Interesting info on REA lot 41 Four Base Hits card

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Maybe it's just the image, but Moolig's ears look too big and his nose looks wider.

The visible ear for each image is measured via the yellow lines - they seem to match.

Arrows indicate similar features including hair part (blue), hairline characteristics (green), recessed area under lower lip (brown). With one face turned and the other straight on, I can't directly measure nose width, but my estimate is there is no discrepancy. Basic face shape and feature locations and proportions match.

I would like to have a better exemplar before saying that I am sure about this, but it looks really good. Perhaps this will help the auction value for the card. Note that I did not find this guy, it was suggested to me by Pete Nash.

There is supposed to be a photo of Moolic in an 1886 team composite that may be more clear. Does anyone have the book, "A Cunning Kind of Play" by Warren Wilbert?

[oldjudge]

Mark--not a composite, but a clear picture

[bmarlowe1]

OK - that's the same one I used above from SABR's 1984 The National Pastime. After magnification you see the printing dots. The only way to do better is to get a hi-res scan of the original.

[barrysloate]

It's kind of funny, because Bruce owned this card for around 35 years, and neither he nor anyone who saw it ever mentioned that the player didn't look like Van Haltren.

[RUKen]

It might be Dell Darling:

[Jacklitsch]

David suggested Sullivan. I don't think so.



Sullivan has his own Four Base Hits...not mine...

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by RUKen

It might be Dell Darling:

No - it's immediately obvious that it can't be Darling because the ear is grossly different and Darling's hairline has receded way too far. As I posted above, this person is NOT in the Chicago 1887-1888 teams composites and if he is a ball player he is not likely to be anyone you've ever heard of.

This is an open forum and it should be - so people can post what they want. So, I will post my opinion - With a all due respect, post's like Ruken's indicate that he has no idea how to do this. I don't plan to do a side-by-side for every wild guess someone throws out. If you think I'm wrong - please create your own side-by-side for your guess, and also please explain why the guy on the card isn't Moolic. That's just my opinion.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

It's kind of funny, because Bruce owned this card for around 35 years, and neither he nor anyone who saw it ever mentioned that the player didn't look like Van Haltren.

Barry - That is simply because the card said "Van Haltren." This distorted the perception of the observers. This is a common phenomenon and has certainly happened with other well-known photos. It is explained to the best of my ability on pages 1-2 of:
http://sabr.box.com/shared/static/10...092a683653.pdf

Please read it. Yeah - I know, it's the 2nd time I've posted the link on this thread, but I think it explains why this often happens.

[Peter_Spaeth]

People have seen the 52 Topps Mantle so many times, and it's so iconic, that they lose sight of the fact that if you look critically, it barely looks like him.

[oldjudge]

Peter--now that I look at it more closely, I think the image on the '52 Mantle is really Don Mossi

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

People have seen the 52 Topps Mantle so many times, and it's so iconic, that they lose sight of the fact that if you look critically, it barely looks like him.

...or that it isn't even his rookie

Actually I opened up the original type 1 photo sold in May 2012 Legendary auction and an image of the card and I think it a pretty decent artist rendition I the eye brows look a little close, but it really does look like the picture.

[buchner]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

It's kind of funny, because Bruce owned this card for around 35 years, and neither he nor anyone who saw it ever mentioned that the player didn't look like Van Haltren.

Barry...This card was known not to be Van Haltren back in 1983 and probably before. Lew Lipset noted this in his 1983 Encp. of BB cards, Vol. 1, 19th century page 58. As you know there are many errors in the set as mentioned, also the card of Daly is a photo of Sunday and Sunday's card is a pictured of Mark Baldwin, which you also probably know. My vote goes to Moolic as the Van Haltren. John

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by buchner

Barry...This card was known not to be Van Haltren back in 1983 and probably before. Lew Lipset noted this in his 1983 Encp. of BB cards, Vol. 1, 19th century page 58. As you know there are many errors in the set as mentioned, also the card of Daly is a photo of Sunday and Sunday's card is a pictured of Mark Baldwin, which you also probably know. My vote goes to Moolic as the Van Haltren. John

I never knew that it was already established that it wasn't Van Haltren. I don't think Bruce even knew it.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

The visible ear for each image is measured via the yellow lines - they seem to match.

