Any Idea of Why This Went So Cheaply?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

What? This is a message board, I don't have to tell anyone my name. But just for you, my name is Bradd. And apparently you didn't read the insulting, rude and downright nasty reply that guy gave me when all I did was voice my opinion on a couple photos. Because if you did, you would have no reason to keep on me for calling him a "bad name".

So Bradd, here's my take on it. On this message board you don't have to tell anyone your name, HOWEVER, if you get into a pissing match with someone then I feel they have a right to know who they are (hopefully amicably) arguing with. I am not going to expose your identity at this point because I feel Al nailed it. I think you just got a little sideways with the tone of the conversation, as you and Mark started discussing this picture.

Also, Jim nailed it too. We all have our own areas of expertise and when someone treads into that area they better darned well know what they are talking about and be able to back it up with definitive proof/facts. I get calls from advanced collectors, dealers and grading companies very frequently. (several this week already). They call because they know I study some things more than almost anyone else. This week it was on M101-4/5 Sporting News backs and E94 Overprints. If you jump into those areas, in a discussion with me, you better make sure you have your facts straight as I study the intricacies of those sets (especially the backs) quite a bit. Most folks know I collect very rare and esoteric type cards. I am far from a "know it all" but do have very good knowledge in those areas, so if you go there, just have your facts straight. I love good discussions and debates and have changed my view many times after listening to good arguments. At the Philly show I was asked questions by several folks concerning thoughts on different issues. You don't get those folks asking questions without them knowing you have a good idea of what they are asking about.

All this being said almost all members on the board are valuable in one way or another. Just be cordial to each other, have respect for their expertise, and all will be good. Many times it's the "way" something is phrased that sets people off on a chat board. Re-phrasing something can often quell confrontations and make for a much friendlier discussion. Best regards and happy holidays

ps...Huggins and Scott did the right thing on this cabinet. The good guys almost always do the right thing in these situations....that's why they are the "good guys".

[Orioles1954]

My name is James Feagin and I'm the Senior Writer for Huggins & Scott Auctions

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Leon

So Bradd, here's my take on it. On this message board you don't have to tell anyone your name, HOWEVER, if you get into a pissing match with someone then I feel they have a right to know who they are (hopefully amicably) arguing with. I am not going to expose your identity at this point because I feel Al nailed it. I think you just got a little sideways with the tone of the conversation, as you and Mark started discussing this picture.

Also, Jim nailed it too. We all have our own areas of expertise and when someone treads into that area they better darned well know what they are talking about and be able to back it up with definitive proof/facts. I get calls from advanced collectors, dealers and grading companies very frequently. (several this week already). They call because they know I study some things more than almost anyone else. This week it was on M101-4/5 Sporting News backs and E94 Overprints. If you jump into those areas, in a discussion with me, you better make sure you have your facts straight as I study the intricacies of those sets (especially the backs) quite a bit. Most folks know I collect very rare and esoteric type cards. I am far from a "know it all" but do have very good knowledge in those areas, so if you go there, just have your facts straight. I love good discussions and debates and have changed my view many times after listening to good arguments. At the Philly show I was asked questions by several folks concerning thoughts on different issues. You don't get those folks asking questions without them knowing you have a good idea of what they are asking about.

All this being said almost all members on the board are valuable in one way or another. Just be cordial to each other, have respect for their expertise, and all will be good. Many times it's the "way" something is phrased that sets people off on a chat board. Re-phrasing something can often quell confrontations and make for a much friendlier discussion. Best regards and happy holidays

ps...Huggins and Scott did the right thing on this cabinet. The good guys almost always do the right thing in these situations....that's why they are the "good guys".

Thank you for the response. I do apologize for the wordage I used. I simply don't take being disrespected well, I guess. I simply formed an opinion on the two photos without knowing the backround well enough. I appreciate boards like this because I can find help if I ever need it when it comes to pre-war cards. Sorry if I offended anyone.

[barrysloate]

Apology accepted!

[birdman42]

Originally Posted by Leon

The good guys almost always do the right thing in these situations....that's why they are the "good guys".

Much better to be known as a "good guy" than as a "great guy."

Bill

[bmarlowe1]

For Bradd:

It should be obvious that these ears are not the same. There is no way that the small difference in head angle for the 2 photos would make one shape "morph" into the other.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

For Bradd:

It should be obvious that these ears are not the same. There is no way that the small difference in head angle for the 2 photos would make one shape "morph" into the other.

I couldn't see that closely before. They do look different.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

I couldn't see that closely before. They do look different.

I think I feel the urge for a group hug coming on......Everybody take cover quickly .

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think I feel the urge for a group hug coming on......Everybody take cover quickly .

kumbaya

[D. Bergin]

For the record, I don't think this is Radbourne.

I AM curious as to Mark's use of the ears as a definitive "fingerprint", so to speak, to make or disprove of identifications.

Coming at it as a boxing enthusiast, a fighters ears can change significantly throughout the course of their career. Hell, if you go up to the Boxing Hall of Fame in Canastota, New York for the yearly inductions.........some of the old timers have nubs on the side of their heads you'd have a hard time even identifying as ears anymore.

Of course there's the obvious signs like "attatched", "unattatched", "lobes", "no lobes". However, the interior structure of the ear can change significantly as a fighter ages, depending on cartilage damage, swelling, etc.. Even the overall shape of the outside of the ear can change.

Now, being we are talking about turn of the century baseball players, I imagine many of these guys were of the rough and tumble type and got into their own share of scraps and scrapes throughout the years. Also the general conditions were much worse then they are today. I imagine there weren't a lot of ears that went through life unscathed during this era.

Let me be clear.........I'm not making a run at Mark or anybody else. Just curious as to the method. I've mis-identified my own share of boxers throughout the years and have relied on other historians/collectors to correct and inform me when necessary, and I am always grateful for their input.

Thanks.

- Dave

[perezfan]

I believe the practice of ear identification first became popular among Star Trek Collectors. There was a fraudulent Mr. Spock photo floating around, in which the ears measured 1/16" short. It was Leonard Nimoy himself, who identified the photo as a fake.

Seriously, I think Mark's "ear identification" practice is sound. The structure and placement of the ears is intricate, and is probably the best identifier on a person's face. When used in combination with all other facial characteristics, I bet Mark's method works over 99% of the time.

As for players' ears changing over the years... probably "not so much" with baseball players. The basic structure of the ear would not change significantly over the years unless they were "beaned" over and over again.

[bmarlowe1]

Dave -

Let's first start with ears as "fingerprints" absent severe injury - yes it is valid to use them as such. There is very little change in them until about age 70 - of course that is an average age. What is most noticeable is that for people with large lobes, they start to droop in old age. Even so, you can still compare old guy to young guy ears, but you have to keep the droop in mind.

Of course injury can change the appearance. Boxers are a perfect example. It has occurred to me a number of times that I am glad my interest is in early baseball images, not boxing images.

After looking closely at thousands of Deaball Era and 19thC baseball faces, I see little evidence of "cauliflower ear". Boxer's are repeatedly hit in the ear. A ballplayer may occasionally get a ball in the ear, or get into a fight and get hit in the ear, but I have not seen an example of this type of permanant gross deforming injury in early ballplayers. Of course, there may be some that I haven't come across yet.

I have seen what look more like smaller deformaties - like Tom Tido Daly's left earlobe (see Okkonen's Baseball Memories 1900-1909, p.97). I haven't seen an image of him where this is not present. (His right side looks normal). An injury? a birth defect? - I dunno.

Mark

edited to add: - I agree with Perezfan - our posts overlapped in time.