An update: I present to you.....

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Eddie Collins went from angelic to creepy looking old guy over the course of his baseball card career.

Brian (not that this is relevant, but ears to you all anyhow)

Actually, the ears have aged just as described - a little curling at the top, otherwise a very strong match.

As an experiment, I wonder what the relatives of Hap Felsch would say, if you asked them about the guy in the top row, far right. Looks a lot like Hap to me, and the collars on the uniforms might be a closer period match too.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

No, why don't you use the full quote of what you said:
Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet. I graduated with size nine feet. They are now ten and a half.

The clear implication is that ears also grow a lot -enough to be visible in photos (I guess from the time of graduation to in your case age 53). How else should your statement be interpreted? There is nothing to support that assertion. The scientific evidence is contrary.

Laughter is the best medicine. Given what you have reiterated, you have added 15 years to my life. Bless you.

Now, as for reading comprehension.......wait, I'm wrong. You've now added 16 years to my life. Thank you!

[phikappapsi]

Here he is in 1926. Id say Mr Van Horn is on the mark with his assessment.

I'll agree that's the same.guy

[phikappapsi]

Not sure I can see how anyone would call these different people

[ALBB]

no hard feelings

[asoriano]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I thought the guy in the front row, to the far left, looked a lot like Johnny Evers, but I'm really bad at i.d.'s. What I've learned, is that a lot of people look alike...Rob

I thought it looked like a young Rube Marquard myself!

[robertsmithnocure]

These photos that were used in the other thread are what convinced me that it was not Paul Waner. The nose on Waner does not match up to me. Waner appears to have a down-turned, “hook” nose as compared to the image in question. I agree that the players look similar, but I don’t see how you could say that the noses are the same.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by ALBB

no hard feelings

[phikappapsi]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

These photos that were used in the other thread are what convinced me that it was not Paul Waner. The nose on Waner does not match up to me. Waner appears to have a down-turned, “hook” nose as compared to the image in question. I agree that the players look similar, but I don’t see how you could say that the noses are the same.

"Your nose, which is comprised of bone, soft tissue/skin, and cartilage, may change shape as you age. The structures and skin of the nose lose strength with time and, as a result, the nose stretches out and sags downward"

https://www.newfaceny.com/blog/how-d...ange-with-age/

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

These photos that were used in the other thread are what convinced me that it was not Paul Waner. The nose on Waner does not match up to me. Waner appears to have a down-turned, “hook” nose as compared to the image in question. I agree that the players look similar, but I don’t see how you could say that the noses are the same.

Rob,

Just asking. If you add in Joe's exhibit of Paul Waner which does not include the down-turned hook nose, but is nonetheless Paul Waner, does that change your opinion at all?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by phikappapsi

"Your nose, which is comprised of bone, soft tissue/skin, and cartilage, may change shape as you age. The structures and skin of the nose lose strength with time and, as a result, the nose stretches out and sags downward"

https://www.newfaceny.com/blog/how-d...ange-with-age/

Thank you.

[phikappapsi]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Thank you.

of course. This whole thing seems pretty nonsensical to me. A family with obvious high level access and multitudes of other items says it's him; it looks like him, and there are other images from the period that look very similar; but we're(you're) going to be to told that's all incorrect because pictures from 25 years later seem to potentially, maybe indicate a curling of the nose downward?

Or we're going to assume exceptionally grainy images of one side of an earlobe may not match perfectly to more clear images from a different angle?

pure hogwash.

People age, body parts sag, especially those with little to no bone structure. The images from his 1920's postcards match very nicely to your new image. I'd stop sweating it - albeit both annoying and hilarious; it's nonsense.

I only have remotely strong feelings about this because my grandfather had a very similar facial construct. He had a upturned/button on the end of his nose in his youth, that turned over and sagged downward as he hit his 50's+. this would be like someone telling me my own images of my grandfather, weren't actually of him, because they didn't "like the way he aged"

[aelefson]

I am with Mark (bmarlowe1) on this and all other photo identifications. I have read many of the articles he has posted and I would rather trust an expert than someone who is hoping they found a diamond in the rough (or others who post links to articles on the internet who have never studied this to the extent Mark has). Thank you Mark for all of the help you have provided to board members over the years. Personally, I really appreciate it and hope others do too.

