Any Idea of Why This Went So Cheaply?

[bmarlowe1]

Sportscardtheory -

Now that SGC is going to "unauthenticate" the identification - what's your theory?

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Sportscardtheory -

Now that SGC is going to "unauthenticate" the identification - what's your theory?

The first photo looks like a younger version of the guy on the right. Same ears, same nose, same hairline. Just a little older with less hair in the one on the right. The nose simply looks a little different due to angle the photo was taken. Look in his ears to see it's almost certainly the same guy. The inner ear ridges are the same.

[sportscardtheory]

How many years apart could those photos have been taken? It really looks like the same guy, just more "aged" in the right photo.

[bmarlowe1]

>>>Same ears, same nose, same hairline.

No - different ears, different nose, different hairline. If you think otherwise - give Huggins & Scott a call - With the sale wisely cancelled I'll bet you can get a real deal on that photo. It might make sense because surely you'll find someone like yourself to buy it for more than you paid.

The ear thing on this one is simple - the photos are clear enough to see that the outer shape of the left ears are not the same - end of story. The inside of the ears are also very different. If you think they are the same then shape matching is not your strong point.

Sorry I am being so unpleasant on this but you have no idea what you're talking about and you really do represent why so many fraudulently identified photos have been sold over the years.

Shooting from the hip doesn't cut it. There are both scientific articles and articles (and one book that I know of) for the general public on this subject. Either educate yourself or continue to sound foolish.

[bmarlowe1]

BTW - the Bodie cabinet is dated 1888. Radbourne was wearing a Boston Jersey in the comparison photo. He was with Boston (NL and PL) 1886-1890. Your explanation for the hairline difference is.....

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>>>Same ears, same nose, same hairline.

No - different ears, different nose, different hairline. If you think otherwise - give Huggins & Scott a call - With the sale wisely cancelled I'll bet you can get a real deal on that photo. It might make sense because surely you'll find someone like yourself to buy it for more than you paid.

The ear thing on this one is simple - the photos are clear enough to see that the outer shape of the left ears are not the same - end of story. The inside of the ears are also very different. If you think they are the same then shape matching is not your strong point.

Sorry I am being so unpleasant on this but you have no idea what you're talking about and you really do represent why so many fraudulently identified photos have been sold over the years.

Shooting from the hip doesn't cut it. There are both scientific articles and articles (and one book that I know of) for the general public on this subject. Either educate yourself or continue to sound foolish.

Wow. You are a freaking LOSER. I just posted my opinion, I never claimed to be an expert. You really need to check yourself, there was no need to act like that.

[doug.goodman]

We all have a beer and watch the football game.

And I don't drink beer, or watch football.

Doug

[bmarlowe1]

>>>"I just posted my opinion, I never claimed to be an expert."

I think your statements were a bit stronger than that:

>>>"That's the same person.....The nose simply looks a little different due to angle the photo was taken. Look in his ears to see it's almost certainly the same guy. The inner ear ridges are the same......the same guy, just more "aged" in the right photo"

You didn't just say you think he "looks like" Radbourne - you were persistent in making very specific "expert-like" arguments that were ludicrous - your opinion should be very strongly challenged. What really "set me off" on you is that your line of reasoning and style of language very much mimics what I have seen in fraudulent descriptions for photos selling for high prices (by both sellers and buyers trying to justify their purchase).

Perhaps jumping on your case personally that way was not very tactful (sorry) - but I'm really more concerned about people spending $3000 for $300 photos. It is better when Net54 helps to prevent this, which it often does. Somebody somewhere in the past had already spent way too much on that photo.

Doug --
I second your motion.

[barrysloate]

Sportscardtheory- I would request you refrain from using expletives on this board, especially towards a good poster and member of the Net54 community like Mark. He puts a lot of time an effort into photo identification, and he deserves a little more respect. Thank you.