Circa 1846 Daguerreotype – Alexander Joy Cartwright debate [Archive]

Leon

10-14-2011, 07:44 PM

This article was written by hobbyist and Net54baseball member M.ark.Fim.o.ff and has to do with a photo owned by another Net54baseball member and hobbyist, Co.rey Shanu.s. Both gave approval to post this. It is a rather long article and before you make a comment on it please read it. After a day or two, taking comments into consideration; a poll will be added to this thread so you can voice your opinion. Most likely your votes will be able to be seen and I will make that clear when the poll goes up. You will be on your honor system to have read the article to vote. Admittedly I haven’t read it yet, but will. Thanks to both gentlemen for allowing this debate to take place in an open forum. It’s a passionate subject. I feel this topic should be posted on the main page because of it’s importance. *All comments are welcome and you need to be either well known or put your full name in your post.

The article is a .pdf you can easily download at the link below the cover page. Once clicked then click the "Download Now" words and you will be on your way.

http://luckeycards.com/Mysteryphoto.jpg

http://www.gamefront.com/files/20873948/Mysteryphoto_10_11_pdf

.
.
.
.
.
.

bmarlowe1

10-14-2011, 07:45 PM

I want to start by saying that I think that Corey is a terrific guy, very sincere and knowledgeable in many areas related to collecting. The reason for this debate is that we very much disagree on how one should determine who is pictured in an early baseball photo.

Part of Corey’s argument in support of the Cartwright ID of the man back-row center in his half-plate dag (HPD) is that there are other Knickerbockers in the photo. In particular he identifies subject G as Doc Adams. In support of that he includes a side by side facial comparison. Also, in a 1997 article in VCBC, he mentions that other collectors agree with him. In the article he states, “…I, as well as other persons respected and experienced in photo identification with whom I consulted, feel very comfortable with this Curry identification.” I post the following to dispute that ID and also address the lack of facial ID skill on the part of both Corey and the collectors who had then agreed with him (whomever they may be). I ask, are you “comfortable” with this ID?
http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/DocAdams1.jpg

oldjudge

10-14-2011, 07:54 PM

I consider myself to be friends with both Corey and Mark and I have read the article in its entirety. First, for someone who is not an expert in facial recognition I must say that both sides provided me with a real education, and for this I thank you both. After reading the article through, and again I am not anywhere near an expert in the area, I lean towards the images in the dag probably not being Cartwright and the other two images almost surely not being the Knickerbocker members that they were thought to be.

Abravefan11

10-14-2011, 10:05 PM

I have read the entire newsletter and the following are my thoughts. First and foremost I believe it's important to say that I respect that all parties involved showed a refreshing level of decorum even in spite of differing opinions with such an important item in question.

After reading and rereading all of the information presented by both sides I feel that Mark and Mr. Mancusi presented a great deal of information that shows there is a significant amount of doubt that the subject in question is Alexander Cartwright, much more doubt than probability. While Mr. Richard and the owner of the HPD did on several occasions disagree with the findings or call into question the credentials of the parties presenting this opinion they did not present enough or any evidence to show that the person in question was highly likely to be Cartwright. One can not simply prove that it is Cartwright by saying that it wasn't proven with certainty that it isn't Cartwright.

In my opinion after reading all of the findings by everyone involved that at best it could be said that it's unlikely to be Cartwright and until further evidence can be produced to back up the claim that it is Cartwright it shouldn't be considered to be him.

benjulmag

10-14-2011, 11:50 PM

Mark, I will respond to your post in time. You do not mention Curry. Is that because you didn't focus on it or because you thought the comparison Currys matched up well?

The point I wish to respond to in this post is that of Abravefan11. First, thank you for taking the time to read the newsletter and provide your views. Regardless whether I agree with them or not, I appreciate your contribution to this discussion.

The point you raise is an important one -- who has the burden of proof? In many instances, where there is no provenance or other external evidence linking two comparison subjects, and all one has are the images alone, then clearly one can't establish that they are the same individual merely by showing they are not different individuals. In such an instance, to establish the identification, compelling reasons must be shown via resemblance and a matching of various facial features.

But that is not what we are dealing with here. In this instance the Cartwright family has identified Alexander Cartwright (AJC) as being in the image. This identification dates to the 1930's and comes from AJC's grandson Bruce, who was ten years old when AJC died. One would certainly think that Bruce's views on this issue would be identical to those of his father and his grandfather. It is my opinion, given such extraordinary provenance, supported too by other ancilliary information which I mention in the newsletter, that THE BURDEN OF PROOF HAS NOW SHIFTED SUCH THAT TO REFUTE THE CARTWRIGHT IDENTIFICATION IN THE HALF PLATE ONE MUST ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF EXCLUSIONARY DIFFERENCES (OR SOMETHING DARN CLOSE TO THAT). My expert, arguably as respected an expert in photographic facial examination as anyone in the field, opines quite emphatically that not only are there no exclusionary differences, but that the most photo ID can say in the negative about the ID is that AJC is possibly depicted in the half plate.

Or to say it another way, the evidence you say one must have to establish the ID needn't just be photographic evidence. It can also be extraordinary provenance, which exists here.

bmarlowe1

10-15-2011, 12:29 AM

Curry does not match, but the presentation is not so brief so I was thinking of saving that for the next newsletter. If I can't do it in a page or less I don't really want to do it here. We’ll see where this goes.

I’d rather stick to discussing my initial point before going into provenance, I would for now only say that, for reasons given in the newsletter and other reasons, in my view the provenance is less than perfect. Your all caps statement assumes that everyone will agree with you that the provenance is “rock solid”. They may not. It is not a law of physics that one must have an absolute exclusionary difference to overcome the provenance in this case. As people read and digest this there will be a range of views on how good or lacking the provenance is and how good or bad the facial ID is, and how much facial mismatch must be shown to overcome the provenance. My interpretation of Tim’s view is that given all that he has read, the facial differences demonstrated by myself and Mr. Mancusi were sufficient to overcome whatever probative value that he saw in the provenance. That is a valid view to take.

barrysloate

10-15-2011, 04:44 AM

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but let me give it a shot. First, let me say that I have known about this project since its inception, and have been in contact with both Corey and Mark while the research was ongoing. I do want to congratulate them both for the comprehensive and exhaustive effort that went into this, and want to thank both for acknowledging me (though my work consisted primarily of cheerleading). And I also want to add that I will not let my longstanding friendship with Corey influence my opinion here. I sincerely hope he would want me to be objective.

Now here is something that really concerns me about this project. Corey has hired whom he considers one of the top photo experts in the country, and Mark has used the services of one of the top forensic experts. And even though both of these experts come with impeccable credentials, they can't even agree on who is pictured in the back row of this daguerreotype. You would think if each has his field down to a science, both would surely agree. But they don't. So here is the first thing I know with absolute certainty: one of these guys is dead wrong! I just don't know which one. It either is or isn't Cartwright, it's not half Cartwright! So before I go any further my radar is up.

Getting back to business. I do agree with Corey that he does not have the burden of proof here, and that it is Mark's responsibillity to prove with pretty near certainty that it is not Cartwright. I think Mark has indeed made a very good case, with very detailed facial analysis, and it has raised some concerns with me. But Corey's expert has also built a strong case that those results are not exclusionary. Who is right? Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to be certain one way or the other. And because so much is at stake here, it would be irresponsible for me to just guess. There was an element of this study that was a bit too technical for me.

Another problem I have here is with regard to the issue of provenance. I fully understand that just because Bruce Cartwright said the guy in the back row is his grandfather, that doesn't prove he is right. But given that the family had numerous photos of AJC, it would seem extraordinary to me that when the Hall of Fame came calling for an image for Cartwright's plaque, that Bruce in fact picked the wrong person. Could have happened, but that's just as goofy as saying Abner Doubleday invented baseball.:)

What I have always had a problem with, however, is the identification of other people in this photo. I do not think the man with the beard and cigar is Doc Adams, and the Curry i.d. was always a bit shaky too. So in that respect I do see issues with this HPD. Yet who are these six friends who are all wearing the same straw hats? It's a mystery.

So what is my conclusion: I don't know. On a simple glance I have always felt that the man in the back row looked different than the man pictured in the quarter and sixth plate dags of Cartwright. I had many discussions with Corey and he seemed to feel that Cartwright's face changed somewhat over the years. And that's part of the problem. If you take a look at a picture of him as both a young and old man, it's easy to see that his face changed considerably. That makes this debate that much more difficult. So I have to say at this point I am on the fence. I cannot say with any certainty whether or not the man in the back row is Alexander Cartwright, and with so much on the line I choose not to speculate. And I sense this matter may never be sufficiently resolved.

benjulmag

10-15-2011, 07:03 AM

Barry, thanks for your response. And yes, I would want you to be objective. I might add to what you said that Mark's expert also says the differences are not exclusionary.

It is not my intention to restate what I wrote in the newsletter. The only point I want to make here is that it is Mark's subjective opinion that the facial mismatches are signficant. Others, including recognized professional experts, not only may but in fact do vociferously differ not only as to their significance but whether they in fact even exist (being caused instead by photographic illusion or studio touch up).

