An update: I present to you.....

[bmarlowe1]

>> The relative's ID of Paul Waner flatly carries more weight than your argument.


It's not my argument, it's 100 years of forensic science for which you have yet to provide a response.


We all have access to many Waner photos. Why don't you request scans of the young Paul Waner photos upon which the relative based his opinion for us all to see? Would not it have been prudent to do that even before you started this thread so we all could see? or is it just easier for you to assume a relative can't be wrong because it suits your purpose? Is this relative any good at facial recognition - how can we know?

[bmarlowe1]

>>... I don't remember 30 years ago bickering over qualifiers and ear lobe growth


That's right, and there were a lot more mis-identified photos sold in the hobby. You think that was good?

[Fred]

Front row, second from right?

[ksfarmboy]

What’s stamped on the back if that is a postcard?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Fred

Front row, second from right?

See link at end of post #2

[Fred]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

See link at end of post #2

Just call mine a lucky guess!

Paul Waner is listed at 153 pounds and 5'8" born in 1903. Lloyd is listed as 150 pounds and 5'9" born in 1906. Both born in the same city in Oklahoma. Not sure what that's supposed to tell us...

[tiger8mush]

Can a higher resolution scan be taken of the postcard?

Do we know anything about the team? Is it a minor league team that would've had stats in the local newspaper?

Do the uniforms or equipment help date the photo?

In the thread from a couple years ago, a member compared that postcard to one he claims might be of the same teammates from a couple years before. If true (same teammates via scientific facial recognition), can any of the above questions be answered with respect to THAT postcard? See post #15 here:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345

Do we know what teams Waner played on in his late teenage years?

Do we have any high resolution scans of Waner during his adolescent years that we can compare to his older years to see how much his facial recognition features (ears/nose) changed (or didn't)?

What is the provenance of the postcard? Was it purchased from a random dealer on ebay or was it found in a pile of Waner family keepsakes?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Can a higher resolution scan be taken of the postcard?

Do we know anything about the team? Is it a minor league team that would've had stats in the local newspaper?

Do the uniforms or equipment help date the photo?

In the thread from a couple years ago, a member compared that postcard to one he claims might be of the same teammates from a couple years before. If true (same teammates via scientific facial recognition), can any of the above questions be answered with respect to THAT postcard? See post #15 here:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345

Do we know what teams Waner played on in his late teenage years?

Do we have any high resolution scans of Waner during his adolescent years that we can compare to his older years to see how much his facial recognition features (ears/nose) changed (or didn't)?

What is the provenance of the postcard? Was it purchased from a random dealer on ebay or was it found in a pile of Waner family keepsakes?

Picture from my phone coming. I'll try to hold the phone steady. No illness, just the truth that goes along with me not making things up. Nothing against you, just keeping this on an even keel following a previous accusation in this thread.

[Brian Van Horn]

As promised. A photo from my phone. Hope the resolution is sufficient. For what it is worth, and I noted this in a previous posting in another thread, Paul Waner is pictured as a left handed pitcher which was his original position in the minors.

[tiger8mush]

Also, if we CAN get a higher res of the postcard, there are a couple players with a patch or writing on their left shoulder / sleeve. That might help give a clue for team identification?

And as ksfarmboy mentioned, is it a postcard back or blank back?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Also, if we CAN get a higher res of the postcard, there are a couple players with a patch or writing on their left shoulder / sleeve. That might help give a clue for team identification?

The team name is as it says on most of the jerseys: "All star", but they use an actual star instead of the word "star." So apparently it is an all-star team. You won't get higher res from the OP - he probably doesn't know how and he already "knows" Waner is there, so why bother.

[Brian Van Horn]

Just for complete disclosure, here is the back:

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> The relative's ID of Paul Waner flatly carries more weight than your argument.


It's not my argument, it's 100 years of forensic science for which you have yet to provide a response.


We all have access to many Waner photos. Why don't you request scans of the young Paul Waner photos upon which the relative based his opinion for us all to see? Would not it have been prudent to do that even before you started this thread so we all could see? or is it just easier for you to assume a relative can't be wrong because it suits your purpose? Is this relative any good at facial recognition - how can we know?

My response has already been given. Go back and review. The relative outweighs you in this matter. The photos on the end of the relative back it up.

[bmarlowe1]

>>My response has already been given.

Oh yes, your ears are like your feet. That was rich.

>> The photos are on the end of the relative back it up.

