Any Idea of Why This Went So Cheaply?

[JK]

Is it just my computer or did six pages of this thread just disappear?

[Fred]

Wow, an end of the year "controversial" thread.

Interstingly enough, didn't we just have a thread about "provenance" and what it means to us? Someone mentioned that the cabinet came from the Halper collection. If that's the case that would have been a lot of "provenance" in itself. Maybe SGC encapsulated this cabinet based on its "provenance".

Personally, unless I knew the subject really well I'd have a difficult time determining if the subject in different photos is the same person especially if the photos were taken at a different times (even 6 months difference) and at a different angles.

I can't remember who said it, but I agree -

It's PSAs fault...

[bmarlowe1]

Fred: "Personally, unless I knew the subject really well I'd have a difficult time determining if the subject in different photos is the same person especially if the photos were taken at a different times (even 6 months difference)"
_____________________________

You may have difficulty making that determination, but it can be done with certainty with clear photos, and over the past year there have been a number of good threads explaining how to do so (including this one). Ears will not change in 6 months.

As to provenance, we know that the Candy Cummings photo sold in the Halper Collection was bogus.

[Fred]

Mark,

The Halper collection was so extensive that I'm sure that there are probably many pieces that weren't what they appeared to be. I can think of another as I post this.

Regarding the provenance statement I was thinking that SGC took the past ownership of the cabinet into consideration when they slabbed it.

Personally, I couldn't make a definite determination of whether or not that is Radbourn in the cabinet. I'm going to guess that the ears and nose may not look the same because of the different angles from which the photos were taken.

It'd be difficult to have someone convince me that it wasn't Radbourn. I guess unless someone can come up with better provenance we'll never know for sure. Who knows, maybe Halper picked this up from a Radbourn family member or from someone that knew Radbourn personally. That would be a greater form of provenance but we'll probably never know. For now it'll live on in a debate in cyberspace.

[bmarlowe1]

Fred:"I'm going to guess that the ears and nose may not look the same because of the different angles from which the photos were taken. '

-------------------------------------------

Really Fred that is nonsense - take a photo of your ear, the turn your head about 5 degrees and take another photo of your ear - then tell me how different they look.

Now - gather all the really verified Radbourne photos - they are all at at least somewhat different angles - yet his ears always compare very well. Only in this photo does his left ear look entirely different.

I guess this requires the application of some common sense as well as some inate ability to understand that 3-D objects don't magically morph into something else when they are turned a few degrees (the difference in angles of the 2 photos is quite small). Also, if you take the time to carefully study a few thousand photos of faces, you may learn to understand what happens to ears/noses/etc. when they are turned more than a few degrees.

In the 1880's you can be certain that there were very many Americans who looked similar to Radbourne.

I would add that in the unlikely event that Halper got this from the Radbourne family, the "provenance" would be simply a falsehood passed down thru the generations - a common occurence. Or maybe they wrote "Radbourn" on the photo so they wouldn't forget their last name.

[Fred]

Mark,

Tone on a public board is tough to figure out.

I have common sense (well at least I think I do) and upon occassion I use it. Perhaps not here though. I was merely stating that looking at a few photos of an ear shot from different angles would not lead me to believe that this is not Radbourn.

As far as the Radbourn family reference it wasn't the only possible provenance factor I brought up. It could have been a family member or friend. I suppose I shouldn't have brought that up unless I was willing to open myself up to debate and/or ridicule. I wish I was always right (like some people on this board) but I know better. Have a happy new year!

There's that tone thing again.

[bmarlowe1]

>>>There's that tone thing again.

The Cumbaya season is over.

I never said you lacked common sense. You may be better than me at any numbers of things - picking stocks, hitting a curve ball, other major life decisions, whatever. I did say you were not applying it here.

>>>I was merely stating that looking at a few photos of an ear shot from different angles would not lead me to believe that this is not Radbourn.

The problem with "merely stating...." is that this is a serious subject, and one that has caused a substantial amount of fraud. There has been a lot of effort in recent decades to find methods for correctly identifying people in photos. (This is critically important in natl security/intelligence fields as well as criminal investigation.) There is some accessable literature on the subject. "A few photos (even just one) of an ear shot from slightly different angles" is exactly enough to tell you it's not Radbourne.

If you don't buy any of this, then your challange is to find 2 photos of any famous individual you like (try Cobb, J Jackson, Jackie Robinson - anybody), taken at very slightly different angles like the ones discussed here, in which the ears look different.

You can also consider why H&S pulled the item from the auction and why SGC is "un-authenticating" the photo - just to make my Holiday Season brighter? (there's some tone for ya).

Happy New Year

[Leon]

Originally Posted by JK

Is it just my computer or did six pages of this thread just disappear?

Nothing disappeared that I am aware of. Sometimes if you don't login the settings revert back to automatic/static ones and that can mess stuff up a little bit (not completely gone though). Otherwise, it's your computer...