Any Idea of Why This Went So Cheaply?

[oldjudge]

Mark did a great job proving this image not to be Radbourn. I'm not sure who sportscardtheory is, but I believe he should have looked at the evidence carefully before challenging Mark.
As for Huggins and Scott, as soon as it was pointed out that the image was not Radbourn they called and cancelled the sale. Well done guys!
This lot had been part of the Halper collection and apparently Barry believed it was Radbourn. Too bad he didn't have someone as sharp as Mark checking his items.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Mark did a great job proving this image not to be Radbourn. I'm not sure who sportscardtheory is, but I believe he should have looked at the evidence carefully before challenging Mark.
As for Huggins and Scott, as soon as it was pointed out that the image was not Radbourn they called and cancelled the sale. Well done guys!
This lot had been part of the Halper collection and apparently Barry believed it was Radbourn. Too bad he didn't have someone as sharp as Mark checking his items.

All I said was it looks like the same guy... not at all a challenge. I think you take yourself and this Mark dude a LITTLE too seriously.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

All I said was it looks like the same guy... not at all a challenge. I think you take yourself and this Mark dude a LITTLE too seriously.

That's not what you said. Your post omitted the "looks like" part. Your exact quote was: "That's the same person."


Had you said, "Gee, that looks like the same person.", then Mark's response would have been different.


And no, Net54 isn't some kind of "special club." Everyone can post, but you have to learn that some posters have special areas of expertise. In this case, Mark is well know and well respected in the field of vintage photo identification. (Although, I think he has a bit of an ear fetish. I'm just saying...) And you challenged him in his area of expertise.


You're not a new member, by any means, but you don't post often, so you have to recognize that this isn't your normal message board. The members here are ALL a little fanatical about something or other.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

That's not what you said. Your post omitted the "looks like" part. Your exact quote was: "That's the same person."


Had you said, "Gee, that looks like the same person.", then Mark's response would have been different.


And no, Net54 isn't some kind of "special club." Everyone can post, but you have to learn that some posters have special areas of expertise. In this case, Mark is well know and well respected in the field of vintage photo identification. (Although, I think he has a bit of an ear fetish. I'm just saying...) And you challenged him in his area of expertise.


You're not a new member, by any means,so you should recognize that this isn't your normal message board. The members here are ALL a little fanatical about something or other.

Oh, don't worry. I'll be walking on egg shells and wording any post I make specifically to appease the uptight and fragile Net54 wonder-kids. Or not post at all. Good day.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

Oh, don't worry. I'll be walking on egg shells and wording any post I make specifically to appease the uptight and fragile Net54 wonder-kids. Or not post at all. Good day.

Never mind. Not worth it.

[barrysloate]

Sportscardtheory- I asked you not to use an expletive on the board. Calling Mark an A**hole because he disagrees with you is inappropriate. Please don't twist my words.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Sportscardtheory- I asked you not to use an expletive on the board. Calling Mark an A**hole because he disagrees with you is inappropriate. Please don't twist my words.

Just give it up. The guy was EXTREMELY rude to me when all I did was post my opinion on the photos. There was no need for it. Don't sit here and tell me I have to listen to some a-hole disrespect me and I can't say anything back. Mind your own business.

[JK]

Is it just my computer or did six pages of this thread just disappear?

[Fred]

Wow, an end of the year "controversial" thread.

Interstingly enough, didn't we just have a thread about "provenance" and what it means to us? Someone mentioned that the cabinet came from the Halper collection. If that's the case that would have been a lot of "provenance" in itself. Maybe SGC encapsulated this cabinet based on its "provenance".

Personally, unless I knew the subject really well I'd have a difficult time determining if the subject in different photos is the same person especially if the photos were taken at a different times (even 6 months difference) and at a different angles.

I can't remember who said it, but I agree -

It's PSAs fault...

[bmarlowe1]

Fred: "Personally, unless I knew the subject really well I'd have a difficult time determining if the subject in different photos is the same person especially if the photos were taken at a different times (even 6 months difference)"
_____________________________

You may have difficulty making that determination, but it can be done with certainty with clear photos, and over the past year there have been a number of good threads explaining how to do so (including this one). Ears will not change in 6 months.

As to provenance, we know that the Candy Cummings photo sold in the Halper Collection was bogus.

[Fred]

Mark,

The Halper collection was so extensive that I'm sure that there are probably many pieces that weren't what they appeared to be. I can think of another as I post this.

Regarding the provenance statement I was thinking that SGC took the past ownership of the cabinet into consideration when they slabbed it.

Personally, I couldn't make a definite determination of whether or not that is Radbourn in the cabinet. I'm going to guess that the ears and nose may not look the same because of the different angles from which the photos were taken.

It'd be difficult to have someone convince me that it wasn't Radbourn. I guess unless someone can come up with better provenance we'll never know for sure. Who knows, maybe Halper picked this up from a Radbourn family member or from someone that knew Radbourn personally. That would be a greater form of provenance but we'll probably never know. For now it'll live on in a debate in cyberspace.

[bmarlowe1]

Fred:"I'm going to guess that the ears and nose may not look the same because of the different angles from which the photos were taken. '

-------------------------------------------

Really Fred that is nonsense - take a photo of your ear, the turn your head about 5 degrees and take another photo of your ear - then tell me how different they look.

Now - gather all the really verified Radbourne photos - they are all at at least somewhat different angles - yet his ears always compare very well. Only in this photo does his left ear look entirely different.

I guess this requires the application of some common sense as well as some inate ability to understand that 3-D objects don't magically morph into something else when they are turned a few degrees (the difference in angles of the 2 photos is quite small). Also, if you take the time to carefully study a few thousand photos of faces, you may learn to understand what happens to ears/noses/etc. when they are turned more than a few degrees.

In the 1880's you can be certain that there were very many Americans who looked similar to Radbourne.

I would add that in the unlikely event that Halper got this from the Radbourne family, the "provenance" would be simply a falsehood passed down thru the generations - a common occurence. Or maybe they wrote "Radbourn" on the photo so they wouldn't forget their last name.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by JK

Is it just my computer or did six pages of this thread just disappear?

Nothing disappeared that I am aware of. Sometimes if you don't login the settings revert back to automatic/static ones and that can mess stuff up a little bit (not completely gone though). Otherwise, it's your computer...