Alan Elefson

[Jim65]

Aging can cause a lot of differences

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by aelefson

I am with Mark (bmarlowe1) on this and all other photo identifications. I have read many of the articles he has posted and I would rather trust an expert than someone who is hoping they found a diamond in the rough (or others who post links to articles on the internet who have never studied this to the extent Mark has). Thank you Mark for all of the help you have provided to board members over the years. Personally, I really appreciate it and hope others do too.

Alan Elefson

Alan,

All I ask is that you remember that I confirmed with this with a Waner family member and that my factual claim about the growing of the ears and nose with age was accused of something be made out of thin air. This of course was revised to something the accuser later said he knew for years. Hmmm.

Just please also look at the exhibit posted by Joe as well as the later pictures on either side of my postcard posted by Rob. Between the 1926 exhibit of Paul Waner and the Yankees picture is a difference of 19 years. Please look at the difference in the nose.

[bmarlowe1]

>> A family with obvious high level access and multitudes of other items says it's him

We don't know that a "family" is saying anything whatever that means. As far as I know it was one person. I don't know what you mean by "multitudes of items." What is relevant are photos and for some odd reason we haven't seen any of them. As I pointed out, it is not uncommon for family members to disagree as to who is depicted in an old photo.

>> It looks like him...

It looks like him to YOU and the OP. To other people it does not look like him. This is a purely subjective assessment that we know collectors often get wrong. That is why we try assess individual facial features which can be much less subjective.

>> grainy images of one side of an earlobe...different angles

In the 3 side-by-side photos the center and left photos are at virtually the same angle. See post 29 for best available quality, https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345

I am not keying in on the earlobe. The overall shape of the ears are very different and that is evident in spite of the not-so-great quality of the OPs image. It's not hard to see. As Drs. Bruge and Burger said, "It is obvious that the structure of the ear does not change radically over time" That doesn't mean that the ear doesn't grow, just not enough to be noticeable in photos until about age 70 on average.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Mr. Van Horn: All I ask is that you remember that I confirmed with this with a Waner family member and that my factual claim about the growing of the ears and nose with age was accused of something be made out of thin air. This of course was revised to something the accuser later said he knew for years. Hmmm.

You continue to have trouble distinguishing fact from fantasy. Back in the 2017 thread where you started this fairy tale I said the following in post 38 https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345
"The ear growth of which you speak is so small that it would not be noticeable even when comparing a photograph of a teenager to that of a man in his 40's. It rarely becomes apparent until much later, and even then it is usually just some ear lobe droop - not a gross change in shape.

Nose tip also can droop when we get old - but nowhere near enough to account for the gross difference seen here, and anyway in the exemplar photos of Waner he is not that old."


So it appears your assertion that I never said this before is dead wrong. I didn't revise anything.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> A family with obvious high level access and multitudes of other items says it's him

We don't know that a "family" is saying anything whatever that means. As far as I know it was one person. I don't know what you mean by "multitudes of items." What is relevant are photos and for some odd reason we haven't seen any of them. As I pointed out, it is not uncommon for family members to disagree as to who is depicted in an old photo.

>> It looks like him...

It looks like him to YOU and the OP. To other people it does not look like him. This is a purely subjective assessment that we know collectors often get wrong. That is why we try assess individual facial features which can be much less subjective.

>> grainy images of one side of an earlobe...different angles

In the 3 side-by-side photos the center and left photos are at virtually the same angle.

I am not keying in on the earlobe. The overall shape of the ears are very different and that is evident in spite of the not-so-great quality of the OPs image. It's not hard to see. As Drs. Bruge and Burger said, "It is obvious that the structure of the ear does not change radically over time" That doesn't mean that the ear doesn't grow, just not enough to be noticeable in photos until about age 70 on average.

So, uh, now the nose is left out of the equation because of the difference between the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture? Just so we're clear on the math, Paul Waner would be either 41 or 42 in the Yankees photo as opposed to 70. Hook nose and all. In the 1926 exhibit he is either 23 or 24 sans hook nose.

