Wagner??

[Shoeless Moe]

How about adding one choice;

voted for Wagner now thinks it's Clarke.

100% it's clarke now the ear lobe confirms it and the nose is closer to his as well. Not to mention Wagner had a lot of gray hair.

CLARKE!

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

How about adding one choice;

voted for Wagner now thinks it's Clarke.

100% it's clarke now the ear lobe confirms it and the nose is closer to his as well. Not to mention Wagner had a lot of gray hair.

CLARKE!

I thought it would be obvious enough from what I posted, but the batter vs. Clarke noses are markedly different in both size and shape. Both Wagner and the batter had enormous noses. The batter can't possibly be Clarke.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

How about adding one choice;

voted for Wagner now thinks it's Clarke.

100% it's clarke now the ear lobe confirms it and the nose is closer to his as well. Not to mention Wagner had a lot of gray hair.

CLARKE!

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I thought it would be obvious enough from what I posted, but the batter vs. Clarke noses are markedly different in both size and shape. It can't possibly be Clarke.

Hey Ben. Cancel that request for adding one more choice to the poll.

[drc]

There's an old saying with baseball photos (which means I said it once three years ago). It goes 100% sure is, and 90% is the same as isn't. This in particular applied to 1800s tintypes and such where the question was was that anonymous guy in a baseball-like uniform really a baseball player. There were cases where we'd say "If he was holding a baseball and a bat we'd be sure he was a baseball player, but he isn't so we can't be sure."

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drc

There's an old saying with baseball photos (which means I said it once three years ago). It goes 100% sure is, and 90% is the same as isn't. This in particular applied to 1800s tintypes and such where the question was was that anonymous guy in a baseball-like uniform really a baseball player. There were cases where we'd say "If he was holding a baseball and a bat we'd be sure he was a baseball player, but he isn't so we can't be sure."

to quote brian fantana: "60 percent of the time, it works every time"

[mordecaibrown]

This is more of an educational question for Mark - as he has infinite more experience in photo recognition than me.

As for the ear comparison, to me there appears two differences in the photo comparison.

To me the bottom of the lobe in the "left handed batter" original photo looks like the lobe attaches to the neck downwards versus the lobe in the known Wagner appears to turn back up to the ear canal. I hope I explained that well - essentially, to me, it looks like the lobes attached to the neck differently in these two pics.

Also, it appears that the ear is different above the ear canal in the two pics - left handed batter with skin flap and Wagner with no inner ear flap above his ear canal. This could definitely be a difference from the picture angles.

Thanks for the info.

Andy

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by mordecaibrown

This is more of an educational question for Mark - as he has infinite more experience in photo recognition than me.

As for the ear comparison, to me there appears two differences in the photo comparison.

To me the bottom of the lobe in the "left handed batter" original photo looks like the lobe attaches to the neck downwards versus the lobe in the known Wagner appears to turn back up to the ear canal. I hope I explained that well - essentially, to me, it looks like the lobes attached to the neck differently in these two pics.

Also, it appears that the ear is different above the ear canal in the two pics - left handed batter with skin flap and Wagner with no inner ear flap above his ear canal. This could definitely be a difference from the picture angles.

Thanks for the info.

Andy

Andy - I agree the earlobe issue as you explained it is a good point. With respect to the earlobe, you are saying that Wagner's earlobe appears to be somewhat detached, while the batter's earlobe appears to be attached. I looked at this photo a while back for someone and that is also how I originally saw it. However, the other similarities made me look at it more carefully.

Keep in mind that comparing ears when one is viewed from the back and the other is not is very difficult (and rarely comes up). For this one it's not only from behind, but also from considerably below. For the batter in this case it seems that the viewpoint is sufficiently behind and below such that the bottom of earlobe is almost pointing straight at the viewer. That, IMO for this unusual case, makes it very difficult to discern the angle at which the lobe joins the head. I believe that the batter's "fleshy blob" (red arrow) is the closet point to the viewer and that the angle at which the lobe joined the head can be the same for the person(s) in both photos.