Mark is correct about one thing -- I am not an expert in photographic facial comparison. I wasn't when I acquired the dag over 20 years ago, and I'm not now. Yes I know a thing or two, and I certainly know a lot more now than I did a year ago when Mark and I first began discussing this question, but nothing compared what a true expert knows. That was why I consulted with experts before I bought the dag, and why now I retained who I believed was the top photographic facial comparison expert in the country. Before Jerry Richards agreed to take on the project, he made it crystal clear to me that he was going to call it as he saw it and that if I expected otherwise he did not want to get involved. I also made it a point to not discuss the item's provenance with him until after he had completed his analysis as I did not want there to be any question that even subconsciously that information might have influenced him.

Jerry opines that the facial mismatches Mark and Mr. Mancusi speak of, besides not being exclusionary, are not even close to being exclusionary. The single most important "difference" to Mr. Mancusi, iris size, doesn't even exist. At this point, I don't even know what Mr. Mancusi's conclusion would be today if he eliminated the irises, nose and scar from his analysis. Those were three differences he put tremendous emphasis on and I believe Jerry Richards has completely shattered the validity of all of them.

I might also add, that as to the question of who a true photo ID expert is, a point Mark devotes a section of his report to, I still am having great difficulty with Mr. Mancusi's falilure to understand that in order to compare an image to another image, one must do a direct comparison. It is not sufficient to compare image #1 to image #2, conclude they probably are of the same person (a conclusion which in this instance Mr. Richards disagrees), and then say the conclusions one draws from comparing image #1 to the image in question would be identical to the conclusions one would draw from comparing image #2 to the image in question. That something so basic as to go to the core of how one undertakes a photographic facial comparison, is consistent with every notion of common sense, and the fact that Mr. Mancusi doesn't understand it I find very troubling.

Leon

10-15-2011, 07:45 AM

In order for this very important document to be read and responded to I have "stuck" it to the top of the page. It will remain here for a few days or so.....

For folks only casually reading this thread, or who may not have the level of interest as some, the importance of this photo and ensuing debate can not be overstated. The next oldest "baseball" (with characters in any type/part of a uniform ie... hats, bats, balls etc..) photo is believed to be in the 1856-1858 era. That would make this the oldest baseball photo by approximately 10+ years. A fairly significant situation, even for a novice or less interested baseball hobbyist.

Runscott

10-15-2011, 07:46 AM

I'll start by saying that I read this document at 5:00am this morning and sent comments to Leon and Barry. I'm only giving my opinion because Leon said that since I read the entire document, I should consider posting my thoughts.

I never thought that looked like Cartwright (compared to other pics), but never thought it mattered much. It's a significant historical image because Cartwright's grandson SAID it was him, selected it out of all the images available to him to be used for the HOF bust, and it's always been accepted as him. What always bugged me much more about the possible error, is that it means that the 'players' depicted are possibly not the Knickerbockers. But again, that will never be proven one way or the other.

If I owned it, I'd just say - "I knew it couldn't be proven one way or the other when I bought it. I don't care. Go away."

barrysloate

10-15-2011, 07:55 AM

I just read through the entire report again this morning- that is now three times for Corey's and twice for Mark's- just to keep the information fresh for the basis of a discussion. One point I want to make is with regard to the credibility of Bruce Cartwright. I know that he undoubtedly exaggerated the accomplishments of his grandfather, and his belief that it was AJC who invented baseball has of course been disproved. But as far as the photograph he submitted to the Hall of Fame, it was not the only one the family saved. They had at least three dags, one ambro, one CdV, and possibly others that they could have chosen from. So while this of course in no way proves that AJC is the man in the back row, there is no reason to believe that Bruce deliberately sent the wrong image to the Hall of Fame. Of course he could have been mistaken, but I have to believe there was a very good chance he knew who his grandfather was.

I know this proves nothing, but I wanted to bring it up.

terjung

10-15-2011, 09:06 AM

First, I am really enjoying this discussion and am particulary thrilled to see how civil it is - so thank you for all who are involved for not letting emotions get in the way - as so often can happen for these things that we care so much about.

Second, after reading the entire article and the discussion too, I'd prefer not to speculate as to whether or not it is truly him. I only wanted to add what amounts to a bit of an interesting corollary. A few months ago, I was at an annual family reunion where 5 siblings (my father and his 4 brothers and sisters) were puzzling over something very similar. It has nothing to do with baseball, but does relate. They were all looking over quite old pictures and were trying to figure out who was pictured in them. I only bring this up because there was difference of opinion (3 to 2) as to whether certain pictures were of their grandfather (my great-grandfather). They all knew their grandfather (since he was alive during their lifetimes), but in a similar situation, at least 2 of them would have misidentified their grandfather in a picture. The importance of that discussion is nowhere near the same plane as this one and I have no idea in our case as to whether my aunts and uncles would be certain enough in their opinion to select it as a representative picture, but I felt it pertinent enough to share that I have seen firsthand where people misidentified their own grandparent in a photograph. (In our case, I still don't know whether it was him in the photograph or not, but I do know that at least 2 (and maybe 3) of the siblings are wrong. As Barry said, it either is or it isn't.)

Abravefan11

10-15-2011, 09:11 AM

...there is no reason to believe that Bruce deliberately sent the wrong image to the Hall of Fame. Of course he could have been mistaken, but I have to believe there was a very good chance he knew who his grandfather was.

Barry - I agree there is no reason to believe that Bruce deliberately sent the wrong photo, but it's not hard to believe that he would think given the close resemblance that the person in the photo was AJC. I don't believe he's anymore of a photo identification expert than you or I and given the HPD was in his families collection he would be even more quick to assume that it was AJC.

barrysloate

10-15-2011, 09:40 AM

Hi Tim- yes, I'm fully aware that he could have made a mistake. One would only hope that given the magnitude of the event, that his grandfather was about to be enshrined in the new Hall of Fame, and that the hall was requesting a good image to engrave on AJC's plaque, that he would have been deliberate in his choice of which photograph to submit. But of course, he could have been wrong. That only adds to the complication of this whole thing.

novakjr

10-15-2011, 10:01 AM

I want to start by saying that I think that Corey is a terrific guy, very sincere and knowledgeable in many areas related to collecting. The reason for this debate is that we very much disagree on how one should determine who is pictured in an early baseball photo.

Part of Corey’s argument in support of the Cartwright ID of the man back-row center in his half-plate dag (HPD) is that there are other Knickerbockers in the photo. In particular he identifies subject G as Doc Adams. In support of that he includes a side by side facial comparison. Also, in a 1997 article in VCBC, he mentions that other collectors agree with him. In the article he states, “…I, as well as other persons respected and experienced in photo identification with whom I consulted, feel very comfortable with this Curry identification.” I post the following to dispute that ID and also address the lack of facial ID skill on the part of both Corey and the collectors who had then agreed with him (whomever they may be). I ask, are you “comfortable” with this ID?
http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/DocAdams1.jpg

Adams 2 looks an awful lot like John Astin..:D

barrysloate

10-15-2011, 10:05 AM

And John Astin played Gomez Addams...another Adams.;)

novakjr

10-15-2011, 10:08 AM

Anyways, in comparing the pictures of Adams, it would appear the HPD photo was reversed to get the proper angle for comparison. To an extent, I get why you did id, BUT you now find yourself comparing two right ears(from photo 1 and 2) to a left ear from the HPD.. Also, you might be mistaken in the angle of the ear from the HPD, because it appears as though some of it is covered by hair, making it very hard to make a proper determination of the true angle.

Leon

10-15-2011, 10:09 AM

And John Astin played Gomez Addams...another Adams.;)

Barry et al.....As much as I love having fun on the board, and Barry you know I consider you a very good friend, I am going to ask for the amount of off topic conversation in this thread to be limited. No hard fast rule but please be courteous and on topic with answers in this thread.

novakjr

10-15-2011, 10:14 AM

Barry et al.....As much as I love having fun on the board, and Barry you know you I consider you a very good friend, I am going to ask for the amount of off topic conversation in this thread to be limited. No hard fast rule but please be courteous and on topic with answers in this thread.

Sorry Leon. I started the Gomez talk...I'll keep the OT banter to a minimum.

oldjudge

10-15-2011, 10:16 AM

I thiink two points need to be made. First, as to who has the burden of proof. I think the answer to this stems from what point you start. Corey is starting from "I think it is Cartwright so you have to prove it is not". If I picked up this dag in a flea market I would have to prove it was Cartwright if I claimed it was him. I think Mark has shed considerable doubt on the image being Cartwright and that cloud will remain until someone can prove it is him. Secondly, as to the picture coming from the family. If the family had many pictures around is it that hard to imagine that there were pictures of someone else in the family who looked like Cartwright? If Bruce was 10 years old when Cartwright died he only remembered him as an old man. Trying to pick out his image when he was young, especially if a few people in the family had somewhat similar appearances, could have been tough. He probably didn't err intentionally, but nonetheless could have erred.

bmarlowe1

10-15-2011, 10:19 AM

Corey: Others, including recognized professional experts, not only may but in fact do vociferously differ not only as to their significance but whether they in fact even exist (being caused instead by photographic illusion or studio touch up)....Jerry opines that the facial mismatches Mark and Mr. Mancusi speak of, besides not being exclusionary, are not even close to being exclusionary.