Please check the ear in the 1926 exhibit against the ear in the postcard.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> Mr. Van Horn: All I ask is that you remember that I confirmed with this with a Waner family member and that my factual claim about the growing of the ears and nose with age was accused of something be made out of thin air. This of course was revised to something the accuser later said he knew for years. Hmmm.

You continue to have trouble distinguishing fact from fantasy. Back in the 2017 thread where you started this fairy tale I said the following in post 38:
"The ear growth of which you speak is so small that it would not be noticeable even when comparing a photograph of a teenager to that of a man in his 40's. It rarely becomes apparent until much later, and even then it is usually just some ear lobe droop - not a gross change in shape.

Nose tip also can droop when we get old - but nowhere near enough to account for the gross difference seen here, and anyway and in the exemplar photos of Waner he is not that old."


So it appears you assertion that I never said this before is dead wrong.

LOL! Once again you're lack of reading comprehension has bolted to the fore.

You indicated that I made things up out of thin air.
I quoted you and will quote you again:

"The stuff about how ears grow like your feet grow - that you made up. It has no basis in fact."

You misquoted me, but that has already been corrected. Still it is par for the course you.

Then I provided a link:

https://www.doctoroz.com/blog/arthur...ue-grow-we-age

Then, you, in post #41 stated:

I did not miss that fact (it is in the stuff I read 15 years ago).

Wow! From me making it up to you reading about it 15 years ago. Thank you, Houdini.

Almost forgot. No hard feelings.

[CrackaJackKid]

No way this is Paul Waner

[phikappapsi]

So, I went ahead and put the side by side into a little vector scenario I drew.

The chin is an obvious match; and I went ahead and ignored the button nose drop that I think we've already pretty well defined as being unimportant.

What would not have changed is the relative psition of the bottom side if the nose (where it meets the face), in relationship to the inside and outside corner of the eye, and the corner of the ear.

I created the vector from the straight on image of the postcard that was clean, then overlayed it onto Brian's photo, and rotated it on its axis to match the head tilt in that image, and boy oh boy; that again seems close enough for me!

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by phikappapsi

So, I went ahead and put the side by side into a little vector scenario I drew.

The chin is an obvious match; and I went ahead and ignored the button nose drop that I think we've already pretty well defined as being unimportant.

What would not have changed is the relative psition of the bottom side if the nose (where it meets the face), in relationship to the inside and outside corner of the eye, and the corner of the ear.

I created the vector from the straight on image of the postcard that was clean, then overlayed it onto Brian's photo, and rotated it on its axis to match the head tilt in that image, and boy oh boy; that again seems close enough for me!

Well done, sir!

Now to hear from our esteamed......err.....esteemed colleague.

By the way, crow is being prepared as a special meal for our colleague.

[bmarlowe1]

>> So, uh, now the nose is left out of the equation because of the difference between the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture? Just so we're clear on the math, Paul Waner would be either 41 or 42 in the Yankees photo as opposed to 70. Hook nose and all. In the 1926 exhibit he is either 23 or 24 sans hook nose

As usual you are wrong. The noses in the 1926 exhibit and the Yankee and Pitt photos are consistent. For some people, especially those with large noses, just starting to smile or grimace will case the nose phlange and nostrils to pull up at an angle relative to the tip of the nose. This is evident in the Pitt. and NY images and is exaggerated in the Pitt image because his head is tilted forward. In the 1926 image he is expressionless and the camera is slightly low (his head is tilted slightly back relative to the plane of the camera.

As for the nose in your photo, it is not consistent with any of the 3 exemplars. It would take me a few hours to draw up an analysis - that is a waste of time becasue the ears don't match.

>> Please check the ear in the 1926 exhibit against is st the ear in the postcard

The ears in all 3 Waner exemplar photos match. The 1926 is not a great choice because of the differing angle, but it is still evident that it is longer top to bottom than the that of the guy in your photo.

[bmarlowe1]

I really didn't want to spend so much time on something so ludicrous, but here is probably the best side-by-side I can do with available photos (absent a scan from the "relative" - why can't we see even one?).

If you can't see the very gross difference in ear size and shape then you need to see an eye doctor (assuming he is properly disinfecting). Ears absolutely do not "grow" like this over whatever the age range between these photos is. They grow virtually imperceptibly and you can easily compare the ears of a teenager those of a man in his early 40s. These are 2 different humans.

