To be or Not to be the Wright Bros. Photo

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Directly

I'm laughing too -- at all the so called photo experts--what a disastrous error he made with my Dubuque photo-if he and some of you would have just tried to help me instead of against me the outcome could have ended up as gentlemen.---get him on here!

What happened with the Dubuque photo? I read the thread, but didn't see any finality of outcome or determination on that photo.

As far as this thread goes, I don't see a resemblance between the subjects in the photos. But they're also not particularly clear images either.

[2dueces]

Hard to find good humor today. Everyone is afraid of being canceled. This thread added a bit of humor to a very nice September morning.

[Directly]

Mr Snowman- the photo was discovered in St Louis around 1991. to start Charles Comiskey Played baseball in Dubuque Iowa between 1878-1881--then going on the St Louis to play for the Browns in 1882---Years ago I had a few pleasant conversations with a very professional TV show baseball expert who studied the photo and confirmed my hunch and offered me some money to sell. I was also asked by a collector to bring the photo to Chicago. Years later I posted the photo on Ebay and somehow it came up on Net54. That's when I was thrown under the bus and dragged threw the mud by a few Net54 experts--this dragged on until recently a professional photographer found and pointed out the photo was dated--(81) I found a SABR article/Bio of Joe Quinn. Bingo! Joe Quinn was asked to join Comiskeys team in 1881--this connected the dots--Comiskey was Joe's mentor in 1881 per the article----Quinn had a business and is lay to rest in St Louis--I believe this photo once belonged to Joe Quinn and became lost after his sons passed.

( In 1881 Quinn would be 19 and Comiskey 22 )--if you go thru the link, I was told to hurry up and sell --looking back on this statement I think he was worried he made a error and indeed he had !

I was planning to take the original photo to the national Chicago but the Covid-19 concerned me so I cancelled.--

[drcy]

None of your photos show any famous baseball players. 99% of high school and tintype photos don't show anyone famous. The team photo appears to show a high school team and is not of the correct era to depict Comiskey and Quinn at those ages.

The tintype actually is a really nice baseball tintype, and stands on its own as a nice tintype without there being a famous player.

[robertsmithnocure]

I thought that you had already identified most of the players? So, now Gleason is Quinn?

[Directly]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I thought that you had already identified most of the players? So, now Gleason is Quinn?

There nothing for your expert to be ashamed of just because he made a terrible assessment , he didn't know the photo was dated neither did I-get him on here-

-

[Directly]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I thought that you had already identified most of the players? So, now Gleason is Quinn?

A Joe Quinn collector gave me a thumbs up-- see it an weep--your credibility with me with to XXXX

[Directly]

Lets start a new thread tonight-okay

[Directly]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I thought that you had already identified most of the players? So, now Gleason is Quinn?

Yup

[ksfarmboy]

Could you post a closeup of the date? I can’t make it out from the photos shown so far.

[Directly]

Originally Posted by ksfarmboy

Could you post a closeup of the date? I can’t make it out from the photos shown so far.

save the photo and enlarge

[Directly]

Originally Posted by drcy

None of your photos show any famous baseball players. 99% of high school and tintype photos don't show anyone famous. The team photo appears to show a high school team and is not of the correct era to depict Comiskey and Quinn at those ages.

The tintype actually is a really nice baseball tintype, and stands on its own as a nice tintype without there being a famous player.

Your definitely NO expert, I wouldn't listen anything anything you have say--get your expert on here--not you --you really don't know what your talking about!!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Directly

Your definitely NO expert, I wouldn't listen anything anything you have say--get your expert on here--not you --you really don't know what your talking about!!

And neither are you! Everything you are saying and accusing others of applies just as much, if not more, to you than it ever did to any of them. And what makes your "experts" that supposedly back your opinion on that being the Wrights or Comiskey in the photos any more accurate and believable than everyone else's "experts", the simple fact that you say they are? So what makes you an expert on "experts" that anyone should believe a single thing you say or claim? You also are calling out these people to "get your expert on here", yet I don't believe in any of your threads that you ever once got even one of your "experts" to respond in it to back up your claims and allegations. You are the one making a claim, so the burden of proof falls on you. Get your "experts" to post in this thread then, along with providing their proof of knowledge and expertise, that is only fair since that is what you want everyone else to do, right?

You haven't provided a single, provable and 100% verifiable piece of evidence to demonstrate that is the Wrights or Comiskey in the photos, other than your claim of resemblance, nor have any incontrovertible colloborative provenance to go along with your claims, other than just basically repeating over and over again that you are right and everyone else is wrong. That is exactly what you did in that other thread you started about the alleged Comiskey photo, ignored everyone's valid questions and provided no 100% verifiable evidence or provenance. And yet somehow you declared you were right and they were wrong, and that some "expert" had "screwed the pooch" in your opinion! Exactly how did they do that, since you never did provide that incontrovertible evidence and/or provenance to prove them wrong in that thread, nor this one?