I challenged Corey several times in the newsletter to produce known photos of the same early ballplayers that exhibit multiple feature differences as do Cartwright and subject C. Corey has not been able to do so. Even if one wants to limit it to dags, we have multiple dags of famous people such as Dolley Madison, Edgar Allen Poe, Lincoln, etc. If what Corey says is true, we should be able to compare dags for these people and find such feature differences. If you go through this exercise you cannot find such differences. We should easily be able to find photos of the same 19thC ballplayer that exhibit such differences. Again, you cannot.

There over 800 dags in the online Library of Congress collection. There are quite a few cases of multiple dags of the same person taken at different times. Again, you cannot find such feature differences due to the hand-tinting, “photographic illusion”, or whatever it is that Corey speaks of.

Corey:I still am having great difficulty with Mr. Mancusi's falilure to understand that in order to compare an image to another image, one must do a direct comparison. It is not sufficient to compare image #1 to image #2,....

This is simply not logical. I answered it more than adequately in the newsletter:
“Mr. Richards states,"each ‘known’ image should be independently compared with the questioned image.” He asserts that it is necessary to not only compare A4 directly to C, but to also individually compare A1, A2, and A3 to C. But he does not state what difference he thinks that would make - what features of A1, A2 or A3 would compare more favorably to C? All the A's have virtually the same forehead width, so it suffices to then compare only one of them directly to C. The same can be said for the particular characteristics of the eyelid, lips/philtrum, and nose.

barrysloate

10-15-2011, 10:21 AM

Same here Leon. I apologize, just responded to David.

bmarlowe1

10-15-2011, 10:24 AM

BUT you now find yourself comparing two right ears(from photo 1 and 2) to a left ear from the HPD.. Also, you might be mistaken in the angle of the ear from the HPD, because it appears as though some of it is covered by hair, making it very hard to make a proper determination of the true angle.

No, the photos are oriented correctly. We can see more than enough of the ear and the entire earlobe. The difference in ear angle is huge.

barrysloate

10-15-2011, 10:29 AM

Jay did make an excellent point, that perhaps AJC had a relative, such as a brother, who so closely resembled him that Bruce confused the two. That is very possible, but then who are these six men in identical straw hats (I believe Mark disputed that all the hats were the same, but they look the same to me)? I would find it a near impossible coincidence that six friends would get together for a social event wearing the identical hats unless there was some bond that brought the men together. So who are they? Keep in mind that the Knickerbockers wore straw hats as part of their uniforms.

Exhibitman

10-15-2011, 10:48 AM

To echo Brian and Jay, you really have to watch it with family provenance, especially when it is a generation or two removed. We have an old cabinet photo in our family that was passed down to my mother from her mother, who got it from her father, who came here from Poland in the 1890s. The family story was that the photo was of my grandfather in his Yeshiva [religious school] in Poland and as such it would have been the only image of our family from the "old country." It had a caption inscribed in Yiddish that no one in my family could read. I eventually took it to a Yiddish scholar for translation. What it actually said was in effect "thank you for all you've done to support our school; here's a picture of our latest graduating class" and it was dated 20 years after my great grandfather had come to America.

I don't know--no one "knows" the answer to the question. My opinion [FWIW] after seeing the evidence is that given the magnitude of the purpose of the image donation to the HOF, I tend to believe that the family would have exercised unusual care to make sure that the image that was going to be "forever" would be correct. I also agree with Scott's post to the effect that given the use of the image, the ultimate answer is less important at this point than it might be otherwise. Just like Abner Doubleday.

oldjudge

10-15-2011, 11:12 AM

Barry---To me it appears that the hats are somewhat different, not all straw. Besides, per this quote from GOOGLE, straw hats were very common during this era:

1850s. The boater, a stiff straw hat with a moderately deep, flat-topped crown encircled by a petersham ribbon and a flat narrow brim, was universally popular with men and women for the country,

They could have gotten together for anything-a picnic, a theatre group, a family outing, or a baseball game.

bmarlowe1

10-15-2011, 11:21 AM

There is no logical reason that I should have the burden of proof. This is not a criminal case where we want to bend over backwards to protect a defendant from a wrongful conviction. We are trying to determine what is true, or at least what is probably true - that is very different.

I would find it a near impossible coincidence that six friends would get together for a social event wearing the identical hats unless there was some bond that brought the men together. So who are they? Keep in mind that the Knickerbockers wore straw hats as part of their uniforms.

In very hi-res, some of those hats are clearly not straw - even Corey now agrees to that (I won't waste space posting hat photos, and whether it's 2 or 3 is beside the point) However the hats do illustrate an important point. In a 1997 article in VCBC in which he argued that the HPD was the first baseball photo, Corey states, “First, all the individuals in the image are wearing straw hats.” Corey had maintained that view until recently. Well, they aren’t. Apparently he never noticed something that was plainly obvious when you have the photo in hand (or have a super hi-res scan) until I pointed it out, even though he has owned the HPD for about 20 years. I believe that he sincerely saw 6 straw hats when some were clearly cloth hats because that’s what he wanted to see. Anyway - who are these guys?:

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/fishingbuddies.jpg

novakjr

10-15-2011, 12:23 PM

No, the photos are oriented correctly. We can see more than enough of the ear and the entire earlobe. The difference in ear angle is huge.

So, you're telling me that the original HPD's orientation was either reversed, or all three of the photo's you used were accidentally flipped when you posted them. Because in the HPD, Adams(?) was facing to the viewers left, while in the three photo's you posted they were all(including the one cropped from the HPD) facing the viewers right..Which would leave me to believe that you're comparing the wrong ear.. If you flipped 'em all then I get where you're coming from, and would probably side with you in saying that it's not Adams then.

bmarlowe1

10-15-2011, 12:26 PM

So, you're telling me that the original HPD's orientation was either reversed, or all three of the photo's you used were accidentally flipped when you posted them. Because in the HPD, Adams(?) was facing to the viewers left, while in the three photo's you posted they were all(including the one cropped from the HPD) facing the viewers right..

The original HPD is a mirror image of reality. That's why all comparisons in the newsletter were based on the image top right page 3.

novakjr

10-15-2011, 12:39 PM

The original HPD is a mirror image of reality. That's why all comparisons in the newsletter were based on the image top right page 3.

Very good. Since that's the case, I'm leaning toward being pretty sure it's not Adams..Not Definitely, but strongly leaning..

barrysloate

10-15-2011, 12:42 PM

Mark- I was one of the people who said that the burden of proof rests with you. Here is my reasoning. Corey bought this photo in good faith and put it in his safe deposit box, where it has been for the last twenty years. He had no obligation to deal with this issue if he didn't want to. If he were putting the dag up for sale, say in a public auction, and you challenged the identity, then I believe he would either have to prove it's Cartwright or remove it from the marketplace. But he has no other obligation once it is in his collection. He had the choice to ignore this whole issue if he wanted, since even if it is misidentified he was harming no one. He had no obligation to defend his belief it is Cartwright; he is free to say it's Abe Lincoln if that makes him happy. When the day comes that he or his descendents decide to sell it, then the burden shifts to him/them. Does that make sense?

bmarlowe1

10-15-2011, 12:56 PM

Mark- I was one of the people who said that the burden of proof rests with you. Here is my reasoning. Corey bought this photo in good faith and put it in his safe deposit box, where it has been for the last twenty years. He had no obligation to deal with this issue if he didn't want to. If he were putting the dag up for sale, say in a public auction, and you challenged the identity, then I believe he would either have to prove it's Cartwright or remove it from the marketplace. But he has no other obligation once it is in his collection. He had the choice to ignore this whole issue if he wanted, since even if it is misidentified he was harming no one. He had no obligation to defend his belief it is Cartwright; he is free to say it's Abe Lincoln if that makes him happy. When the day comes that he or his descendents decide to sell it, then the burden shifts to him/them. Does that make sense?

It doesn't to me. This should not be about Corey or Corey's feelings (or mine). I understand that he did not have to cooperate with me in this endeavor and I appreciate that he did and what he has at stake. However, if he did not, I still could have made a very credible presentation - certainly not nearly as good, but it still would have raised doubts about the HPD and raised questions as to why he did not want to have this discussion.

What historians and collectors should be primarily interested in is what is true (or probably true if that's the best we can do). If a persons reads the newsletter and decides that subject C is probably not Cartwright - that is a completely valid assessment. If that person is a baseball writer and he thus decides to not use the HPD in his book - are you saying that is not valid given what I have presented? I fully believe I have more than met what ever justifiable burden I had.

barrysloate

10-15-2011, 12:59 PM

I agree Mark that the truth is the most important thing. I'm just saying Corey had no obligation to respond if he didn't want to. No ethical boundary would have been breached if he chose to not get involved in the debate. It's to his credit that he engaged in it, but he didn't have to. That is what I meant.

bmarlowe1

10-15-2011, 01:01 PM

With that I absolutely agree.

benjulmag

10-15-2011, 01:09 PM

"There is no logical reason that I should have the burden of proof. This is not a criminal case where we want to bend over backwards to protect a defendant from a wrongful conviction. We are trying to determine what is true, or at least what is probably true - that is very different."