[phikappapsi]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I really didn't want to spend so much time on something so ludicrous, but here is probably the best side-by-side I can do with available photos (absent a scan from the "relative" - why can't we see even one?).

If you can't see the very gross difference in ear size and shape then you need to see an eye doctor (assuming he is properly disinfecting). Ears absolutely do not "grow" like this over whatever the age range between these photos is. They grow virtually imperceptibly and you can easily compare the ears of a teenager those of a man in his early 40s. These are 2 different humans.

that has to be easily the worst representations of dimensions ever. You started on a slope, you didn't adjust for pitch angles in either face; and you used arbitrary starting points, on subjects 25 years apart in age. .

I've spent about as much time as I'm willing to on this; but if I get bored; I'll tinker with your work; logically, and show you it actually is the same guy. note the top and bottom the the ear, in relation to the top and bottom of the nose; almost identical

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by phikappapsi

Not sure I can see how anyone would call these different people

They look like different people to me.

[bmarlowe1]

>> that has to be easily the worst representations of dimensions ever. You started on a slope, you didn't adjust for pitch angles in either face; and you used arbitrary starting points,

Actually it is by the book (or books) which I have read and you have not. Bear in mind that I have been schooled by an NYPD analyst, and have done work like this for Library of Congress, Boston Public Library, National Baseball HoF and Museum, major auction houses, other Museums and have helped numerous collectors get refunds. I also have produced a newsletter for SABR for the past 12 years that often addresses these issues.

The 3 points you made don't make any sense. These faces are at nearly the same angle (pretty much as close as you are going to get except for carefully done mugshots) They are more than close enough to support what I illustrated. When you do the same for 2 subjects that are actually the same person, the features can be seen to match. Keep in mind that we don't need accuracy to a fraction of a millimeter to expose gross differences.


BTW - your chin match is wrong - they don't match, you have no idea what you are doing, and in any case a chin match does not mean two faces belong to the same person if other features do not match. Is that not obvious?

[celoknob]

I try to avoid chiming in on arguments on this forum but this intrigued me for several reasons. One, I am interested in identifying obscure player photos from the deadball era and this is an interesting example. I find it frustrating and very difficult, esp when I had poor photos (e.g. Spalding and Reach Guides) as my only exemplar.

Second, I appreciate the thoughtful posts by bmarlowe1. He explains in ways that make objective sense why he offers his opinions. This is so rare when it seems that for whatever reason, experience, professionals and logic take back seats often these days to hunches, hopes and biases.

I don't understand why the OP is upset at him. If all you care about is your own opinion then there is no reason to post on this forum and then continue to argue about it. If you do make a claim about a photo on this forum then it should be challenged if it is not proven to be correct. False public claims should be corrected. That is how we learn.

[phikappapsi]

seriously tapping out after this because I just don't care nearly as much as my responses indicate.

but... Adjusted to create common head size; while rotating the axis slightly to account for the older picture being more from the profile.

Nose bridge, pupils and top of ear match perfectly, as does the the anterior nasal spine (which does not grow/move).

The ridges across the maxilla and premaxilla also match, but hey, that's just bones.

Wish I had better software to rotate this thing spherically and prove it without a doubt; but Brian - I'd buy this from you with confidence that it was Paul Waner - If I cared at all about collecting Paul Waner photos (I do not) but this was a fun albeit annoying distraction on a friday afternoon.

FWIW - If I was concerned about ANY aspect of these two photos it would be the vast difference in the palpebral fissure; which is stark. However; that can likely be explained by the fact that the kid in the first picture is outside in the daylight squinting, and the older Waner image appears to be taken in the evening or indoors

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Aging can cause a lot of differences

Red herring. Skin bleaching, excessive rhinoplasty and other facial surgery is not comparable to normal aging. Just look at Lisa Rinna and the late Kenny Rogers.

[bmarlowe1]

Re post #79, your analysis is not valid. The eyes, nostrils and mouth do not line up in your graphic. Thus your relative sizing is wrong. You are shooting from the hip with respect to a complex subject about which you seem to know nothing.

When working on a project a long time ago with an NYPD forensic analyst and a former FBI analyst - they taught me to do what I did above and why it works well even if the heads are at slightly different angles.

