Its as Plain as the Nose on your Face-the Ear Thing isn't Gospel
 

I have a old Dubuque photo. I will admit I did make a mistake on two players, but not the "kid", as Comiskey was called in 1882 by his team mates.

I stand by my insight without any reservation. Hopefully this photo will not be lost again, but if so at least this photo is known to exist.

The question I ask why the Ear Thing comparison was fabricated??--and why was I advised to hurry and sell--?

*grabs popcorn*

Here is I believe the original thread

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163481


I wasn't a member then. I looked over the thread and tried to be as objective as one might be. Whatever you may believe about the photo, I do not think there is enough evidence to present the image as comiskey. To me after looking at several similar discussions, the burden has to lie on proving it is someone, not proving it is not. This is especially true where value is involved.

One saying one ear compared to another 150 year photo found to satisfy them and hopefully others to me isn't proof either?

So now what?

Please tell me there is more to your jaw-dropping expose than "I stand by my insight without any reservation." :confused:

Lance,
Please don't feed the troll.
No amount of evidence will convince him. There is no point responding.

The only advice I know about was the advice I gave to a major auction house upon request - I told them to give your photo back to you, and they wisely took the advice.

My only mistake was not seeing Lordstan's post before I made mine.

:)

Did you know Comiskey was once shown a photograph:

Quote: Comiskey was once shown a photograph which he didn't even own a copy. He pointed out Reis and Alveretta, the acrobat. Adding This was a good team.

My revelation--

Which photo was Comiskey describing mine or the composite? I really do believe he was referring to my Dubuque baseball team photograph? Hence my corrections

I have shared my photo with the Comiskey family and she was happy and thrilled to see my photo, and that's really all that matters to me--

I appreciate this forum letting me post my work! Its a great site! I really do enjoy reading the threads and I don't by any means wish to cause any bad feeling-just facts! thanks again, Tom

I think all future posts on this thread should just be +1 of CW!

Ken

There is something wrong with this guy. I think it's great when someone with problems like he has, as well as no aptitude, is still interested in our hobby and gets enjoyment from it. But when he can't keep a low profile and listen and learn from people who know about 100x what he knows, and instead chooses to be a complete nuisance, he really should be shown the door.

My guess is he has found an auction house that will take it and in his own misguided way is trying to rekindle interest in it. Why else lay low for so long and then come out of nowhere with this supposed expose that amounts to an unintelligible restatement of his previous misguided argument?

Another collectors advise---Quote: Don't let the insults bother you!- You have a perfect right to be objective about your photo. Stick with the Facts!

If there is going to be a study of any antique portrait photo and one wants to compare the ear and stop because one ear may not appear to be a perfect fit when matching against another photo, is this a logical concept. Wouldn't it be fair to mention the antique photo's ear comparison may appear a little different, so there for not positively definitive.

Shouldn't any photo comparison theory greatly depend on each of a photo's factors--lighting, head positions, clarity, line of sight, age, condition of photo, the photographers process & touch-up, all the above, etc.

The Ear discussion is fine, but what about a overall point system.

Nose-----Mouth----hair-line---Eyes,---. Comparing two photos made around the same time, etc and other related facts.

A Ear comparison of my Lapham would be interesting.

So look, which ear might you pick for comparison?--to be fair my Comiskey is the fifth from the left--

+1

Tom,
You finally asked a reasonable question. Let's be clear about this though. You are not objective about your photo. You have a financial interest in proving this photo to contain the people you claim it does. No one here has any financial interest either way. The people on the board who have been trying to help you are the ones who have been objective. As a matter of fact, most here would be celebrating the historical significance of your photo, if it were true. Most here would love your photo to be what you wish it were and would love to be able to help you prove it were the real deal. Unfortunately for everyone interested in baseball history, it has been shown clearly in the previous thread not to be any of the people you claim them to be.

Now onto your thoughts. The reason a point system is not worthwhile is that you can have 20 features match, but if one, and it needs to be only one, doesn't match, all the rest don't matter, as it's not the same person. I think people focus on the ear for multiple reasons.

1) The ear is easy to see in many photos and therefore comparison images are often available.

2) The shapes are very distinctive and differences are often easy to see in comparison to jaw width, eye distance, and other things that require some more skill to create reference points to be able to match up photos.

3) The scale doesn't matter. You can compare a larger image to a smaller one because the shape won't change regardless how big or small the photos are.

4) The ear shape doesn't change from the teens to late 70s. This allows the photo of a younger person to be compared with an older image with a high degree of reliability.

5) The ear shape doesn't change with weight gain.

All the things you brought up, lighting, etc, are taken into consideration when attempting to match facial features. We all know, and Mark(bmarlowe1) will tell you clearly, that not all photos can be used for comparison. Reasonable comparison images were found to use with your photo and it showed it to not be him.

My final thought of my last reply to this thread is this. I really wish you would stop calling the kid in your photo Charles Comiskey. It isn't him.