Mark, I believe there is a very logical reason you should have the burden of proof. The provenance has shifted it to you. Yes, you will argue that the provenance is not as strong as I opine. And others point out the risk associated with family members one or two generations removed from identifying ancestors. But bear in mind what we are dealing with here. This is a c. 1846 half plate daguerreotype. Half-plate-size dags from that period constituted a very small percentage of total dags, and almost always they were used when the image had particular importance to the subjects. In addition, the Cartwright family did not in the 1930s, as the HOF was coming into being, suddenly take note of its ancestorial baseball connection. AJC's importance to the origins of the game was known to his family for many years. It is the most tortured rational conceivable to say that (i) for a dag this rare, (ii) a dag that purportedly represents to the family that which their ancestor was most proud of and which gave the family great prominence, (iii) a dag likely on the family's radar for many years as they as they sought to achieve their long-standing goal of having AJC's contributions to the game appropriately recognized, would, when the HOF finally came calling, blow it by giving them an incorrect image of their ancestor. Is it theoretically possible? Yes. As a practical matter is it possible? IMO no.

As to your point in an earlier post of my failure "to produce known photos of the same early ballplayers that exhibit multiple feature differences as do Cartwright and subject C", that was not my role. That was Jerry Richard's role, which by agreement between you and I both of us were to be prohibited from continually going back to our experts. He and I discussed the issue you now raise at length and he could not have been more emphatic in saying he has seen many instances of such "mismatches" coming from the same individual, and he in particular said your experience must be very limited to not know this.

Mark, I do not question your good faith. Nor do I in any way want to come across as being disrespectful. But with respect I say that while you clearly know more than the average person, your knowledge cannot compare to an expert such as Mr. Richards. That was why I hired him. As you and I developed this newsletter supplement together over the past number of months you know darn well that I was prohibited from going back to Jerry Richards to have him answer with his own words and illustrations points you had raised in your subsequent redrafts. So I do very much take exception to your criticism now of my "failure" to provide such illustrations.

Runscott

10-15-2011, 01:10 PM

There is no logical reason that I should have the burden of proof. This is not a criminal case where we want to bend over backwards to protect a defendant from a wrongful conviction. We are trying to determine what is true, or at least what is probably true - that is very different.

In very hi-res, some of those hats are clearly not straw - even Corey now agrees to that (I won't waste space posting hat photos, and whether it's 2 or 3 is beside the point) However the hats do illustrate an important point. In a 1997 article in VCBC in which he argued that the HPD was the first baseball photo, Corey states, “First, all the individuals in the image are wearing straw hats.” Corey had maintained that view until recently. Well, they aren’t. Apparently he never noticed something that was plainly obvious when you have the photo in hand (or have a super hi-res scan) until I pointed it out, even though he has owned the HPD for about 20 years. I believe that he sincerely saw 6 straw hats when some were clearly cloth hats because that’s what he wanted to see. Anyway - who are these guys?:

Whether or not the hats are straw is irrelevant - if this were the style of straw hat that the Knickerbockers wore as a team, then it would be more relevant, but still not too important, as they aren't wearing their uniforms, so whatever hats they are wearing for the picture have nothing to do with baseball.

I could see how six friends could get together for a photo and arrange in advance to all be wearing nice dark dress clothing and their best light-colored wide-brim hats, just so that the picture would look good. If this picture had been taken in the deep south, all of them would have had such hats. If taken elsewhere, it would have taken minutes for any of them who didn't have one, to get such a hat at a hat shop.

barrysloate

10-15-2011, 01:26 PM

Scott- I'm not so sure the Knickerbockers actually had uniforms. I think they took off their jackets, rolled up their sleeves, and played baseball. I never saw a reference that said the team had uniforms.

Corey and Mark: there is something here about this whole project that I do not understand. Why did the two of you have ground rules? Why did you both have to agree not to keep going back to your experts? Why did you both have to set the rules regarding who was allowed to amend his findings, and who would have the last word? I never understood that. If the point of this exercise is to determine the truth, what relevance do these ground rules have? I'm lost.

Runscott

10-15-2011, 01:39 PM

Scott- I'm not so sure the Knickerbockers actually had uniforms. I think they took off their jackets, rolled up their sleeves, and played baseball. I never saw a reference that said the team had uniforms.

The only team 'picture' I've seen is this one, and it seems to show a 'team' belt and shirt design:

http://verdun2.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/teams_1859knicks400.jpg

bmarlowe1

10-15-2011, 01:42 PM

>>But with respect I say that while you clearly know more than the average person, your knowledge cannot compare to an expert such as Mr. Richards.

That’s why I obtained the services of Stephen Mancusi. That said, I think my response to Mr. Richards holds up very well.

>>As to your point in an earlier post of my failure "to produce known photos of the same early ballplayers that exhibit multiple feature differences as do Cartwright and subject C", that was not my role. That was Jerry Richard's role..

I honestly never considered that this would require an expert. It doesn’t seem very difficult to me to point out such differences if they exist. I can tell you that I cannot easily find such examples – as explained I have certainly tried and I can’t find any. That tells me that such a case would be at least extremely uncommon. This speaks to the likelihood of C being AJC. Of course the question is out there on this forum and through the newsletter. Let’s see what others may come up with. (see last paragraph p. 29)

oldjudge

10-15-2011, 01:43 PM

Barry-You are exactly right. This dag has been widely used and accepted by the hobby and the sports community alike. Now doubt has been cast upon it and all that matters is whether it is Cartwright or not. A very strong arguement has been made that it is not and now I believe that, if it is to believed that it is, then Mark's arguement must be proved incorrect. Otherwise, as I said before, a cloud of doubt will always hang over this piece.

bmarlowe1

10-15-2011, 01:45 PM

..
>> [I]It is the most tortured rational conceivable to say that…

Real[I] rock solid provenance would include reliable 19thC documentation attributable to AJC that describes and identifies the photo (such as a mention in his letter to Debost ). What we have instead is several early documented very odd “missed opportunities” where one would have expected that such a significant artifact would be mentioned or discussed (pp 30-31), followed by the rather sudden appearance of the photo in the mid-1930’s. There is nothing “tortured” in being suspicious of that.

I’ve received a number of emails from people who have had difficulty identifying or have misidentified youthful photos of grandparents, great uncles, etc. – this is not uncommon (there are several posts here that attest to that). The AJC that Bruce Jr. knew from life was an old man as seen in the old man photos in the newsletter. We don’t know what Bruce’s facial recognition skills were, but we do know how bad such skills can be.

One thing that would have been missing in the Carwright for HoF campaign was a nice team photo with AJC (the team photo in Spalding’s book did not include AJC, nor did the 1862 team salt print). Perhaps Bruce Jr. found the HPD somewhere and talked himself into believing it was what he needed (certainly collectors often do just that). Also bizarre – perhaps. I don’t pretend to know what happened here, but there is no narrative concerning the HPD that I have heard that easily connects the dots. This is a thick story for which we have only very thin conflicting slices. One needs to reflect on how little we actually know.

barrysloate

10-15-2011, 02:01 PM

Scott- that photograph is ca. 1859, and by then uniforms were worn by players. In the late 1840's, I just don't know.

bmarlowe1

10-15-2011, 02:02 PM

Why did the two of you have ground rules? Why did you both have to agree not to keep going back to your experts? Why did you both have to set the rules regarding who was allowed to amend his findings, and who would have the last word? I never understood that. If the point of this exercise is to determine the truth, what relevance do these ground rules have? I'm lost.

Without ground rules we would have been going back and forth forever and the newsletter would never have issued. As it is, you know how long this took. Also, this discussion need not and will not end with the current newsletter. I plan to address the Curry/Adams/Wheaton ID's in the next newsletter (you've already seen Adams in this thread) and to briefly respond to points Corey made in his final response. Corey can of course seek any additonal expert help that he deems necessary and publish whatever he desires wherever he wants on this subject. If he wants Jerry Richards to go through thousands of 19thC baseball faces, he can certainly do that.

As SABR's pictorial history committee chairman told me, "this will percolate for a long time."

barrysloate

10-15-2011, 02:05 PM

Recently I was looking at a photograph of my grandfather (he died in 1932, 20 years before I was born). Next to him stood his brother. The two of them looked so much alike that I could not distinguish my grandfather from my great uncle. It's not that I didn't know what my grandfather looked like, it's just that he and his brother were such a close match. Take that for what it's worth.

barrysloate

10-15-2011, 02:07 PM

Thanks Mark. That was one of those things I was curious about.

Runscott

10-15-2011, 02:37 PM

Recently I was looking at a photograph of my grandfather (he died in 1932, 20 years before I was born). Next to him stood his brother. The two of them looked so much alike that I could not distinguish my grandfather from my great uncle. It's not that I didn't know what my grandfather looked like, it's just that he and his brother were such a close match. Take that for what it's worth.

