim about the growing of the ears and nose with age was accused of something be made out of thin air. This of course was revised to something the accuser later said he knew for years. Hmmm.

You continue to have trouble distinguishing fact from fantasy. Back in the 2017 thread where you started this fairy tale I said the following in post 38 https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345
"The ear growth of which you speak is so small that it would not be noticeable even when comparing a photograph of a teenager to that of a man in his 40's. It rarely becomes apparent until much later, and even then it is usually just some ear lobe droop - not a gross change in shape.

Nose tip also can droop when we get old - but nowhere near enough to account for the gross difference seen here, and anyway in the exemplar photos of Waner he is not that old."


So it appears your assertion that I never said this before is dead wrong. I didn't revise anything.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> Mr. Van Horn: All I ask is that you remember that I confirmed with this with a Waner family member and that my factual claim about the growing of the ears and nose with age was accused of something be made out of thin air. This of course was revised to something the accuser later said he knew for years. Hmmm.

You continue to have trouble distinguishing fact from fantasy. Back in the 2017 thread where you started this fairy tale I said the following in post 38:
"The ear growth of which you speak is so small that it would not be noticeable even when comparing a photograph of a teenager to that of a man in his 40's. It rarely becomes apparent until much later, and even then it is usually just some ear lobe droop - not a gross change in shape.

Nose tip also can droop when we get old - but nowhere near enough to account for the gross difference seen here, and anyway and in the exemplar photos of Waner he is not that old."


So it appears you assertion that I never said this before is dead wrong.

LOL! Once again you're lack of reading comprehension has bolted to the fore.

You indicated that I made things up out of thin air.
I quoted you and will quote you again:

"The stuff about how ears grow like your feet grow - that you made up. It has no basis in fact."

You misquoted me, but that has already been corrected. Still it is par for the course you.

Then I provided a link:

https://www.doctoroz.com/blog/arthur...ue-grow-we-age

Then, you, in post #41 stated:

I did not miss that fact (it is in the stuff I read 15 years ago).

Wow! From me making it up to you reading about it 15 years ago. Thank you, Houdini.

Almost forgot. No hard feelings.

[CrackaJackKid]

No way this is Paul Waner

[bmarlowe1]

>> So, uh, now the nose is left out of the equation because of the difference between the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture? Just so we're clear on the math, Paul Waner would be either 41 or 42 in the Yankees photo as opposed to 70. Hook nose and all. In the 1926 exhibit he is either 23 or 24 sans hook nose

As usual you are wrong. The noses in the 1926 exhibit and the Yankee and Pitt photos are consistent. For some people, especially those with large noses, just starting to smile or grimace will case the nose phlange and nostrils to pull up at an angle relative to the tip of the nose. This is evident in the Pitt. and NY images and is exaggerated in the Pitt image because his head is tilted forward. In the 1926 image he is expressionless and the camera is slightly low (his head is tilted slightly back relative to the plane of the camera.

As for the nose in your photo, it is not consistent with any of the 3 exemplars. It would take me a few hours to draw up an analysis - that is a waste of time becasue the ears don't match.

>> Please check the ear in the 1926 exhibit against is st the ear in the postcard

The ears in all 3 Waner exemplar photos match. The 1926 is not a great choice because of the differing angle, but it is still evident that it is longer top to bottom than the that of the guy in your photo.

[bmarlowe1]

I really didn't want to spend so much time on something so ludicrous, but here is probably the best side-by-side I can do with available photos (absent a scan from the "relative" - why can't we see even one?).

If you can't see the very gross difference in ear size and shape then you need to see an eye doctor (assuming he is properly disinfecting). Ears absolutely do not "grow" like this over whatever the age range between these photos is. They grow virtually imperceptibly and you can easily compare the ears of a teenager those of a man in his early 40s. These are 2 different humans.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> A family with obvious high level access and multitudes of other items says it's him

We don't know that a "family" is saying anything whatever that means. As far as I know it was one person. I don't know what you mean by "multitudes of items." What is relevant are photos and for some odd reason we haven't seen any of them. As I pointed out, it is not uncommon for family members to disagree as to who is depicted in an old photo.

>> It looks like him...

It looks like him to YOU and the OP. To other people it does not look like him. This is a purely subjective assessment that we know collectors often get wrong. That is why we try assess individual facial features which can be much less subjective.

>> grainy images of one side of an earlobe...different angles

In the 3 side-by-side photos the center and left photos are at virtually the same angle.

I am not keying in on the earlobe. The overall shape of the ears are very different and that is evident in spite of the not-so-great quality of the OPs image. It's not hard to see. As Drs. Bruge and Burger said, "It is obvious that the structure of the ear does not change radically over time" That doesn't mean that the ear doesn't grow, just not enough to be noticeable in photos until about age 70 on average.

So, uh, now the nose is left out of the equation because of the difference between the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture? Just so we're clear on the math, Paul Waner would be either 41 or 42 in the Yankees photo as opposed to 70. Hook nose and all. In the 1926 exhibit he is either 23 or 24 sans hook nose.

Please check the ear in the 1926 exhibit against the ear in the postcard.

[phikappapsi]

So, I went ahead and put the side by side into a little vector scenario I drew.

The chin is an obvious match; and I went ahead and ignored the button nose drop that I think we've already pretty well defined as being unimportant.

What would not have changed is the relative psition of the bottom side if the nose (where it meets the face), in relationship to the inside and outside corner of the eye, and the corner of the ear.

I created the vector from the straight on image of the postcard that was clean, then overlayed it onto Brian's photo, and rotated it on its axis to match the head tilt in that image, and boy oh boy; that again seems close enough for me!

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by phikappapsi

So, I went ahead and put the side by side into a little vector scenario I drew.

The chin is an obvious match; and I went ahead and ignored the button nose drop that I think we've already pretty well defined as being unimportant.

What would not have changed is the relative psition of the bottom side if the nose (where it meets the face), in relationship to the inside and outside corner of the eye, and the corner of the ear.

I created the vector from the straight on image of the postcard that was clean, then overlayed it onto Brian's photo, and rotated it on its axis to match the head tilt in that image, and boy oh boy; that again seems close enough for me!

Well done, sir!

Now to hear from our esteamed......err.....esteemed colleague.

By the way, crow is being prepared as a special meal for our colleague.