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

[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.

[phikappapsi]

Originally Posted by 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.

that has to be easily the worst representations of dimensions ever. You started on a slope, you didn't adjust for pitch angles in either face; and you used arbitrary starting points, on subjects 25 years apart in age. .

I've spent about as much time as I'm willing to on this; but if I get bored; I'll tinker with your work; logically, and show you it actually is the same guy. note the top and bottom the the ear, in relation to the top and bottom of the nose; almost identical

[bmarlowe1]

>> that has to be easily the worst representations of dimensions ever. You started on a slope, you didn't adjust for pitch angles in either face; and you used arbitrary starting points,

Actually it is by the book (or books) which I have read and you have not. Bear in mind that I have been schooled by an NYPD analyst, and have done work like this for Library of Congress, Boston Public Library, National Baseball HoF and Museum, major auction houses, other Museums and have helped numerous collectors get refunds. I also have produced a newsletter for SABR for the past 12 years that often addresses these issues.

The 3 points you made don't make any sense. These faces are at nearly the same angle (pretty much as close as you are going to get except for carefully done mugshots) They are more than close enough to support what I illustrated. When you do the same for 2 subjects that are actually the same person, the features can be seen to match. Keep in mind that we don't need accuracy to a fraction of a millimeter to expose gross differences.


BTW - your chin match is wrong - they don't match, you have no idea what you are doing, and in any case a chin match does not mean two faces belong to the same person if other features do not match. Is that not obvious?

[celoknob]

I try to avoid chiming in on arguments on this forum but this intrigued me for several reasons. One, I am interested in identifying obscure player photos from the deadball era and this is an interesting example. I find it frustrating and very difficult, esp when I had poor photos (e.g. Spalding and Reach Guides) as my only exemplar.

Second, I appreciate the thoughtful posts by bmarlowe1. He explains in ways that make objective sense why he offers his opinions. This is so rare when it seems that for whatever reason, experience, professionals and logic take back seats often these days to hunches, hopes and biases.

I don't understand why the OP is upset at him. If all you care about is your own opinion then there is no reason to post on this forum and then continue to argue about it. If you do make a claim about a photo on this forum then it should be challenged if it is not proven to be correct. False public claims should be corrected. That is how we learn.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by celoknob

I try to avoid chiming in on arguments on this forum but this intrigued me for several reasons. One, I am interested in identifying obscure player photos from the deadball era and this is an interesting example. I find it frustrating and very difficult, esp when I had poor photos (e.g. Spalding and Reach Guides) as my only exemplar.

Second, I appreciate the thoughtful posts by bmarlowe1. He explains in ways that make objective sense why he offers his opinions. This is so rare when it seems that for whatever reason, experience, professionals and logic take back seats often these days to hunches, hopes and biases.

I don't understand why the OP is upset at him. If all you care about is your own opinion then there is no reason to post on this forum and then continue to argue about it. If you do make a claim about a photo on this forum then it should be challenged if it is not proven to be correct. False public claims should be corrected. That is how we learn.

The sentiment has clearly gone both ways between myself and Mark. The problem with Mark is that he can't admit he's wrong. Also, he misquotes from my posts and then claims I make things up. When given proof of my assertion, he then states he knew of it 15 years ago. I'm no angel here, but Mark? Please.

[bmarlowe1]

>> The problem with Mark is that he can't admit he's wrong. Also, he misquotes from my posts and then claims I make things up. When given proof of my assertion, he then states he knew of it 15 years ago. I'm no angel here, but Mark? Please.

I do not misquote you. When you quote yourself you leave things out.

As to you saying that I did not know ears grow, you can be sure I did know because:
(1) In 2017 in Net54 I posted in response to YOU about this same photo: "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"
(2) In 2008 in SABR's "The National Pastime' I published an article "Analyzing Grand Old Images" in which I stated, "...ear shape and structure are relatively permanent from about age 8 to age 70." Note that I said "relatively" and "about", meaning ears are not absolutely unchanging like concrete over a full lifetime.

So clearly your statement about what I knew and when I know it was wrong. Can you admit it?

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL! Thank you. Just ignore the evidence that I gave on this on two different posts.

By the way, feel free to check out Paul Waner's nose on the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture. Clearly appreciable difference in the nose long before the age of 70.

Also, thanks now for the laugh. You have added a 17th year to my life.

No hard feelings.

[phikappapsi]

seriously tapping out after this because I just don't care nearly as much as my responses indicate.

but... Adjusted to create common head size; while rotating the axis slightly to account for the older picture being more from the profile.

Nose bridge, pupils and top of ear match perfectly, as does the the anterior nasal spine (which does not grow/move).

The ridges across the maxilla and premaxilla also match, but hey, that's just bones.

Wish I had better software to rotate this thing spherically and prove it without a doubt; but Brian - I'd buy this from you with confidence that it was Paul Waner - If I cared at all about collecting Paul Waner photos (I do not) but this was a fun albeit annoying distraction on a friday afternoon.

FWIW - If I was concerned about ANY aspect of these two photos it would be the vast difference in the palpebral fissure; which is stark. However; that can likely be explained by the fact that the kid in the first picture is outside in the daylight squinting, and the older Waner image appears to be taken in the evening or indoors

[bmarlowe1]

Re post #79, your analysis is not valid. The eyes, nostrils and mouth do not line up in your graphic. Thus your relative sizing is wrong. You are shooting from the hip with respect to a complex subject about which you seem to know nothing.

When working on a project a long time ago with an NYPD forensic analyst and a former FBI analyst - they taught me to do what I did above and why it works well even if the heads are at slightly different angles.

BTW - There is no need to rotate the heads here because for both subjects the eyes are level without any rotation.

[OldOriole]

I think it's time for a poll on this. Other than that, I don't know what else will be accomplished by this thread. The OP is not going to change Mark's mind and if the OP really thinks it's Waner then...great, move on. That being said, my vote would be for two clearly different people for the scientific reasoning being given.

How 'bout a poll?

[bigfanNY]

So the poll would be who believes in science and who dose not?
I have no dog in in this fight but OP Team Photo is NOT Paul Waner. And if OP wanted to offer anything that would sway the science he would ask the relatives to share a picture of PW at the same age, maybe even in the same uniform. But why would the OP post something that would prove himself wrong?

Because poll or no poll it is not Paul Waner.