Barry, it's worth a lot. My great-grandfather presents a situation similar to what you describe - I sent a picture of him as a young man, to my father (who knew him much better than I did), and my father was certain that it was actually his uncle. My father was wrong. Apparently, this is common.

It's reasonable to think that ANY photo of a young AJC that AJC's grandson looked at, would have had little resemblance to the older AJC that he actually knew. For that reason, it's also reasonable to think that his grandson would have simply picked the best picture out of the ones he had available - he was probably proudest of this one, because it featured 'the team'. Just as Corey thinks the dag AJC looks like the other AJC photos he has, AJC's grandson could have felt just as certain. As far as the provenance he had - he could very well have been told by a relative who really didn't know (was half blind or had a bad memory, or other) that the team pic had AJC in it, when in fact it had AJC's brother or cousin.

benjulmag

10-15-2011, 03:05 PM

>>But with respect I say that while you clearly know more than the average person, your knowledge cannot compare to an expert such as Mr. Richards.

That’s why I obtained the services of Stephen Mancusi. That said, I think my response to Mr. Richards holds up very well.

>>As to your point in an earlier post of my failure "to produce known photos of the same early ballplayers that exhibit multiple feature differences as do Cartwright and subject C", that was not my role. That was Jerry Richard's role..

I honestly never considered that this would require an expert. It doesn’t seem very difficult to me to point out such differences if they exist. I can tell you that I cannot easily find such examples – as explained I have certainly tried and I can’t find any. That tells me that such a case would be at least extremely uncommon. This speaks to the likelihood of C being AJC. Of course the question is out there on this forum and through the newsletter. Let’s see what others may come up with. (see last paragraph p. 29)

When we started this project, the manner we decided to go about it was to hire an expert and let him opine. As we began discussing this issue, we decided the best route to take was for each of us to hire his own expert and let them do the analysis. That was what we did. In the end we are simply going to have to agree to disagree. I believe Jerry Richards has ripped to threads not only Mr. Mancusi's report, but also his mode of analysis as well as the appropriateness of using an artist to do a photographic comparison. Who Mr. Mancusi works for is irrelevant, as shown by the completely botched iris analysis. And I don't need to hear that the reason for that was because he wasn't given access to the original. Jerry Richards didn't want the original. He wanted a higher resolution reproduction to blow up. If he couldn't get it, he told me anything he would say about the irises would be so fraught with error to be close to worthless. Yet to Mr. Mancusi, before you allowed the change in the wording of the report, that was the most important factor he discussed.

I have spent countless hours over the last year on this project. I've also expended considerable expense. I've done what we set out to do, and now I'm being told that I should be the one to look for images to establish my points. That is not my expertise. I have no doubt that had Jerry expended time on it he would have had a field day doing it. It is not my intention to keep going back and forth. One would think if you were that satisfied with Mr. Mancusi's report settling the matter, you wouldn't feel the need to now act the photo ID expert. If you want to that that is your business. But for my state of mind, which to me is all that matters inasmuch as I own the item and the only person I want to satisfy is myself that I am not fooling myself into thinking something is what it is not, I am satisfied. As much as I respect you Mark, I believe Jerry has considerably more expertise and credibility than you do on this matter, and I choose to defer to his assessment.

oldjudge

10-15-2011, 05:56 PM

As Corey has so eloquently stated, he owns the piece and has the right to believe what he wants. Of course he does. What the hobby believes may or may not concurrent with those beliefs, however. The hobby's opinion is what I believe is most important as it will determine the place of this piece in history.

bmarlowe1

10-15-2011, 07:05 PM

>>I believe Jerry Richards has ripped to threads not only Mr. Mancusi's report, but also his mode of analysis as well as the appropriateness of using an artist to do a photographic comparison. Who Mr. Mancusi works for is irrelevant, as shown by the completely botched iris analysis.

You neither understand facial comparison, nor the limitations of the analysis your expert provided. In my view you have no competence to judge Mr. Mancusi’s work. As far as my judgement of Mr. Richards, everything I said derives from Mr. Mancusi's report.

>> I have spent countless hours over the last year on this project….

This is not about you, and frankly I don’t think anyone does or should care how much effort you (or I) put in to this. If they are interested they should care about what is true. Now you are complaining because because a key point in your argument was easily refuted. You and your expert asserted that the feature differences shown in the C vs. AJC comparison are not at all remarkable. My expert and I say that they are. I have a counter-argument that resonates at least with some people. If I am wrong it should be easy for you.

>> I've done what we set out to do, and now I'm being told that I should be the one to look for images to establish my points.

No, you weren't told it just now. It is in the newsletter in my response to Mr. Richards report. If you understood what the arguments on my side were, the need for this would have been obvious very early on - when you saw my initial draft plus Mr. Mancusi's report.

>> It is not my intention to keep going back and forth. One would think if you were that satisfied with Mr. Mancusi's report settling the matter, you wouldn't feel the need to now act the photo ID expert.

That makes no sense. Everything I have said thus far in the forum with respect to subject C is supported in his report.

As for the irises, I refer people to page 30. Mr. Mancusi was right - they are smaller.

benjulmag

10-16-2011, 12:38 AM

That seems to be your modus operandi Mark, to directly attack a person's competence if he dares disagree you. What I said about Mr. Mancusi's report derives from Jerry Richards. He certainly has the competency to judge what both Mr. Mancusi and you write, and I believe I have the competency to understand plain English, all the more so in this instance because I have had numerous phone discussions with him. You and I have gone back and forth on this for long enough that I feel that no matter what arguments are presented, if they are at variance with the conclusion you reached over one year ago, if won't matter. You know more than anyone else, and you are the ultimate say. And you present technical arguments with fancy illustrations that I dare say very few people have the expertise to evaluate. That is all fine and you have every right to do so, and readers have every right to form the opinions they choose to form. But for those really seeking the truth, as I am, I choose to hire the best photo facial comparison expert I can and let him advise me. In the process I ask him to evaluate what your expert writes, which he also does.

So at the end I am choosing to go with my expert over you. As to the shots you take at my competence to do photo ID, at least I can admit I know my limitations and don't put myself out to be someone I am not. Let's too keep in mind that when we first started discussing this topic, you explicitly told me that photo ID is all science and no art, that photo ID should not take provenance and other external information into account, and that Cartwright couldn't be in the half plate because based on your analysis there were exclusionary differences between subject C and subject A1. Well on the first of these points you were wrong, on the second you were wrong, and on the third you were wrong. In addition now you tell us that it is not necessary to do separate comparisons of the half plate with each of the A subjects. Well on this point you are wrong too. And it is Mr. Richards who is saying you are wrong in each of these instances.

bmarlowe1

10-16-2011, 01:09 AM

>>That seems to be your modus operandi Mark, to directly attack a person's competence if he dares disagree you.

After what you have posted you’ve got to be kidding me. That is just what you did. Mancusi’s competence is the core of your argument. I have not said that Mr. Richards is not competent and his report certainly disagrees with me. Really, some of the things you say are simply amazing.

>>And you present technical arguments with fancy illustrations that I dare say very few people have the expertise to evaluate.

The majority of people that communicate with me on this understand them quite well. There are a lot of people on this board and within SABR that have some aptitude for this. The presentations make them think about what they are actually seeing in these photos and correlate well with their own experience. I also get a lot of very good questions. A small minority (of those that contact me) do not understand. I am quite convinced that you do not understand. Also, this is not to say I can't make a mistake with respect to some particular point, but I don't believe that is the case here.

>>you explicitly told me that photo ID is all science and no art,...

That is false, and if I thought that why would I seek out a forensic artist.

>> that photo ID should not take provenance and other external information into account…

No, in fact I specifically asked for you anything you had in that regard.

>> You explicitly told me that…..Cartwright couldn't be in the half plate because based on your analysis there were exclusionary differences between subject C and subject A1.

I did not think that C could be the same person as A, but I also said I needed professional validation and I entertained the possibility that such an expert might not agree with me.

My position was as stated on p. 6:
When I first compared subjects C and A1, I thought that they could not be the same person due to the described feature differences. I also thought that a forensic artist would likely come to the same conclusion, but I was not absolutely certain as to whether the C image was clear enough to yield that result.

>> As to the shots you take at my competence to do photo ID, at least I can admit I know my limitations and don't put myself out to be someone I am not.

Your newly found humbleness is refreshing. I never heard any of it when you insisted H and G were Curry and Adams. I was completely frank and honest about my limitations. From the beginning I told you I was an amateur. And in the newsletter from p.5:
“I am, to say the least, not a practicing forensic artist. Though not a “professional”, if you read this publication often you know that I have “tried this at home,” having studied the subject as best as I can in the available time. I have a good track record of applying sound principles within my limitations, but I certainly can’t do all the things that a trained practitioner can do and I lack the many hours of “face-time” one gets in a full-time job.”

In the end, people interested in this subject will have to make their own judgments as to my level of competence. Most importantly they will be completely uninterested in our debating your interpretation of what I said to you in private communications that I have not published.

19cbb

10-16-2011, 08:53 AM

Corey, do you know if any hallmark is stamped on the daguerreotype plate?