Sorry everyone, I couldn't help myself.
Mark

Some actual arguments were made, so I'll concur with what Lordstan said and specifically respond.

Directly: If there is going to be a study of any antique portrait photo and one wants to compare the ear and stop because one ear may not appear to be a perfect fit when matching against another photo, is this a logical concept [?]

I did not say your guy is not Comiskey because the ear is "not a perfect fit", I said he is not Comiskey because the ear is obviously grossly different in shape - not even remotely close.

Directly: The Ear discussion is fine, but what about a overall point system.

An "overall point system" is just something you made up. I prefer to listen to forensic experts. When the ear is grossly different, any other "points" you may have don't matter. There appear to be other significant differences - the nose, your guy probably had blue eyes, etc., but in your photo the ear difference is by far the easiest feature to see with certainty for comparison purposes and alone is enough to show that your guy is not Comiskey.

Directly: Comparing two photos made around the same time...

Ear shape is the most stable thing to compare. It stays virtually the same from about age 8 until the 60's. Ear changes are rarely visible in a photo until old age.

Directly: Shouldn't any photo comparison theory greatly depend on each of a photo's factors--lighting, head positions, clarity, line of sight,...

In the 2 photos below, the line of sight (i.e. head positions relative to the plane of the camera) are nearly the same (frontal view with very slight turn to the viewer's left). The ears being compared are not in significant shadow. The shape of the left outer ear (viewer's right) is easy to see even in Directly's grainy photo.

It's not even close.

.
 

.

Apology not accepted

You and the photo-match Mark each get one of these for troll-feeding:

http://i.imgur.com/f6due.gif

Scott,
I know. I know.
I'm sorry.
I'll even give myself one.

http://i.imgur.com/f6due.gif

Here's the thing. The mention of a "point system" got my attention for a couple of reasons.

I first heard it raised by a major AH in opposition to my pointing out (in a net54 post c2009) an obvious ear mismatch in one of their lots. According to their "point system", the guy was JJ. This was related to me in a phone call by a "friend" of the AH. As best as I can tell the AH has since reformed.

Also, IMO, it doesn't sound like something the OP would propose on his own. I speculate that he is getting some "help."

Something like a point system may be used for computer screening of, say, thousands faces in an airport video camera being compared to a database of terrorist faces - the computer is liberally looking for a set of possible face matches. After the computer selects possible matches, the list is fed to a skilled human to do the real comparisons using methods frequently discussed on net54.

That is very interesting. This all makes sense and fits with Lance's post a few prior to this where he theorized that the OP did get another AH interested, so he brought the subject up again.

Mark, I was just messing with you.

It was annoying to see the bogus Comiskey appear in our forum again - if posters like this guy can't be banned, another idea might be to ban certain topics once they have run their course of uselessness.

While I do agree with you Scott about stopping certain topics when they run their course, it probably does eventually help out bad auctions like this Comiskey. I'm a religious reader of Net54 but somehow missed it the first time around and that thread last week was my first view of the bogus id of him. Now I can't say I'd have been fooled by a dishonest AH slipping this in their auction (for God's sake anyone can tell it ain't him!!!), but other could have. This tread though redundant may have saved someone a bundle.

Whatever AH does put it (and that phoney Joe Jackson military) in their auction should be held responsible by the hobby. knowingly putting that junk up for auction is in my opinion worse, more dangerous and incredibly costlier than the usual Coach's Corner hijinx we see every month.

Question: Have you ever had someone say to you. Hello, why after all these years, you haven't change a bit. (Did they look to your face, or your ears?)

So in retrospect are the opinionate saying , the Kid's face is a dead ringer for Comiskey. The Facts may be too convincing so he ears comparison may be the only way out?--

Here is something I really find troubling. I was told, just write the names on the back, everyone is doing it! Sorry now that's fraud.

Why is everyone up in arms when another hobby collector has another opinion?

Quote Runscott--It's Ok for two people to have a disagreement.

Jerseygary: There is a much more here at stake than money.

Please don't ask to censor future new ideals or opinions on this forum, that could be dangerous too.

FYI: I mailed my work to the HOF, the Chicago History Museum, the Smithonian, the Comiskey family and emailed SABR.--( Fact: not to any auction company as claimed )--

Fact 1: I received a hi-res scan of your photo from a major auction house in 2011. They said it was from a consignor (or perhaps they meant a potential consignor). If it did not come from you, where did they get it?

Fact 2: Your photo will actually appear in a SABR newsletter that will come out very soon. Should be interesting.

I'm glad that you don't always do what the little voices tell you to.