Arrows indicate similar features including hair part (blue), hairline characteristics (green), recessed area under lower lip (brown). With one face turned and the other straight on, I can't directly measure nose width, but my estimate is there is no discrepancy. Basic face shape and feature locations and proportions match.

I would like to have a better exemplar before saying that I am sure about this, but it looks really good. Perhaps this will help the auction value for the card. Note that I did not find this guy, it was suggested to me by Pete Nash.

There is supposed to be a photo of Moolic in an 1886 team composite that may be more clear. Does anyone have the book, "A Cunning Kind of Play" by Warren Wilbert?

To me it looks like you cut off part of the chin on the picture on the right.

It could be a non-baseball image from the set, but it could also be any portrait photo the photographer happened to have taken and gotten mixed up with the ones for cards. The fact that so many of the images are incorrect leads me to believe that there was a fairly large mix-up of photos, like when you drop a pile of pictures on the floor (but a bad analogy as we're probably talking about mixing up glass plate negatives), and in the process of figuring out who was who, mistakes were made.

So this could be Joe Blow who just happened to have his portrait taken at around the same time as the ball-players.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Runscott

To me it looks like you cut off part of the chin on the picture on the right.

It could be a non-baseball image from the set, but it could also be any portrait photo the photographer happened to have taken and gotten mixed up with the ones for cards. The fact that so many of the images are incorrect leads me to believe that there was a fairly large mix-up of photos, like when you drop a pile of pictures on the floor (but a bad analogy as we're probably talking about mixing up glass plate negatives), and in the process of figuring out who was who, mistakes were made.

So this could be Joe Blow who just happened to have his portrait taken at around the same time as the ball-players.

As far as cutting off the chin - I guess you are refering to the location of the bottom-most red line that I placed across the side-by-side of the card guy and Moolic. Given that the Moolic portrait is a dot-matrix print - I can't be too precise about where his chin ends (i.e. the bottom of his chin) versus where the shadow begins - it is often gradual and a somewhat soft boundary point. What I did is an estimate based on doing this for many images. The relative size of the images was adjusted with reference to the eyes, base of nose (line not shown) and mouth.

My view is that it is very unlikley (though possible) for the card guy to not be Moolic given that Moolic's first name is George, he was a member of the 1886 Chi NL club and he also shares the physical characteristics with the card guy that I pointed out. Look at post 21 (without the arrows in the way) - the similarity of the dimple under is lower lip is remarkable. If you (or anyone) don't think it's likely to be Moolic, please tell me why.

[aaroncc]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

The visible ear for each image is measured via the yellow lines - they seem to match.

Arrows indicate similar features including hair part (blue), hairline characteristics (green), recessed area under lower lip (brown). With one face turned and the other straight on, I can't directly measure nose width, but my estimate is there is no discrepancy. Basic face shape and feature locations and proportions match.

I would like to have a better exemplar before saying that I am sure about this, but it looks really good. Perhaps this will help the auction value for the card. Note that I did not find this guy, it was suggested to me by Pete Nash.

There is supposed to be a photo of Moolic in an 1886 team composite that may be more clear. Does anyone have the book, "A Cunning Kind of Play" by Warren Wilbert?

So was it Peter Nash or John Thorn who identified the photo as Moolic?

[bmarlowe1]

It was suggested to me by Peter Nash. Why do you think it was JT?

[aaroncc]

Update: We have heard from John Thorn (extraordinary baseball scholar and the Official Major Historian for Major League Baseball) who has identified the image of the ballplayer on this card for us as that of George Moolic. This is particularly interesting as George Moolic played only one season in the Major Leagues in 1886, suggesting that the Four Base Hits set may date from 1886 as opposed to 1887. REA thanks both Mark Fimoff and John Thorn for their insight, efforts, and for taking the time to communicate with us!

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by aaroncc

Update: We have heard from John Thorn (extraordinary baseball scholar and the Official Major Historian for Major League Baseball) who has identified the image of the ballplayer on this card for us as that of George Moolic. This is particularly interesting as George Moolic played only one season in the Major Leagues in 1886, suggesting that the Four Base Hits set may date from 1886 as opposed to 1887. REA thanks both Mark Fimoff and John Thorn for their insight, efforts, and for taking the time to communicate with us!

If Moolic played in 1886, it is most likely an indicator that the card was put out in 1887. The year after seems feasible.