Its as Plain as the Nose on your Face-the Ear Thing isn't Gospel

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

There continues to be some confusion with the information I have been providing. I am NOT advocating ANY sort of “point system” for the evaluation of photographs. To be perfectly honest, I have never been a fan of point systems or the assigning of numerical grades to artifacts and memorabilia. The graphic I provided on Facial Reference (FR) and Context Reference (CR) is nothing more than a tool that facilitates the visual representation of various degrees of certainty that a person might have in their opinion when using the screening criteria of FR and CR. It also serves the purposes of highlighting these two areas, thus permitting someone to see the particular strengths or weaknesses in any argument or counterargument on the subject at hand. Please notice that the graph shows ranges and degrees from Low to High.

The use of numbers only serves the purpose of allowing folks to have a discussion using a common vocabulary or point of reference as they discuss what quadrant they feel their analysis and assessment might best fit in and why.

It is and was NEVER intended to be used as some device or protocol that says if you get “x” number of points, then the photograph is what is purported to be. I simply offered a tool that I think has merit in allowing individuals make and defend objective and informed assessments. Nothing more than that. All I am attempting to do (and it appears not very well) is to share information and protocols that I have used or leveraged over the past 20+ years as an intelligence analyst that might have utility in the area of evaluating memorabilia and answering questions about artifacts.

I am also not the author of the forthcoming SABR article. In the future, when time permits, I do plan on writing a piece that details the use of a grid system to facilitate facial recognition.



Dave Grob
Dave Grob1@aol.com

Dave,
To echo what Scott said, I don't think there is really any confusion about what you posted. I think it was very clear as to what your point is. I think even the OP understood it.

Though the OP didn't answer my question as to what he hopes to accomplish by continuing this conversation, I do have an idea. I think his goal is to twist the logic and rationale presented by the board to create the appearance that we agree with his assertions. He is hoping that we won't follow up with a comment clarifying our position so as to clearly state that we are not agreeing with him, like you did above, so that he can go to seller or AH using our words. I can see no other logical reason for him continuing this.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

He is hoping that we won't follow up with a comment clarifying our position so as to clearly state that we are not agreeing with him, like you did above, so that he can go to seller or AH using our words. I can see no other logical reason for him continuing this.

He's just throwing Hail Marys at this point. Any auction house that took this item would immediately be ostracized by everyone in the collecting world.

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by Runscott

He's just throwing Hail Marys at this point. Any auction house that took this item would immediately be ostracized by everyone in the collecting world.

Two words
Coaches corner.

[Directly]

Econteachert----Two words Coaches corner


Two words; Charlie Sheen. ( This type ultra-high level collector )

Comiskey did reside in Dubuque for around four years between the age a 19-22. The photographer was in business while Comiskey played baseball there, then left to play baseball in St Louis. One hundred years later this Dubuque baseball team photograph was found in St Louis.

I have been advised to focus and concentrate with the Comiskey image. Because he is the real bread and butter, value and importance of my Dubuque photo. No one cares about Alveretta or Reis. Radbourn would be a bonus. Also SABR will be a good forum for my photo.

I have heard the mustache theory before, sorry I can't locate any photograph of Comiskey with mustache.

The age theory: I presented two photographs comparing my Comiskey with another person-. Could the person on the left be forty years old?--So although a good thought the age theory just doesn't hold water with my Comiskey image.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Directly

Econteachert----Two words Coaches corner


Two words; Charlie Sheen. ( This type ultra-high level collector )

Great - you are finally admitting that you can only sell this through a disreputable auction house, or to an idiot with a lot of money.

It's good that you have finally come around.

[Dave Grob]

Not sure it is even worth mentioning at this point, but dismissing the other players in the photograph and focusing on the one thought to be Charles Comiskey does not address the contextual aspects of analysis. If the thought is that these other players don’t matter and may not be the members of the Dubuque Rabbits as first thought, then who are they and why would the proffered Comiskey have been photographed with them? From a logic and analytical standpoint, if you espouse merit in the concept of contextual analysis as part of this process (which I believe you have), then you can’t forego it as part of your assessment and return myopically to a reliance on facial references only, and then for only one person in a group photograph. To do so is tantamount to rejecting the value of contextual analysis.

Please know this and my other posts are about my interests in process/protocols and not product (this particular photograph). Unless someone has any questions about process and protocols, I think I have reached my saturation point with this thread.

Dave Grob
DaveGrob1@aol.com

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

Not sure it is even worth mentioning at this point, but dismissing the other players in the photograph and focusing on the one thought to be Charles Comiskey does not address the contextual aspects of analysis. If the thought is that these other players don’t matter and may not be the members of the Dubuque Rabbits as first thought, then who are they and why would the proffered Comiskey have been photographed with them? From a logic and analytical standpoint, if you espouse merit in the concept of contextual analysis as part of this process (which I believe you have), then you can’t forego it as part of your assessment and return myopically to a reliance on facial references only, and then for only one person in a group photograph. To do so is tantamount to rejecting the value of contextual analysis.

Please know this and my other posts are about my interests in process/protocols and not product (this particular photograph). Unless someone has any questions about process and protocols, I think I have reached my saturation point with this thread.

Dave Grob
DaveGrob1@aol.com

Dave from someone that's hopes they learned something from you wonderful posts in this thread Thank you for the info Sir.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Directly

I have been advised to focus and concentrate with the Comiskey image....I have heard the mustache theory before, sorry I can't locate any photograph of Comiskey with mustache....

If you can't support your other IDs, and for example apply your "point system" to "Radbourn", why would anyone think you're right about Comiskey? And as Dave said, why would Comiskey be there if the others were not?

You don't understand the mustache theory (nor anything else), no one expects to see Comiskey with a mustache

[Directly]

Dave, thank you so much for your valuable insight. - In my opinion by just two short paragraphs you solved the mystery about my Dubuque photograph more than all of us put together X 100---everything you said is completely relevant and true to my photograph-- it hit me after reading your articles and thinking about what you are saying it suddenly became very clear to me, everything you wrote should be in a future SABR article-thanks, Tom

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Directly

Dave, thank you so much for your valuable insight. - In my opinion by just two short paragraphs you solved the mystery about my Dubuque photograph more than all of us put together X 100---everything you said is completely relevant and true to my photograph-- it hit me like a hammer after reading your articles and thinking about what you are saying it suddenly became very clear to me, everything you wrote should be in a future SABR article-thanks, Tom

Trolling behavior.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Directly

-- it hit me like a hammer

Two more hammer hits and I think you'll have it.

(I realize you edited out the word "hammer", but I think you got it right the first time)