Assuming Henry Tiebout Anthony is pictured, it won't come as a surprise that this particular dag was taken in his (and brother Edward) studio or at least the plate shows a hallmark from their photo supply company (or possibly another ?)

If the dag was cleaned/resealed, there's a good chance a hallmark was brought to light after 160 years hiding behind the original paper seals.

Dag plates used/sold by the Anthony's have about 4 known (at least to me) plate hallmarks ranging from 1847 til 1855.

Runscott

10-16-2011, 08:59 AM

I have read the entire newsletter and the following are my thoughts. First and foremost I believe it's important to say that I respect that all parties involved showed a refreshing level of decorum even in spite of differing opinions with such an important item in question.

I thought it was good hearing/sharing the opinions of those not directly involved - those posts seemed to be stand-alone, but still valid.

bmarlowe1

10-16-2011, 11:50 AM

I find that in general people interested in this subject are highly intelligent. Based on quite a few emails, I know that they fully understand that two competent experts can publish highly conflicting opinions, and they understand the reasons why. Certainly attorneys should understand this quite well. To say that either one of the experts doesn’t know how to compare faces in photographs is beyond ludicrous. I never said that about Mr. Richards.

barrysloate

10-16-2011, 12:10 PM

I feel the same way Mark. I believe that both you and Corey each picked an expert with great skills to work on this project. In no way do I feel that either of the experts is incompetent, and I think that's a bad direction to take this. Perhaps both sides should agree that Mr. Richards and Mr. Mancusi simply have come up with different conclusions, and the issue may in fact remain unresolved. We could have a survey where everyone who has read both articles votes on this, but I'm going to guess nearly all of them will vote they are not sure. I would be very surprised to see too many "definitely is/definitely isn't" votes. And I don't have a solution on how both you and Corey will ever agree here. It won't happen. That's a disappointment.

oldjudge

10-16-2011, 12:34 PM

Nonetheless Barry, I hope we have the vote. There are probably quite a few people who have read the article but have chosen not to enter the debate.

barrysloate

10-16-2011, 12:53 PM

That's up to Corey, Mark, and Leon. They can decide whether or not a vote has merits.

Abravefan11

10-16-2011, 12:59 PM

I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this, but I'm not in favor of a poll or vote. I don't think the results, whatever they may be, would add anything beneficial to the conversation. I do appreciate the newsletter being posted so that all sides and opinions can be discussed and anyone that wants to weigh in has the opportunity to do so.

barrysloate

10-16-2011, 01:27 PM

I was thinking the same thing Tim, especially if nearly everyone votes they aren't sure. But we'll see what happens.

benjulmag

10-16-2011, 01:27 PM

I find that in general people interested in this subject are highly intelligent. Based on quite a few emails, I know that they fully understand that two competent experts can publish highly conflicting opinions, and they understand the reasons why. Certainly attorneys should understand this quite well. To say that either one of the experts doesn’t know how to compare faces in photographs is beyond ludicrous. I never said that about Mr. Richards.

The issue here is not competency to compare faces. The issue is knowing what differences are real or illusionary, caused by photographic illusion or studio touch up. And the issue also pertains to methodology. I believe I have the right to point out that Mr. Mancusi is an artist, not a photography expert. That distinction is crucial here as Mr. Richards questions the existence of a number of the differences Mr. Mancusi discusses. I make it quite clear in the newsletter supplement that I intend no disrespect by stating that Mr. Mancusi is being asked to opine on a matter that requires expertise from another field. Since you mention attorneys, that would be akin to a tax attorney being asked to opine on a matter of matrimonial law. Yes, in both instances law is involved, but the skill set and training needed are much different. I believe the iris analysis bears out my point. Having said that, I will also say that had Mr. Mancusi had (i) access to the same resolution image that Mr. Richards and (ii) the same knowledge about emulsion type in conjunction with studio lighting as Mr. Richards, I have no doubt Mr. Mancusi's analysis would have been quite competent.

As to methodology, Mr. Mancusi's belief that individual comparison of each of the A Subjects to Subject C is not necessary, that one can apply the Subject C to Subject A4 comparison conclusion to a Subject C to Subject A1, A2 or A3 comparison, is simply incorrect. I believe I have every right to point that out and the impact that has on his conclusions.

As to negativity, the only one taking what I believe are uncalled for shots at competency is you against me, and you know quite well the comments I'm talking about.

At the end of the day, as Barry points out, you came to me with this project. I cooperated fully knowing that your intended objective is to have the HOF change the Cartwright bronze. The half plate is one of the most significant photographs in the hobby. You, as you have a right to do, are making a full scale attack on what it represents. I believe I have the right to vigorously respond to what you bring up, and in the process bring to bear relevant issues as to the area of speciality of your chosen expert. And that is all I have done.

Leon

10-16-2011, 01:40 PM

There has not been a definite decision made as to having a poll or not. I want to be very fair to both Mark and Corey and will look to both of them, privately, for their comments on that matter. regards

Runscott

10-16-2011, 01:58 PM

I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this, but I'm not in favor of a poll or vote. I don't think the results, whatever they may be, would add anything beneficial to the conversation. I do appreciate the newsletter being posted so that all sides and opinions can be discussed and anyone that wants to weigh in has the opportunity to do so.

I agree with you regarding the vote.

bmarlowe1

10-16-2011, 02:11 PM

>>The issue here is not competency to compare faces. The issue is knowing what differences are real or illusionary, caused by photographic illusion or studio touch up…I believe I have the right to point out that Mr. Mancusi is an artist, not a photography expert. …..Mr. Mancusi is being asked to opine on a matter that requires expertise from another field. Since you mention attorneys, that would be akin to a tax attorney being asked to opine on a matter of matrimonial law…

You are saying that Mr. Mancusi is not qualified to compare faces in photographs and has no understanding of the effects of lighting and retouching, as if one would think that was not a significant part of his job as the NYPD’s senior forensic artist for 24 years. That is of course completely ludicrous.

From p. 28:
Mr. Mancusi’s background includes decades of facial comparison experience, including frequently comparing faces in photos of varying quality, lighting, angle and facial expression as well as evaluating facial changes over varying periods of time. Forensic artists who have been formally educated in the rendering of human faces have particular expertise as to how lighting, look angle, and expression affect the appearance of facial features.

He is fully qualified to opine on the likelihood of these two faces belonging to the same person.:
http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/photoAknickerbocker6flashbackrowcenter.jpghttp://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/Picture2.jpg

bmarlowe1

10-16-2011, 02:17 PM

>>As to methodology, Mr. Mancusi's belief that individual comparison of each of the A Subjects to Subject C is not necessary, that one can apply the Subject C to Subject A4 comparison conclusion to a Subject C to Subject A1, A2 or A3 comparison, is simply incorrect.

No that is not correct and you have said nothing to support that other than to repeat it. My response is on p. 28:
Mr. Richards states, “each ‘known’ image should be independently compared with the questioned image.” He asserts that it is necessary to not only compare A4 directly to C, but to also individually compare A1, A2, and A3 to C. But he does not state what difference he thinks that would make - what features of A1, A2 or A3 would compare more favorably to C? All the A's have virtually the same forehead width, so it suffices to then compare only one of them directly to C. The same can be said for the particular characteristics of the eyelid, lips/philtrum, and nose.

When you want to measure something, you don't have to go to the National Bureau of Standards to get "the" ruler. Any ruler from Walgreens will do just fine. That's because we know that the Walgreens ruler is sufficiently close to the NBS ruler to do the job.

>>As to negativity, the only one taking what I believe are uncalled for shots at competency is you against me, and you know quite well the comments I'm talking about.

So, you can question Mr. Mancusi's competency to compare faces in photos, and I can't question your competency to make that judgment? And, you can vigorously claim for years that H and G are Curry and Adams, I can’t question your competency? That’s uncalled for? You certainly challenged my competency in your response in the newsletter supplement. Give me a break.

>>I cooperated fully knowing that your intended objective is to have the HOF change the Cartwright bronze.

That is simply another mischaracterization of a private communication.

benjulmag

10-16-2011, 03:08 PM

You are saying that Mr. Mancusi is not qualified to compare faces in photographs and has no understanding of the effects of lighting and retouching, as if one would think that was not a significant part of his job as the NYPD’s senior forensic artist for 24 years. That is of course completely ludicrous.

I am sure in the 24 years Mr. Mancusi has been a NYPD forensic artist he many times had occassion in his line of work to analyze mid-19th century daguerreotypes of current crime suspects.

benjulmag

10-16-2011, 03:22 PM

>>As to methodology, Mr. Mancusi's belief that individual comparison of each of the A Subjects to Subject C is not necessary, that one can apply the Subject C to Subject A4 comparison conclusion to a Subject C to Subject A1, A2 or A3 comparison, is simply incorrect.

No that is not correct and you have said nothing to support that other than to repeat it. My response is on p. 28:
Mr. Richards states, “each ‘known’ image should be independently compared with the questioned image.” He asserts that it is necessary to not only compare A4 directly to C, but to also individually compare A1, A2, and A3 to C. But he does not state what difference he thinks that would make - what features of A1, A2 or A3 would compare more favorably to C? All the A's have virtually the same forehead width, so it suffices to then compare only one of them directly to C. The same can be said for the particular characteristics of the eyelid, lips/philtrum, and nose.