As to the "skin flap", it's not clear to me what you mean there. If you can draw arrows over the photos, I'll try to answer.

[bmarlowe1]

unintentional double post

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I thought it would be obvious enough from what I posted, but the batter vs. Clarke noses are markedly different in both size and shape. Both Wagner and the batter had enormous noses. The batter can't possibly be Clarke.

You dismissed my comments regarding the apparent size and shape of the back of the head and the distance from the ear to the back of the head because "the angles were so different even a forensic person could not tell."

Yet, would not the same apply to the apparent length and depth of the bridge of the nose? No need to answer... It's a rhetorical question.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

You dismissed my comments regarding the apparent size and shape of the back of the head and the distance from the ear to the back of the head because "the angles were so different even a forensic person could not tell."

Yet, would not the same apply to the apparent length and depth of the bridge of the nose? No need to answer... It's a rhetorical question.

It's only a rhetorical question if you think there is no answer.

I dismissed your comment based on rational geometrical considerations and also having compared thousands of faces over the past 6 years. The specific type of comparison you were trying to make is known as anthropomorphic comparison (comparing the distance between features of faces at very different angles) and is well-known to be very difficult to execute. I can send you references offline this evening if you like. The comparing nose size and shape would be referred to as morphological comparison.

As to the nose size of the batter, since we are viewing him from somewhat behind the head, this would make his nose appear to stick out a bit less far than would a straight profile view. Also the drooping tip would be somewhat less evident when viewed from below than in a straight profile view. Yet his nose still sticks out more than either that of Clarke or Wilson, and, the drooping tip is clearly evident in spite of the angle.

A comparison of the nose bridge that might help you understand is shown below.

Anyway, this is just rhetorical, no need to answer.

[Shoeless Moe]

but the ear isn't Wagner.


Unless he had plastic surgery of course

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

but the ear isn't Wagner.


Unless he had plastic surgery of course

Based on what? What can be discerned appears to match. In addtion to the ear similarities pointed out previously above, here a few more around the earlobe:

Yellow arrow - earlobe crease; Red arrow - blob of flesh above earlobe crease; blue arrow - shape of ear opening just above earlobe

[Mark]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I thought it would be obvious enough from what I posted, but the batter vs. Clarke noses are markedly different in both size and shape. Both Wagner and the batter had enormous noses. The batter can't possibly be Clarke.

It would be easier to rule Clarke out if you had a photo from slightly behind and below his right shoulder. Wouldn't such an angle tend to make the features seem elongated? As in the photo?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Mark

It would be easier to rule Clarke out if you had a photo from slightly behind and below his right shoulder. Wouldn't such an angle tend to make the features seem elongated? As in the photo?

No - there is no viewing angle that will make a nose appear elongated. A nose will appear to stick out from the face the most if the view is a straight profile - as in the Clarke photos I posted (unless the nose is substantially bent right or left). For any other angle it will appear to stick out less.

In light of a few emails I received and the way the poll questions are posed, I want to be sure my position is understood. I am saying that I can't eliminate the batter being Wagner based on facial feature comparison (maybe someone else can), and that the batter is very unlikely to be Clarke or Wilson.That's it, and that is why I did not vote in the poll.

I would hesitate to recommend that someone buy the piece based on it depicting Wagner - it may be him, but there is a risk.

The comments on stature do seem reasonable. To me the waist seems narrow - but he may just have his belt pulled tight - I don't know.

[bmarlowe1]

Mark - below are the batter's nose and Clarke's nose. I have re-sized them so that the nose sizes match, as does the angle of the bridge. You could now say that size doesn't matter. It should be obvious that thse are two different humans.

[bmarlowe1]

After some research I think I have this figured out pretty definitively - will post tomorrow night.

[bobbvc]

Photo from "Honus Wagner, A Biography" DeValeria. Note- Batter and catcher closer to same height in this photo than photo in question. (Yes, I know knees bent, etc. make it harder to tell).