BTW - There is no need to rotate the heads here because for both subjects the eyes are level without any rotation.

[OldOriole]

I think it's time for a poll on this. Other than that, I don't know what else will be accomplished by this thread. The OP is not going to change Mark's mind and if the OP really thinks it's Waner then...great, move on. That being said, my vote would be for two clearly different people for the scientific reasoning being given.

How 'bout a poll?

[bigfanNY]

So the poll would be who believes in science and who dose not?
I have no dog in in this fight but OP Team Photo is NOT Paul Waner. And if OP wanted to offer anything that would sway the science he would ask the relatives to share a picture of PW at the same age, maybe even in the same uniform. But why would the OP post something that would prove himself wrong?

Because poll or no poll it is not Paul Waner.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by celoknob

I try to avoid chiming in on arguments on this forum but this intrigued me for several reasons. One, I am interested in identifying obscure player photos from the deadball era and this is an interesting example. I find it frustrating and very difficult, esp when I had poor photos (e.g. Spalding and Reach Guides) as my only exemplar.

Second, I appreciate the thoughtful posts by bmarlowe1. He explains in ways that make objective sense why he offers his opinions. This is so rare when it seems that for whatever reason, experience, professionals and logic take back seats often these days to hunches, hopes and biases.

I don't understand why the OP is upset at him. If all you care about is your own opinion then there is no reason to post on this forum and then continue to argue about it. If you do make a claim about a photo on this forum then it should be challenged if it is not proven to be correct. False public claims should be corrected. That is how we learn.

The sentiment has clearly gone both ways between myself and Mark. The problem with Mark is that he can't admit he's wrong. Also, he misquotes from my posts and then claims I make things up. When given proof of my assertion, he then states he knew of it 15 years ago. I'm no angel here, but Mark? Please.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by Michael B

Red herring. Skin bleaching, excessive rhinoplasty and other facial surgery is not comparable to normal aging. Just look at Lisa Rinna and the late Kenny Rogers.

I assume that he was making a joke.

[Brian Van Horn]

Somehow I managed to miss that statement by Michael B.

My fault.

[bmarlowe1]

>> The problem with Mark is that he can't admit he's wrong. Also, he misquotes from my posts and then claims I make things up. When given proof of my assertion, he then states he knew of it 15 years ago. I'm no angel here, but Mark? Please.

I do not misquote you. When you quote yourself you leave things out.

As to you saying that I did not know ears grow, you can be sure I did know because:
(1) In 2017 in Net54 I posted in response to YOU about this same photo: "The ear growth of which you speak is so small that it would not be noticeable even when comparing a photograph of a teenager to that of a man in his 40's. It rarely becomes apparent until much later, and even then it is usually just some ear lobe droop - not a gross change in shape"
(2) In 2008 in SABR's "The National Pastime' I published an article "Analyzing Grand Old Images" in which I stated, "...ear shape and structure are relatively permanent from about age 8 to age 70." Note that I said "relatively" and "about", meaning ears are not absolutely unchanging like concrete over a full lifetime.

So clearly your statement about what I knew and when I know it was wrong. Can you admit it?

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL! Thank you. Just ignore the evidence that I gave on this on two different posts.

By the way, feel free to check out Paul Waner's nose on the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture. Clearly appreciable difference in the nose long before the age of 70.

Also, thanks now for the laugh. You have added a 17th year to my life.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Just ignore the evidence that I gave on this on two different posts.

You continue to blather imprecise nonsense

>> By the way, feel free to check out Paul Waner's nose on the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture. Clearly appreciable difference in the nose long before the age

Really, do you read the posts? Seems not. "Age 70" was tied to ears, not noses, though noses are also fairly stable thru middle age. And in any case I addressed your nose comment back in post 73.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> Just ignore the evidence that I gave on this on two different posts.

You continue to blather imprecise nonsense

>> By the way, feel free to check out Paul Waner's nose on the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture. Clearly appreciable difference in the nose long before the age

Really, do you read the posts? Seems not. "Age 70" was tied to ears, not noses, though noses are also fairly stable thru middle age. And in any case I addressed your nose comment back in post 73.

LOL!