When you want to measure something, you don't have to go to the National Bureau of Standards to get "the" ruler. Any ruler from Walgreens will do just fine. That's because we know that the Walgreens ruler is sufficiently close to the NBS ruler to do the job.[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]

From page 34 of the newsletter supplement:

And, of most concern, his report shows no recognition that the conclusions one draws when comparing Subject C to Subject A4 are not necessarily the same as the conclusions one can draw when individually comparing Subject C to Subjects A1, A2, A3 or A4 regardless whether one concludes that Subjects A1, A2, A3 and A4 are the same individual.

This last point is crucial and warrants further explanation. When a person poses, no two poses are precisely the same, especially if they are taken in different photo shoots. A person may tilt his head one way one time, another way the other time. He may be in a better mood and therefore exhibit a different smile. The studio lighting could be different. He could have suffered a disfiguring injury. The reasons are endless. If there are no exclusionary differences between the comparison subjects, the conclusion that the subjects likely are different individuals then becomes a subjective determination that relies crucially on how one’s brain interprets the comparison of the two subject images. So, say, if I was to regard it as a close call between concluding that the subjects possibly could be the same individual versus concluding they likely are not, there could easily be enough differences in the subject’s appearance in another pose to cause my brain to perceive the second comparison just differently enough that I will arrive at the other conclusion. This is accepted doctrine in photo ID, as Mr. Richards states, and is consistent with simple common sense. There are no shortcut methods to doing photo ID. If Mr. Mancusi desires to opine whether Subject C is the same person as Subjects A1, A2 and A3, he must undertake separate comparisons with those other subjects. He failed to do so and therefore his conclusion that Subject C is unlikely to be one of the other A subjects is necessarily suspect due to having been derived through improper analysis.

This response pertains to the "art" component inherent in photographic facial ID.

bmarlowe1

10-16-2011, 03:33 PM

I am sure in the 24 years Mr. Mancusi has been a NYPD forensic artist he many times had occassion in his line of work to analyze mid-19th century daguerreotypes of current crime suspects.

Exactly what illusionary effects unique to dags are present that would explain the specific gross differences apparent in the above images?

On p. 29 I said:
As to lighting and head angle, again there is no explanation given as to of how this would cause the observed feature differences. It is as if the differing light sources or small differences in head angle exhibited in these photos would magically change the apparent shape of numerous key features in a way we could not understand. However, the differences seen here cannot just be dismissed as illusions. If that contention is true, we should easily be able to find such multiple feature differences among clear photos of the same player from the many thousands of available early ballplayer images. I contend that such a find would be at least extremely rare.

Please tell us how the dag process or hand tinting can, for example, change the shape of the lower edge of the upper lid in these two clearly open eyes from subjects C and A. This feature is apparent in all the subject A images.

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/Picture3.jpghttp://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/Picture4.jpg

oldjudge

10-16-2011, 03:52 PM

First, Jimmy made a great point before which has not been addressed. What are the markings on the dag? If we can date it we may be able to say for certain whether it could be Cartwright. If it dates from post 1849 then it can't be Cartwright as that is when he left for the Gold Rush and ended up in Hawaii. If dating is not possible, or it dates from before Cartwright's departure, then it's back to facial recognition.

bmarlowe1

10-16-2011, 03:56 PM

>>If there are no exclusionary differences between the comparison subjects, the conclusion that the subjects likely are different individuals then becomes a subjective determination

No it is not so simple.
http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/Mysteryphoto10-11short-1.jpg

benjulmag

10-16-2011, 04:01 PM

Exactly what illusionary effects unique to dags are present that would explain the specific gross differences apparent in the above images?

On p. 29 I said:
As to lighting and head angle, again there is no explanation given as to of how this would cause the observed feature differences. It is as if the differing light sources or small differences in head angle exhibited in these photos would magically change the apparent shape of numerous key features in a way we could not understand. However, the differences seen here cannot just be dismissed as illusions. If that contention is true, we should easily be able to find such multiple feature differences among clear photos of the same player from the many thousands of available early ballplayer images. I contend that such a find would be at least extremely rare.

Please tell us how the dag process or hand tinting can, for example, change the shape of the lower edge of the upper lid in these two clearly open eyes from subjects C and A. This feature is apparent in all the subject A images.

First, they're gross differences to you. Please allow that others might feel differently.

Second, what blows my mind about this is that you raise a point in your response yet prohibit me from seeking a response from Mr. Richards. Wasn't it the case that the publication of the newsletter supplement was delayed for a few days while you and I went back and forth on whether my reference to lens focal length was generated by the knowledge I obtained from being a college physics major who studied optics, as opposed to being obtained from Jerry Richards? (Let me guess-reference to another private communication). Only when I satisfied you that I did not obtain it from Jerry Richards did you consent to have it published. You can't behind the scenes put conditions on what a person may do/say and then criticize him for adhering to your conditions.

Third, as a partial answer to your question, iris size. Mr. Mancusi felt he saw a very significant discrepancy, which I believe influenced him greatly in his conclusion. Yet in the end that discrepancy turned out not to exist. (And please don't mention the 20% difference you still see. May I respectfully suggest you educate yourself on margin of error analysis associated with daguerreotype emulsion type.)

benjulmag

10-16-2011, 04:11 PM

First, Jimmy made a great point before which has not been addressed. What are the markings on the dag? If we can date it we may be able to say for certain whether it could be Cartwright. If it dates from post 1849 then it can't be Cartwright as that is when he left for the Gold Rush and ended up in Hawaii. If dating is not possible, or it dates from before Cartwright's departure, then it's back to facial recognition.

To my knowledge there are no markings on the dag. However, based on the plain brass matting, it is consistent with dags produced in the mid 1840's (the early stage of daguerreotypes). By the 1850's, the matting become more ornate. This is a great point that Jimmy raises and one that 20 years ago when I purchased the dag I looked into closely.

Assuming one accepts that the dag comfortably dates to the period that Cartwright was in NYC, may I add that besides being back to facial analysis we are also back to provenance analysis.

benjulmag

10-16-2011, 04:27 PM

>>If there are no exclusionary differences between the comparison subjects, the conclusion that the subjects likely are different individuals then becomes a subjective determination

No it is not so simple.
http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/Mysteryphoto10-11short-1.jpg

I agree it's not so simple. If these differences exist in all photo shoots, are not affected by the passage of time and are objective, then they would be exclusionary. Yet your own expert does not characterize them as such. So perhaps their presence is a function of the time difference between comparison images and particularities of pose.

bmarlowe1

10-16-2011, 04:36 PM

>> Second, what blows my mind about this is that you raise a point in your response yet prohibit me from seeking a response from Mr. Richards. Wasn't it the case that the publication of the newsletter supplement was delayed for a few days while you and I went back and forth on whether my reference to lens focal length was generated by the knowledge I obtained from being a college physics major who studied optics, as opposed to being obtained from Jerry Richards?

Your are free to inform us as to how focal length affects what we see in this case. The agreement as I understood it was my expert – your expert – my response – your response. I felt it was fair to see your expert's opinion before I made my final response.

>> Please don't mention the 20% difference you still see. May I respectfully suggest you educate yourself on margin of error analysis associated with daguerreotype emulsion type.

Yes – please explain exactly how your “margin of error” number is derived.

>>Mr. Mancusi felt he saw a very significant discrepancy, which I believe influenced him greatly in his conclusion. Yet in the end that discrepancy turned out not to exist.

It does exist. I'm sure you will tell us without explanation that this is but another illusion. Note that C and A4 are both from dags.
http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/Mysteryphoto10-11xxxshort.jpg

bmarlowe1

10-16-2011, 04:47 PM

>>I agree it's not so simple. If these differences exist in all photo shoots, are not affected by the passage of time and are objective, then they would be exclusionary. Yet your own expert does not characterize them as such. So perhaps their presence is a function of the time difference between comparison images and particularities of pose.

You have made the same point several times and my answer is the same. If what you say is true, then one should be able to go though dags of famous people or photos of 19thC ball players and relatively easily find multiple feature differences between faces of the same person such as those exhibited in the C vs. A comparison. I maintain that such examples would be at least extremely difficult to find. In any case - you don't have to do it today, I am patient. I'm even willing to help you. I can certainly supply the faces.

benjulmag

10-16-2011, 04:56 PM

>> Second, what blows my mind about this is that you raise a point in your response yet prohibit me from seeking a response from Mr. Richards. Wasn't it the case that the publication of the newsletter supplement was delayed for a few days while you and I went back and forth on whether my reference to lens focal length was generated by the knowledge I obtained from being a college physics major who studied optics, as opposed to being obtained from Jerry Richards?

Your are free to inform us as to how focal length affects what we see in this case. The agreement as I understood it was my expert – your expert – my response – your response. I felt it was fair to see your expert's opinion before I made my final response.

>> Please don't mention the 20% difference you still see. May I respectfully suggest you educate yourself on margin of error analysis associated with daguerreotype emulsion type.

