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

[Directly]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

Charles Comiskey was born in 1859 so he would have twenty years old in the 1879 composite picture; Radbourn in 1854. By the accounts I have read, Comiskey was in Dubuque from c1878-1881. So in these images Comiskey would have been in the 19-22 year old range and Radbourn in the 24-27 year range assuming they were together all of those years. Since it is proffered that both Radbourn and Comiksey are the disputed group image, I would be curious as to reader’s thoughts on if the players identified as Comiskey and Radbourn appear to be 19-22 and 24-27 years old respectively.

A valid question would likely be that if this is in fact of these men during their tenure with the Dubuque Rabbits, do the other players in the photograph appear to be of the same or similar age given the purported context of the image? It is interesting to note that in the composite photograph of the 1879 team, a number of the men feature mustaches. Not that it counts for anything, but it is my opinion that the players in the disputed Dubuque Rabbits photograph appear to younger than what the context of what the image is purported to portray indicates I would expect to see.

Dave Grob
DaveGrob@aol.com

A Beard or mustache will usually take 3-4 weeks.--

Here is a valid question. How old is the person on the left?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Directly

A Beard or mustache will usually take 3-4 weeks.--

Here is a valid question. How old is the person on the left?

3-4 weeks for a full thick mustache on a 20yr old. Yeah, I don't think so. Maybe if he were a wookie.

Here's a valid question. Why are you here? Waaaaay back in the first thread, you stated you came looking for advice. You have gotten all the same advice from some of the smartest and most experienced hobby veterans, including the man considered THE expert on facial recognition, yet you still refuse to believe the evidence provided. You have wasted countless of our hours reading and replying to your inane nonsense. You try to come up with an answer to every piece of evidence and your answers make no sense. We have been trying to help you understand that your identification is incorrect. You refuse to believe it.
So again I have to ask, why are you still here? Nothing, and I really do mean nothing, you can say or show will refute the evidence that has already been presented. No one here will believe you and, fortunately, for the uneducated masses of sports memorabilia enthusiasts, no auction house of any repute will ever accept your photo for what you claim it to be.

Edit: I am not asking this question sarcastically. I really would like to know what you hope to accomplish by continuing. No one has agreed with any of your assertions, so my question is why continue the same argument?

[Dave Grob]

In response to your question about how old the person on the left is, I won’t venture a guess as it is not germane to the point I apparently failed to properly make or express in manner that was understandable. My apologies to you and the other readers for that. My post was about looking at the image with through the filters of context. Here we have the filters of age and the fact that these men are professional baseball players. Both the labeled 1879 Dubuque Rabbits photograph and the composite are proffered as being the same group of men from the same time frame.

Since there is single date offered (1879) as the basis of analysis, we can make observations based on the known age at the time of individuals and the group as a whole. We can also make observations that are contextual since these men (group or composite photograph) are then proffered to be the same group of professional baseball players. Using 1879 we can then state the men are:

Charles Comiskey: 20
Charles Radbourn: 25
Bill Gleason: 20
Tom Sullivan: 19
L.P. Reis: 21
Tom Loftus: 23
Jack Gleason: 25

Since the composite photo is used as the basis for comparative analysis to the offered photo of the 1879 Dubuque Rabbits, then you are left to decide if the players in the disputed photograph appear to be the same age as those in the composite, measured against the backdrop of what we know their ages to be at the common point of reference (1879).

Please know that my previous post and this one as well was intended to provide some thoughts on context as well as ways or metrics that can be used as perspective for the analysis and subsequent observations that you or anyone else might make. What conclusions individuals draw from using this information and/or protocols is up to them, be it for this issue or those in the future.

Dave Grob
Dave Grob1@aol.com

[bmarlowe1]

.

[Runscott]

Well, I was certain I knew who 7 of these guys were, but after talking with the g-g-g-g-nephews of 3 of them, and the g-g-g-g-granddaughters of 4 others, none of who ever saw any of the players I thought were in the picture...isn't that weird? ....I'm having to re-assess my thinking.

After I get through 'lip matching' them against other possibilities, I'll update this post.

(But the guy who looks like Theulis REALLY is Comiskey)

[71buc]

Breshnan with the mask?

[Directly]

Quote: Dave Grob: Please know that my previous post and this one as well was intended to provide some thoughts on context as well as ways or metrics that can be used as perspective for the analysis and subsequent observations that you or anyone else might make. What conclusions individuals draw from using this information and/or protocols is up to them, be it for this issue or those in the future.



Dave, Thanks for the input. I appreciate your thought! I assume you will be the author in the future SABR article. Finally someone that will use context as well as ways or metrics that can be used as perspective for the analysis and subsequent observations that one might make. The conclusions one draws from this information is up to them.

I agree with you, my Charles Comiskey must be fully analyzed, more toward a Point type system.

Your statement makes perfect sense to allow a one ear example for any positive conclusion, is definitely not the use of context or metrics for a complete analysis.

[bmarlowe1]

That's funny. The "context" that Dave Grob pointed out was that of a professional minor league team c1879. He pointed out 2 metrics within that context.