Here we go.....again. Thank you for the laughter.

Let's see if we can simplify this for you. 1926 exhibit. No, hook nose. 1945 profound hook nose.

Your answer from post 73:

"The noses in the 1926 exhibit and the Yankee and Pitt photos are consistent. For some people, especially those with large noses, just starting to smile or grimace will case the nose phlange and nostrils to pull up at an angle relative to the tip of the nose. This is evident in the Pitt. and NY images and is exaggerated in the Pitt image because his head is tilted forward. In the 1926 image he is expressionless and the camera is slightly low (his head is tilted slightly back relative to the plane of the camera."

Now, that is blather. The point that you are blathering around is that there is a profound difference in the nose. The distinct difference is because of age not because of a beginning smile or tilt of the head. The evidence is right in front of you in the difference between the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture.

Also, please look at the ear in each photo. Notice a difference? Remember, we're talking about ages 22 to 23 as opposed to 41 or 42. Not 70. Still, that's only an additional difference of over two and approaching three decades beyond the Yankees picture.

Go ahead. Blather.

No hard feelings.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I assume that he was making a joke.

I realize it. Just trying to play along. Sitting on the sidelines for this show can get boring.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Michael B

I realize it. Just trying to play along. Sitting on the sidelines for this show can get boring.

True. Oh, so true.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Now, that is blather. The point that you are blathering around is that there is a profound difference in the nose. The distinct difference is because of age not because of a beginning smile or tilt of the head.

As usual you are wrong, my assessment was correct. Below we have a young PW, smiling a bit and what do you know, his nose tip points distinctly downward. Can you see that Mr. Van Horn?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> Now, that is blather. The point that you are blathering around is that there is a profound difference in the nose. The distinct difference is because of age not because of a beginning smile or tilt of the head.

As usual you are wrong, my assessment was correct. Below we have a young PW, smiling a bit and what do you know, his nose tip points distinctly downward. Can you see that Mr. Van Horn?

Bwahaha!

Let's see. Look at your picture and the 1945 Yankees picture. Notice a huge difference in the nose and, no, it is not due to angle or smile.

Also, you didn't answer my request which I will again post:

"Also, please look at the ear in each photo. Notice a difference? Remember, we're talking about ages 22 to 23 as opposed to 41 or 42. Not 70. Still, that's only an additional difference of over two and approaching three decades beyond the Yankees picture."

You have a wonderful dichotomy of blathering (incorrectly) on one subject while avoiding another.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Let's see. Look at your picture and the 1945 Yankees picture. Notice a huge difference in the nose and, no, it is not due to angle or smile.

Looks about the same as the young PW smiling photo

>> Also, please look at the ear in each photo. Notice a difference? Remember, we're talking about ages 22 to 23 as opposed to 41 or 42. Not 70.

There is absolutely no visible difference in the ear.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> Let's see. Look at your picture and the 1945 Yankees picture. Notice a huge difference in the nose and, no, it is not due to angle or smile.

Looks about the same as the young PW smiling photo

>> Also, please look at the ear in each photo. Notice a difference? Remember, we're talking about ages 22 to 23 as opposed to 41 or 42. Not 70.

There is absolutely no visible difference in the ear.

Oh, my goodness. LOL!

Would you agree the pictures are about the same size and distance from Paul Waner in both photos?

Just asking. Again, just asking.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Would you agree the pictures are about the same size and distance from Paul Waner in both photos?

Again, in English please

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> Would you agree the pictures are about the same size and distance from Paul Waner in both photos?

Again, in English please

It is in English! LOL!

Let's try this again. Would you agree since you literally lined up these photos they are just about the same size and that the pictures were taken from about the same distance away?

[bmarlowe1]

>> Would you agree since you literally lined up these photos they are just about the same size and that the pictures were taken from about the same distance away?

I don't know how far away the cameras were from the faces depicted, except to say they were far enough away to avoid what is called "perspective distortion" that occurs in extreme close-ups. That is all that is important here.

I don't know the size of the original photos or negatives which is not relevant to anything here.

[phikappapsi]

Pretty sure the point Brian is about to make is that, even in the two photos you used, that compare waner vs waner and are known. There's a dramatic difference in the earlobe. Which you've said all along disqualifies.