Tom,
No one and I do really mean no one here is saying that the rest of the kid's face looks like Comiskey. For myself, I don't think the kid looks even remotely like Comiskey, even without the ears.
Let me try to be as clear as possible.
What we are saying is that photos of 2 people can have many facial features match, but if one feature doesn't, then it isn't the same person. It doesn't matter which feature matches or doesn't. It could be the eyes or chin or jaw or any number of things. The point is that only one feature need to not match to show that the photos are of 2 different people. The fact that the ears are so different between your photo and any other known Comiskey photo prove, regardless of any other feature, that they aren't the same person.
Also, your point about a friend stating you look the same proves nothing. Most people pay very little attention to details. This is why so many famous people have stand ins that no one notices.

Mark,
Please make sure you post a link to the newsletter once it's done.
Perhaps you should send it to the HOF, Chicago Museum, Comiskey family, and the Smithsonian as well.

Mark

Thanks, nothing lost nothing gained, a article about my Dubuque baseball team Photo. About time. It only took twenty five years to finally get the hobby's attention!--I'm thrilled.

We should mention the Stars on the uniforms and the Star on Reis hat, this could be significant.

Any guess on the item on the floor by Laphams foot--??

Fact 1--good question on the Hi-res scan--wasn't from me.
Fact 2 --how can anyone write anything about my photo without my participation-? Shouldn't I be advised on the author?

I will call SABR for more information.--thanks again!

Stars could signify team captains? Object by foot could be (not joking) a crotch protector taken out for the sake of the photo.

Anyone can write anything they want about your photo.

So when I call SABR, who should I ask for?

I don't know. There are over 6000 members all across the country.

SABR will probably refer him to someone on this thread. Need the number?

I have a feeling you won't be so thrilled once you read the article. FYI, anyone can write about your photo or just about anything without your or anyone else's approval. Perhaps you have heard of the First Ammendment to the Constitution. You know the right to free speech.

I find it funny and sad that you keep bringing up player names, when you have yet to show any of the people in this photo are even on the same team, much less the people you wish they were.

There are now 6001 members!

You said it not me--"Free speech"--really, its my photo, and I can't even name my players!---

First off you're not naming them. You're identifying them and I never said you couldn't. I said it's sad and funny that you keep stating these names as if it's true, when you can't even prove that the players in the picture were even all on the same team.

Mark, I am completely against calling people names on the internet, but this guy is very similar to what I like to call "a Moron". I say "similar" because I see no reason to insult legitimate morons.

:p: LOL

Thanks. Now I have to clean the soda off my shirt.

Lordstan--

Please let me correct your phrase--I believe you meant to say how can I prove the players in my photo are those players.


When I sent copies of my photo I used phrase "my interpretation"

( Interpretation= to conceive in the light of a individual belief, judgment.)


--------I am just thrilled the photo has enough merit for any article. ( Even when it will be bad )

If everyone believes there is no possibility, that's the way it will be.

If a just few believe there is a possibility, that's the way it will be.

No need to correct me.
I said exactly what I meant. You not only have no proof that the names you have assigned are correct, you have no proof that all the players in the picture are even on the same team. The players are wearing at least 3 or 4 different uniforms. All of your identifications go out the window because your entire theory is based upon the idea that this is one team. It clearly isn't.

Lordstan: the photo expert "photo collector"--I really have other important things to do right now than try to answer your valued opinions:

So Per your set in stone theory since these players are not wearing the same uniforms they are not on the same team?-!!-I believe they could be!

If you believe you might know who these players are, I believe I might know who my players are!

Wow.
I guess Scott was right.

I never said I was an expert, but I can obviously do things that you cannot, like see ear shapes and facial shapes. I can also learn new things. For instance, when someone who is widely accepted in our hobby as an expert in facial comparison and identification, like Mark(Bmarlowe1) is, I tend to pay attention and listen. You obviously refuse to listen and use just about any excuse possible to try and negate his, and everyone else who has ever opined on the photo, opinion because his conclusions don't fit with your agenda.
You can keep on living in your fantasy world where just because you think you're right, logic and reason are rejected. Congrats on your photo of some random group of players that have absolutely nothing to do with Charles Comiskey.

Using your logic, I see we can finally agree on something. I don't know who the players in this last photo you posted are, and you don't know who the players in your photo are.

That's funny - you've finally posted a photo that actually does include Radbourn. It's a very well-known combined 1886 Bos NL / NY NL photo.

I thought you were some sort of photo guy?? I'm finding it hard to believe some of you will come on here and slam the OP with half-arsed opinions when it's obvious you know NOTHING!

Using the time-honored skills of facial-mustache recognition, it's plain to see that this photo doesn't just "include Radbourn." It includes 16 Radbourns!! (The guy in the top hat is Radbourn's twin brother.) My goodness, can't you see that! This is actually a well-known example of the first use of photoshop.

Ken

Ok after reading this thread I think you are all crazy. That is one of those old time photos of the Yankees/Red Sox. I won't give away all the ID's but the front row from left to right is Wade Boggs, Tino Martinez, Roger Clemens, Jim Rice, Bernie Williams, and Derek Jeter. The guy with the top hat is 100% Paul O'Neil.

Now I am no expert but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.:p:eek::D