1914 Colonels with George Weiss and other Pre-Rookie RPPC's

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Derek,

Not trying to sound cocky or arrogant, but I don't need a facial recognition guy. I've seen enough pictures of Paul Waner to know it's him.

Brian - I think you do. Before we get to that, the uniform/cap styles of the guys on your image are basically pre-1910 (note especially the collars). Two of the guys have lace up jerseys - so it can even be late 1890s-early 1900s. Paul Waner was born in 1903, so that's a problem and makes the Waner ID unlikely.

What is conclusive are the substantial facial feature differences. I know the scan you posted (below center) is not good, but it's good enough to see that your guy has a nice turned-up nose, while P. Waner had a big hook nose. And yes, the ear is way different. Your guy isn't him.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Brain - I think you do. Before we get to that, the uniform/cap styles of the guys on your image are basically pre-1910 (note especially the collars). Two of the guys have lace up jerseys - so it can even be late 1890s-early 1900s. Paul Waner was born in 1903, so that's a problem.

But the real problem is substantial facial feature differences. I know the scan you posted (below center) is not good, but it's good enough to see that your guy has a nice turned-up nose, while P. Waner had a big hook nose. And yes, the ear is way different. Your guy isn't him.

It is Paul Waner. Here is his 1923 Zee Nut rookie card. For me the facial features are consistent which is good enough for me.

[bmarlowe1]

You can't even see facial features in what you just posted. How do you explain the differences shown in my post?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

You can't even see facial features in what you just posted. How do you explain the differences shown in my post?

Mark,

I look at the cheekbones and I have looked at hundreds of Paul Waner photos over the years. The young man in the photo is Paul Waner. I am sorry you disagree, but it is Paul Waner.

[bmarlowe1]

Relative cheekbone location can be used in a forensic facial comparison, but in none of the images under discussion can the cheekbone location be discerned. There is actually something in particular to look for and you surely don't know what it is.

Even if the cheekbones could be seen and seemed to match (which would not be uncommon even for different people), a gross mismatch in any other facial feature virtually disqualifies two images from depicting the same person. Assuming the bad scan as posted is true to the image as seen in hand, the ear mismatch alone immediately tells us this is not P. Waner. Same for the nose.

You are just using your subjective (and very fallible for most people) facial recognition response plus a lot of wishful thinking.

[Brian Van Horn]

Mark,

The nose is not upturned in the image of the young Paul Waner and the cheekbone structure matches between the picture and the Zee Nut rookie card. I am sorry, but it is Paul Waner.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Mark,

The nose is not upturned in the image of the young Paul Waner and the cheekbone structure matches between the picture and the Zee Nut rookie card. I am sorry, but it is Paul Waner.

We can easily see your guy's nostril because his nose is upturned. Compare that to the two Waner exemplars I posted. You still haven't explained the ear.

What is cheekbone structure?