Any Idea of Why This Went So Cheaply?

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I expected that would be the tenor of your reply. By the way, you can't be anonymous on this board and call people a**holes. How about identifying yourself since everybody else did? My name is Barry Sloate- please share yours.

What? This is a message board, I don't have to tell anyone my name. But just for you, my name is Bradd. And apparently you didn't read the insulting, rude and downright nasty reply that guy gave me when all I did was voice my opinion on a couple photos. Because if you did, you would have no reason to keep on me for calling him a "bad name".

[sportscardtheory]

And who calls themselves some kind of photograph specialist and doesn't use any comparative photos. I'm no expert, so who is the guy on the right if he's not the same guy. Show us another photo of both players so we can see if those also differ. I'm just curious.

Edit - So it's the guy on the left that is in question? Like I stated, I'm no expert and was just comparing the two photos. The one on the right IS Radbourne and the one on the left was "supposedly" Radbourne and later changed?

[sportscardtheory]

I understand now. The guy on the left, the auction that was closed, is of someone that "looks" like Radbourn, and that is what is in question. My original assessment was based ONLY on looking at the two photos and forming an opinion based on if they were the same person. Given the details, it seems like if it were the same person, the photo on the left would have to of been taken many years before the other for there to even be a chance. That or Rabourn had all his head and facial hair cut down. I don't really care what someone tells me, they have eerily similar noses, ears and hair-lines. That is clear as day. That's probably what caused the initial mix-up.

[bmarlowe1]

>>>all I did was voice my opinion on a couple photos..

No you did not. Please re-read my response just after you blew up, and also Jim VB's reply - this time s-l-o-w-l-y. The re-read your initial posts, again s-l-o-w-l-y.

Along with photos, you seem to have a problem with word usage and the plain meaning of language.

>>>Show us another photo of both players...

Huh? There are many photos of Radbourne, I posted for comparison one of the best that we know of, which happens to be at an angle that is at least similar to the head of the guy in the Bodie cabinet.

The guy in civies in the Bodie cabinet is unknown - hence we don't have any other photos of him. Get it Bradd?

>>>they have eerily similar noses, ears and hair-lines.

The real Radbourne has clear, obvious hair loss on his left side in the area above the ear. The guy in the Bodie cabinet does not.

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

Thanks to all for the support. I was actually harder on Nashville Jeremy a couple of weeks ago, but it all slid off of him like water off of a ducks back. Like faces, people are all different - some more than others.

[bmarlowe1]

>>> That's probably what caused the initial mix-up.

No Bradd, what caused the mix-up was sometime in the past some fraudulent theif wrote Radbourne on the back.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>>>all I did was voice my opinion on a couple photos..

No you did not. Please re-read my response just after you blew up, and also Jim VB's reply - this time s-l-o-w-l-y. The re-read your initial posts, again s-l-o-w-l-y.

Along with photos, you seem to have a problem with word usage and the plain meaning of language.

>>>Show us another photo of both players...

Huh? There are many photos of Radbourne, I posted for comparison one of the best that we know of, which happens to be at an angle that is at least similar to the head of the guy in the Bodie cabinet.

The guy in civies in the Bodie cabinet is unknown - hence we don't have any other photos of him. Get it Bradd?

>>>they have eerily similar noses, ears and hair-lines.

The real Radbourne has clear, obvious hair loss on his left side in the are above the ear. The guy in the Bodie cabinet does not.

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

Thanks to all for the support. I was actually harder on Nashville Jeremy a couple of weeks ago, but it all slid off of him like water off of a ducks back. Like faces, people are all different - some more than others.

I do get it, and I apologize for hastily responding to your response to my post. A cooler head would have been a better option. I still find the response rude and quite insulting, but I'm over it. To the topic at hand, I say they are eerily similar in facial features and hair can be cut. I'm certainly not saying this is the same man, but to say they have no similarities is crazy talk. I'll stand by my original assessment that they have nearly identical noses, ears and hair-lines. If in the photo of Radbourn he was facing the camera, it would be much harder to dismiss them as the same person.

[bmarlowe1]

Bradd,

Repeating what I said after you blew up: "Perhaps jumping on your case personally that way was not very tactful (sorry)".

>>>and hair can be cut....

In all of Radbourne's capless photos from his playing days - this area lacks hair. This is a pretty weird haricut you are postulating.

If this is important enough to you that you want to get better at it - I would be happy to provide references for you via private message.

I should add that this photo has all the earmarks of a fradulent past -
- alleged 19thC HoF'er
- not in uniform
- not grouped with other known players
- name penciled in somewhere on the photo
- no provenance

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

Hi James from H&S. Yes Leon - we should be cordial - I will try.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Bradd,

Repeating what I said after you blew up: "Perhaps jumping on your case personally that way was not very tactful (sorry)".

>>>and hair can be cut....