Can you say that again in English?

So in the short span of time this thread has been running I got 4 emails and 1 PM requesting photo ID help. I wonder how many Mr. Van Horn got?

One in particular is on point. It is from a relative of a 19thC player well-known to us all. There is a team photo owned by the family. One current relative has identified one team member as the ancestor, while another relative disagrees and says it is another team member. That's would be enough to make Mr. Van Horn's head explode. I will just compare the ears.

[bmarlowe1]

>> just keeping this on an even keel following a previous accusation in this thread.

You have trouble understanding things. The stuff about how ears grow like your feet grow - that you made up. It has no basis in fact.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> just keeping this on an even keel following a previous accusation in this thread.

You have trouble understanding things. The stuff about how ears grow like your feet grow - that you made up. It has no basis in fact.

You're zero for two.

https://www.doctoroz.com/blog/arthur...ue-grow-we-age

But, of course, I am just making that up......Not.

No hard feelings. Just let me know if you'd like more from that made up, oh, what should we call it......oh, wait......Fact.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

You're zero for two.

https://www.doctoroz.com/blog/arthur...ue-grow-we-age

But, of course, I am just making that up......Not.

No hard feelings. Just let me know if you'd like more from that made up, oh, what should we call it......oh, wait......Fact.

I did not say they don't grow and I did say that earlobes may droop when one gets old. I also correctly said they don't grow enough to be perceptible in a photo until one is well beyond ball-playing age. They certainly don't grow like your feet.

You've got an imprecise Dr. Oz blog post for popular consumption that you found and incorrectly interpreted after you made your assertion, I have this from "Ear Biometrics and Machine Vision", Burge and Burger, 21st Workshop for Pattern Recognition, Austria, 1997: "It is obvious that the structure of the ear does not change radically over time"... ""Ear shape and structure are relatively constant from about age 8 to age 70." "Forensic Art and Illustration", Karen T. Taylor, Ch. 8, pegs visible ear changing in photos starting beyond age 60. There is much, much more like this, but it is not easy reading (for you).

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I did not say they don't grow and I did say that earlobes may droop when one gets old. I also correctly said they don't grow enough to be perceptible in a photo until one is well beyond ball-playing age. They certainly don't grow like your feet. You've got an imprecise Dr. Oz blog post for popular consumption that you found and incorrectly interpreted after you made your assertion, I have this from "Ear Biometrics and Machine Vision", Burge and Burger, 21st Workshop for Pattern Recognition, Austria, 1997: "It is obvious that the structure of the ear does not change radically over time"... ""Ear shape and structure are relatively constant from about age 8 to age 70." "Forensic Art and Illustration", Karen T. Taylor, Ch. 8, pegs visible ear changing in photos starting beyond age 60. There is much, much more like this, but it is not easy reading (for you).

Face it. The ears, the nose and, in my case, the feet continue to grow. Is it possible, just possible in some of your IDs without this knowledge, without this made up, oh....fact, you may have made an incorrect conclusion in identity in your past? For all of the science that is out there, we are human first.

Your basis for ID is a uniform and an ear. There are different uniforms in the picture albeit all with the collar at the top of the uniform. Then there is the ear. One ear that, like the rest of the human ears on this planet, has cartilage that grows with age. Of course, there is also the ID from the relative with a very large number of photos of Paul from all ages. Hmmmm....may want to brush up on your ears and noses in the future. As for the throat, I am trying not to hiccup from something else this enthralling discussion is causing me.

Pleasant reading and no hard feelings.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>>My response has already been given.

Oh yes, your ears are like your feet. That was rich.

>> The photos are on the end of the relative back it up.

Can you say that again in English?

So in the short span of time this thread has been running I got 4 emails and 1 PM requesting photo ID help. I wonder how many Mr. Van Horn got?

One in particular is on point. It is from a relative of a 19thC player well-known to us all. There is a team photo owned by the family. One current relative has identified one team member as the ancestor, while another relative disagrees and says it is another team member. That's would be enough to make Mr. Van Horn's head explode. I will just compare the ears.

Can you say that again in English?

If I have to, I'll put it in pigeon English.

The relative has a huge collection of photos. The photos are more than you and I could ever possibly hope to attain for a collection. Those photos back up the ID of the player being Paul Waner. It doesn't mean the relative has pictures of Paul in this uniform. It means the recognition is that this IS Paul Waner. This has to be explained?

No hard feelings.