Its as Plain as the Nose on your Face-the Ear Thing isn't Gospel - Net54baseball.com Forums
  NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-01-2014, 11:30 PM
Directly Directly is offline
Tom Re.bert
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordstan View Post
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!

Last edited by Directly; 01-27-2024 at 07:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-01-2014, 11:47 PM
Lordstan's Avatar
Lordstan Lordstan is offline
M@rk V3l@rd3
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 3,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly View Post
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.
__________________
My signed 1934 Goudey set(in progress).
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjFuyogy

Other interests/sets/collectibles.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96571220@N08/albums

My for sale or trade photobucket album
https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7c1SRL
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-02-2014, 09:33 AM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,660
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordstan View Post
Wow.
I guess Scott was right.
I'm going to take the liberty of applying the above statement to everything I've ever posted here....thank you.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-02-2014, 02:43 PM
earlywynnfan's Avatar
earlywynnfan earlywynnfan is offline
Ke.n Su.lik
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott View Post
I'm going to take the liberty of applying the above statement to everything I've ever posted here....thank you.
Here's a vote to change this site to "ScottIsRight.com"!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-02-2014, 02:54 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,660
Default

Even I would never claim that I was always right. But I've come to realize that the consensus is that when I AM right, I can be kind of pompous about it.

The only thing worse than that is being wrong and being pompous about it, which I think we are getting an overdose of in this thread.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-02-2014, 06:10 PM
Dave Grob Dave Grob is offline
Dave Grob
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: National Capital Region
Posts: 510
Default Context and an assessment of age

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
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-02-2014, 07:57 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

Dave - overall I agree. Note that the owner alleges that the boy below is 20.5 years old. Clearly very unlikely.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg not gleason 1.jpg (72.6 KB, 325 views)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-02-2014, 09:45 PM
Directly Directly is offline
Tom Re.bert
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Grob View Post
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?

Last edited by Directly; 01-27-2024 at 07:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-02-2014, 12:06 AM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly View Post
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!
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-02-2014, 06:39 AM
earlywynnfan's Avatar
earlywynnfan earlywynnfan is offline
Ke.n Su.lik
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-02-2014, 08:32 AM
bnorth's Avatar
bnorth bnorth is offline
Ben North
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 10,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by earlywynnfan View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-02-2014, 08:34 AM
Econteachert205 Econteachert205 is offline
D3nn!s B@!!ou
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,938
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly View Post
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!

This is pretty easy, the only guy in the t206 set with a mustache is titus. So every player in the picture with a stache must be titus. not sure on the clean shaven guys though.

Last edited by Econteachert205; 10-02-2014 at 08:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hiding in Plain Sight JollyElm Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) 15 01-05-2014 12:49 PM
Topps is just plain strange. steve B Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) 2 03-20-2013 09:09 AM
At the first pole ...... its REA's T210 Jackson by a nose at Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 2 04-11-2006 07:05 PM
Pete needs to wipe his nose better Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 0 08-22-2004 10:30 PM
Sometimes ebay sellers are just plain dumb Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 8 04-10-2003 05:12 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:37 PM.


ebay GSB