Quite frankly, I almost went to look at a calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1 when you first posted this thread, or the earlier one regarding Comiskey. At least that would provide some reasoning for your posts then, and the seemingly illogical ramblings you make regarding the veracity of your claims, and the unwarranted and disrespectful comments back to people who responded to them.

I do not know the reason for your timing in the posting of this thread. Was it because of the recent post by SteveS regarding his alleged Knickerbocker players photos and all the attention that thread seems to have gotten? Were you jealous and looking for some attention for yourself then? If so, in that thread Steve was nothing but respectful, open minded, and responsive to everyone's questions and knowing he faced an almost impossible task in getting hobbywide acceptance of his claim. He even contacted multiple known "authorities" in regards to baseball history and photography to review his claims, and even went so far as to utilize some facial recognition software to support his position. That same software he so graciously used to examine your claim that those were the Wright brothers in your photo that this thread is supposed to be all about. And what were the results of that examination, that those were most likely not the Wright brothers, correct?

You also don't help your case in the way you can't even even use proper grammar or English when you post. Look at the very first word in your quoted post above, "Your". In that instance the correct English grammar and usage is "You are" or the contraction "You're". It is most certainly not "Your", which implies possession of something. So you are either ignorant of the proper usage of the term, or too lazy to have spelled it properly. Which is it, there are no other options? And I won't even comment about the rest of your grammar in that quoted line, other than to ask that if this is indicative of your knowledge and attention to detail, what might that also say about your ability to properly research and positively identify people in photos from over 100 years ago that one would think requires at least a certain level of those aforementioned attributes to be able to adequately perform?

[BobC]

By the way Directly, did you ever go by the moniker Toppsaholic, or the Real Toppsaholic? I seem to detect some surprising similarities in the way you post and respond to people.

[oldjudge]

Yes, the one on the right is Orville and the one on the left is Wilbur.

[Directly]

Originally Posted by BobC

And neither are you! Everything you are saying and accusing others of applies just as much, if not more, to you than it ever did to any of them. And what makes your "experts" that supposedly back your opinion on that being the Wrights or Comiskey in the photos any more accurate and believable than everyone else's "experts", the simple fact that you say they are? So what makes you an expert on "experts" that anyone should believe a single thing you say or claim? You also are calling out these people to "get your expert on here", yet I don't believe in any of your threads that you ever once got even one of your "experts" to respond in it to back up your claims and allegations. You are the one making a claim, so the burden of proof falls on you. Get your "experts" to post in this thread then, along with providing their proof of knowledge and expertise, that is only fair since that is what you want everyone else to do, right?

You haven't provided a single, provable and 100% verifiable piece of evidence to demonstrate that is the Wrights or Comiskey in the photos, other than your claim of resemblance, nor have any incontrovertible colloborative provenance to go along with your claims, other than just basically repeating over and over again that you are right and everyone else is wrong. That is exactly what you did in that other thread you started about the alleged Comiskey photo, ignored everyone's valid questions and provided no 100% verifiable evidence or provenance. And yet somehow you declared you were right and they were wrong, and that some "expert" had "screwed the pooch" in your opinion! Exactly how did they do that, since you never did provide that incontrovertible evidence and/or provenance to prove them wrong in that thread, nor this one?

Quite frankly, I almost went to look at a calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1 when you first posted this thread, or the earlier one regarding Comiskey. At least that would provide some reasoning for your posts then, and the seemingly illogical ramblings you make regarding the veracity of your claims, and the unwarranted and disrespectful comments back to people who responded to them.

I do not know the reason for your timing in the posting of this thread. Was it because of the recent post by SteveS regarding his alleged Knickerbocker players photos and all the attention that thread seems to have gotten? Were you jealous and looking for some attention for yourself then? If so, in that thread Steve was nothing but respectful, open minded, and responsive to everyone's questions and knowing he faced an almost impossible task in getting hobbywide acceptance of his claim. He even contacted multiple known "authorities" in regards to baseball history and photography to review his claims, and even went so far as to utilize some facial recognition software to support his position. That same software he so graciously used to examine your claim that those were the Wright brothers in your photo that this thread is supposed to be all about. And what were the results of that examination, that those were most likely not the Wright brothers, correct?

You also don't help your case in the way you can't even even use proper grammar or English when you post. Look at the very first word in your quoted post above, "Your". In that instance the correct English grammar and usage is "You are" or the contraction "You're". It is most certainly not "Your", which implies possession of something. So you are either ignorant of the proper usage of the term, or too lazy to have spelled it properly. Which is it, there are no other options? And I won't even comment about the rest of your grammar in that quoted line, other than to ask that if this is indicative of your knowledge and attention to detail, what might that also say about your ability to properly research and positively identify people in photos from over 100 years ago that one would think requires at least a certain level of those aforementioned attributes to be able to adequately perform?

Nuts!--did i spell that to your satisfaction?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Directly

Nuts!--did i spell that to your satisfaction?

LOL

Yes, thanks, but you have lived up to what you've been doing all along and answered not one single question, nor provided not one single piece of verifiable evidence to prove your claims.

Hey, at least answer my one question, are you ignorant or lazy?