In all of Radbourne's capless photos from his playing days - this area lacks hair. This is a pretty weird haricut you are postulating.

If this is important enough to you that you want to get better at it - I would be happy to provide references for you via private message.

I should add that this photo has all the earmarks of a fradulent past -
- alleged 19thC HoF'er
- not in uniform
- not grouped with other known players
- name penciled in somewhere on the photo
- no provenance

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

Hi James from H&S. Yes Leon - we should be cordial - I will try.

I appreciate the offer, but I'm "not there" yet when it comes to pre-war or 19th century stuff. I'm a newbie in this field. I am only at post-war graded HOF RCs, but I am working my way backwards, so I'll be here someday. I'm kind of just here browsing and soaking in info at a slow pace. Thanks again.

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I should add that this photo has all the earmarks of a fradulent past -
- alleged 19thC HoF'er
- not in uniform
- not grouped with other known players
- name penciled in somewhere on the photo
- no provenance

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

I concur

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

What? This is a message board, I don't have to tell anyone my name. But just for you, my name is Bradd. And apparently you didn't read the insulting, rude and downright nasty reply that guy gave me when all I did was voice my opinion on a couple photos. Because if you did, you would have no reason to keep on me for calling him a "bad name".

So Bradd, here's my take on it. On this message board you don't have to tell anyone your name, HOWEVER, if you get into a pissing match with someone then I feel they have a right to know who they are (hopefully amicably) arguing with. I am not going to expose your identity at this point because I feel Al nailed it. I think you just got a little sideways with the tone of the conversation, as you and Mark started discussing this picture.

Also, Jim nailed it too. We all have our own areas of expertise and when someone treads into that area they better darned well know what they are talking about and be able to back it up with definitive proof/facts. I get calls from advanced collectors, dealers and grading companies very frequently. (several this week already). They call because they know I study some things more than almost anyone else. This week it was on M101-4/5 Sporting News backs and E94 Overprints. If you jump into those areas, in a discussion with me, you better make sure you have your facts straight as I study the intricacies of those sets (especially the backs) quite a bit. Most folks know I collect very rare and esoteric type cards. I am far from a "know it all" but do have very good knowledge in those areas, so if you go there, just have your facts straight. I love good discussions and debates and have changed my view many times after listening to good arguments. At the Philly show I was asked questions by several folks concerning thoughts on different issues. You don't get those folks asking questions without them knowing you have a good idea of what they are asking about.

All this being said almost all members on the board are valuable in one way or another. Just be cordial to each other, have respect for their expertise, and all will be good. Many times it's the "way" something is phrased that sets people off on a chat board. Re-phrasing something can often quell confrontations and make for a much friendlier discussion. Best regards and happy holidays

ps...Huggins and Scott did the right thing on this cabinet. The good guys almost always do the right thing in these situations....that's why they are the "good guys".

[Orioles1954]

My name is James Feagin and I'm the Senior Writer for Huggins & Scott Auctions

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Leon

So Bradd, here's my take on it. On this message board you don't have to tell anyone your name, HOWEVER, if you get into a pissing match with someone then I feel they have a right to know who they are (hopefully amicably) arguing with. I am not going to expose your identity at this point because I feel Al nailed it. I think you just got a little sideways with the tone of the conversation, as you and Mark started discussing this picture.

Also, Jim nailed it too. We all have our own areas of expertise and when someone treads into that area they better darned well know what they are talking about and be able to back it up with definitive proof/facts. I get calls from advanced collectors, dealers and grading companies very frequently. (several this week already). They call because they know I study some things more than almost anyone else. This week it was on M101-4/5 Sporting News backs and E94 Overprints. If you jump into those areas, in a discussion with me, you better make sure you have your facts straight as I study the intricacies of those sets (especially the backs) quite a bit. Most folks know I collect very rare and esoteric type cards. I am far from a "know it all" but do have very good knowledge in those areas, so if you go there, just have your facts straight. I love good discussions and debates and have changed my view many times after listening to good arguments. At the Philly show I was asked questions by several folks concerning thoughts on different issues. You don't get those folks asking questions without them knowing you have a good idea of what they are asking about.

All this being said almost all members on the board are valuable in one way or another. Just be cordial to each other, have respect for their expertise, and all will be good. Many times it's the "way" something is phrased that sets people off on a chat board. Re-phrasing something can often quell confrontations and make for a much friendlier discussion. Best regards and happy holidays

ps...Huggins and Scott did the right thing on this cabinet. The good guys almost always do the right thing in these situations....that's why they are the "good guys".

Thank you for the response. I do apologize for the wordage I used. I simply don't take being disrespected well, I guess. I simply formed an opinion on the two photos without knowing the backround well enough. I appreciate boards like this because I can find help if I ever need it when it comes to pre-war cards. Sorry if I offended anyone.

[barrysloate]

Apology accepted!

[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