 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
10-01-2014, 11:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 
|
|
#2
10-02-2014, 09:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|
|
#3
10-02-2014, 02:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
10-02-2014, 02:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|
|
#5
10-02-2014, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#8
10-02-2014, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Here is a valid question. How old is the person on the left? Last edited by Directly; 01-27-2024 at 07:17 AM.
|
|
#9
10-02-2014, 10:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
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 Last edited by Lordstan; 10-02-2014 at 10:41 PM.
|
 |
|
|
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 |
Hybrid Mode