1) First metric - Players' ages. Do the players in your photo appear to be the right age for a professional minor league team (Dave actually listed the ages of some of the players you claim are in your photo). The answer is no, the boys in your photo appear to be way too young.

2) The second metric was mustache frequency for an 1879 professional minor league team. Not one player in your photo has a mustache. What are the chances of that? I'll give you a good estimate.

Let's say that just 1/2 of minor league players in 1879 had mustaches (I think it is actually more, but let's be conservative), the odds of having 9 players with no mustaches is 1/2 raised to the 9th power - the same as doing 9 coin flips and having them all come out heads. This comes out to about 1 in 500. That alone makes your entire claim about your photo highly unlikely.

Add to that the fact the the only verified actual Dubuque 1879 photo shows 7 of 10 players with mustaches - a critical point you clearly did not understand based on your earlier response. How fast one could grow a mustache has nothing to do with this. Most of the boys in your photo were probably too young to grow a mustache - that's why you don't see any.

Lastly there is no "point system" for comparing faces in photos - you'll have to invent your own. You can start with your claimed 1879 Radbourn (below center) - on his left is the real Radbourn c1875 (from HoF), on his right is the real Radbourn 1882. How many "points" would you give your guy?

[note to Scott F., - be nice, I enjoyed creating this post]

[Dave Grob]

There continues to be some confusion with the information I have been providing. I am NOT advocating ANY sort of “point system” for the evaluation of photographs. To be perfectly honest, I have never been a fan of point systems or the assigning of numerical grades to artifacts and memorabilia. The graphic I provided on Facial Reference (FR) and Context Reference (CR) is nothing more than a tool that facilitates the visual representation of various degrees of certainty that a person might have in their opinion when using the screening criteria of FR and CR. It also serves the purposes of highlighting these two areas, thus permitting someone to see the particular strengths or weaknesses in any argument or counterargument on the subject at hand. Please notice that the graph shows ranges and degrees from Low to High.

The use of numbers only serves the purpose of allowing folks to have a discussion using a common vocabulary or point of reference as they discuss what quadrant they feel their analysis and assessment might best fit in and why.

It is and was NEVER intended to be used as some device or protocol that says if you get “x” number of points, then the photograph is what is purported to be. I simply offered a tool that I think has merit in allowing individuals make and defend objective and informed assessments. Nothing more than that. All I am attempting to do (and it appears not very well) is to share information and protocols that I have used or leveraged over the past 20+ years as an intelligence analyst that might have utility in the area of evaluating memorabilia and answering questions about artifacts.

I am also not the author of the forthcoming SABR article. In the future, when time permits, I do plan on writing a piece that details the use of a grid system to facilitate facial recognition.



Dave Grob
Dave Grob1@aol.com

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

There continues to be some confusion with the information I have been providing. I am NOT advocating ANY sort of “point system” for the evaluation of photographs. To be perfectly honest, I have never been a fan of point systems or the assigning of numerical grades to artifacts and memorabilia.

....

Dave Grob
Dave Grob1@aol.com

Dave, there isn't any confusion - 'Directly' is twisting your words, and those of others, as he sees fit. I have no idea what he is attempting to accomplish, but maybe it amuses him.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

There continues to be some confusion with the information I have been providing. I am NOT advocating ANY sort of “point system” for the evaluation of photographs. To be perfectly honest, I have never been a fan of point systems or the assigning of numerical grades to artifacts and memorabilia. The graphic I provided on Facial Reference (FR) and Context Reference (CR) is nothing more than a tool that facilitates the visual representation of various degrees of certainty that a person might have in their opinion when using the screening criteria of FR and CR. It also serves the purposes of highlighting these two areas, thus permitting someone to see the particular strengths or weaknesses in any argument or counterargument on the subject at hand. Please notice that the graph shows ranges and degrees from Low to High.

The use of numbers only serves the purpose of allowing folks to have a discussion using a common vocabulary or point of reference as they discuss what quadrant they feel their analysis and assessment might best fit in and why.

It is and was NEVER intended to be used as some device or protocol that says if you get “x” number of points, then the photograph is what is purported to be. I simply offered a tool that I think has merit in allowing individuals make and defend objective and informed assessments. Nothing more than that. All I am attempting to do (and it appears not very well) is to share information and protocols that I have used or leveraged over the past 20+ years as an intelligence analyst that might have utility in the area of evaluating memorabilia and answering questions about artifacts.

I am also not the author of the forthcoming SABR article. In the future, when time permits, I do plan on writing a piece that details the use of a grid system to facilitate facial recognition.



Dave Grob
Dave Grob1@aol.com

Dave,
To echo what Scott said, I don't think there is really any confusion about what you posted. I think it was very clear as to what your point is. I think even the OP understood it.

Though the OP didn't answer my question as to what he hopes to accomplish by continuing this conversation, I do have an idea. I think his goal is to twist the logic and rationale presented by the board to create the appearance that we agree with his assertions. He is hoping that we won't follow up with a comment clarifying our position so as to clearly state that we are not agreeing with him, like you did above, so that he can go to seller or AH using our words. I can see no other logical reason for him continuing this.