Any Idea of Why This Went So Cheaply?

[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.

[D. Bergin]

Thanks for the responses guys.