Yes – please explain exactly how your “margin of error” number is derived.

>>Mr. Mancusi felt he saw a very significant discrepancy, which I believe influenced him greatly in his conclusion. Yet in the end that discrepancy turned out not to exist.

It does exist. I'm sure you will tell us without explanation that this is but another illusion.
http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/Mysteryphoto10-11xxxshort.jpg



First, I assume your Walgreens ruler is accurate, as is your scaling.

Second, from Mr. Richards' report.

Measuring the iris with any degree of accuracy can be problematic.

As to why he says that, I would respectfully ask you to educate yourself on margin of error analysis associated with daguerreotype emulsion type. In the alternative, just as you were kind enough to put me in touch with Mr. Mancusi, if you desire, I will ask Jerry to discuss it directly with you.

bmarlowe1

10-16-2011, 04:58 PM

Agreed. i would be happy to talk to him.

benjulmag

10-16-2011, 05:08 PM

>>I agree it's not so simple. If these differences exist in all photo shoots, are not affected by the passage of time and are objective, then they would be exclusionary. Yet your own expert does not characterize them as such. So perhaps their presence is a function of the time difference between comparison images and particularities of pose.

You have made the same point several times and my answer is the same. If what you say is true, then one should be able to go though dags of famous people or photos of 19thC ball players and relatively easily find multiple feature differences between faces of the same person such as those exhibited in the C vs. A comparison. I maintain that such examples would be at least extremely difficult to find. In any case - you don't have to do it today, I am patient. I'm even willing to help you. I can certainly supply the faces.

I really really wanted to go back to Jerry to respond to this Mark, but I knew you wouldn't allow it. So the question now is, after one year of doing this, are we to continue? I don't know. I know that for what matters, I have satisfied myself, which as I said earlier has always been my main objective. I now have to weigh whether continuing the discussion and investing more time and money is something I want to do. I tend to think not, but in time I might feel differently. As I consider the matter, would you agree to split the expense?

benjulmag

10-16-2011, 05:13 PM

Agreed. i would be happy to talk to him.

I will ask Jerry to discuss it with you.

oldjudge

10-16-2011, 05:45 PM

"To my knowledge there are no markings on the dag. However, based on the plain brass matting, it is consistent with dags produced in the mid 1840's (the early stage of daguerreotypes). By the 1850's, the matting become more ornate. This is a great point that Jimmy raises and one that 20 years ago when I purchased the dag I looked into closely."

Corey, if the dag is not sealed, could you post a high resolution scan of the back?

bmarlowe1

10-16-2011, 06:08 PM

>> I really really wanted to go back to Jerry to respond to this Mark, but I knew you wouldn't allow it.

Corey - I would have allowed it if I then had yet another opportunity to respond to Jerry, again. However, as you know this thing came off the rails several times. IMO - it would have never ended. I was really not aware of the extent to which you felt that your own skills were not up to responding to me (and I'm still not sure you felt that way). I really don't think lens effects or perspective distortion are an issue in this case, but perhaps someone could argue otherwise.

I must add that there are a number of points that you made in your final response that I would very much like to respond to, but you rightly had the last word in the newsletter supplement. I plan to respond in the next issue. I may address some of them here if it seems worthwhile.

>> So the question now is, after one year of doing this, are we to continue? I don't know.....I have satisfied myself, which as I said earlier has always been my main objective. I now have to weigh whether continuing the discussion and investing more time and money is something I want to do...As I consider the matter, would you agree to split the expense?

As to expense, my funds for this are very limited, but we would have to discuss that offline. In any case, if you wish to engage Jerry or anyone else to respond to anything I have said - that is your choice. There is nothing preventing you from submitting such a response to Bill H. for a future newsletter cycle, posting it on Net54, or publishing it anywhere else you wish.

oldjudge

10-16-2011, 06:10 PM

Corey-This looks like a plain brass matting and it is on an 1855 dag. What am I missing?

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2004/2.html

barrysloate

10-16-2011, 06:29 PM

Jay- the date 1855 was approximated. I was the consignor of that lot.

benjulmag

10-16-2011, 08:35 PM

I was really not aware of the extent to which you felt that your own skills were not up to responding to me (and I'm still not sure you felt that way). I really don't think lens effects or perspective distortion are an issue in this case, but perhaps someone could argue otherwise.

I believe I have skills in this area, but they don't compare to Jerry Richards'. IMO the experience of doing thousands of photographic facial comparisons gives a perspective that no amount of book learning can replicate. It bears directly on your point of providing instances of identical subjects that exhibit the same facial discrepancies we see in this instance. I know what Jerry told me over the phone. He and I had several in depth discussions about it. As to providing examples, he would be the person to provide them both because presumably he would have the data base to do it, and because without such a data base I can't justify the tremendous amount of time required for the task.

bmarlowe1

10-16-2011, 08:49 PM

>>I believe I have skills in this area, but they don't compare to Jerry Richards'. IMO the experience of doing thousands of photographic facial comparisons gives a perspective that no amount of book learning can replicate. It bears directly on your point of providing instances of identical subjects that exhibit the same facial discrepancies we see in this instance.

I agree that experience is more important than book learning. That's why I stated the following:
 p5:
Active forensic artists working for major metropolitan police departments may analyze and compare hundreds or more faces every month, thousands every year, many tens of thousands over a long career. Their primary focus is faces. There is no substitute for that kind of experience.
p28:
There is no substitute for the decades of repetitive intense exposure one gets as a career forensic artist working for a major metropolitan police department. There are perspectives that can only be gained by examining thousands of faces…..

benjulmag

10-16-2011, 08:49 PM

Corey-This looks like a plain brass matting and it is on an 1855 dag. What am I missing?

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2004/2.html

The dating of a dag by the matting is a negative test -- that is it shows what something is not, not what it is. Perhaps the wording in my earlier post contributed to the confusion. But by negative test I mean that since the more ornate brass mattings did not begin to appear until the 1850's, had the half plate exhibited it, we would know it could not date to the period AJC was in NYC. However, just because the half plate matting is plain, that does not mean the dag had to have been produced in the 1840's. More likely than not it was. But it is still possible that it was taken in the 1850's by a studio that was still was offering the option of the plainer mat, and that is what the customer chose.

benjulmag

10-16-2011, 09:03 PM

>>I believe I have skills in this area, but they don't compare to Jerry Richards'. IMO the experience of doing thousands of photographic facial comparisons gives a perspective that no amount of book learning can replicate. It bears directly on your point of providing instances of identical subjects that exhibit the same facial discrepancies we see in this instance.

I agree that experience is more important than book learning. That's why I stated the following:
 p5:
Active forensic artists working for major metropolitan police departments may analyze and compare hundreds or more faces every month, thousands every year, many tens of thousands over a long career. Their primary focus is faces. There is no substitute for that kind of experience.
p28:
There is no substitute for the decades of repetitive intense exposure one gets as a career forensic artist working for a major metropolitan police department. There are perspectives that can only be gained by examining thousands of faces…..

I have always understood that Mark, and that is why, contrary to what you have said, I do not question Mr. Mancusi's competence in comparing facial features. But since presumably his work does not involve dealing with daguerreotypes and the particularities of that photographic process, he would be lacking in certain knowledge relevant to knowing what discrepancies he perceives he sees even exist. As to the issue of methodology (i.e., his belief that it is not necessary to undertake separate comparisons with each of the A subjects), that still continues to trouble me.

edhans

10-17-2011, 05:37 AM

I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this, but I'm not in favor of a poll or vote. I don't think the results, whatever they may be, would add anything beneficial to the conversation. I do appreciate the newsletter being posted so that all sides and opinions can be discussed and anyone that wants to weigh in has the opportunity to do so.

+1

steve B

10-17-2011, 07:49 AM

This entire thing has been very interesting. I would like to read the technical aspects of the lens distortion, or other distortions possibly caused by the emulsion.

I do have one question and one comment.

I don't see dating the matting as a purely negative exercise. It means more if the item os in hand, but it's not impossible for a photo to be recased either for style after production or by an owner using a similar case much later to replace a damaged case.

My question is - Corey owns the Dag in question. Why was the high resolution image obtained from Ken Burns? The only reason I can think of is knowing it existed made exposing the Dag to the light from scanning unecessary? (Although if I owned something like it I'd do my own high res scan)

Steve B

The dating of a dag by the matting is a negative test -- that is it shows what something is not, not what it is. Perhaps the wording in my earlier post contributed to the confusion. But by negative test I mean that since the more ornate brass mattings did not begin to appear until the 1850's, had the half plate exhibited it, we would know it could not date to the period AJC was in NYC. However, just because the half plate matting is plain, that does not mean the dag had to have been produced in the 1840's. More likely than not it was. But it is still possible that it was taken in the 1850's by a studio that was still was offering the option of the plainer mat, and that is what the customer chose.

oldjudge

10-17-2011, 07:56 AM

Late last night I thought I had figured out who the fellow in the middle of Corey's dag was. If you look at the fellow on the left in the ambrotype shown below you will see Alexander's brother Alfred. If Alfred's face is compared to the enlarged mid-back row face from Corey's dag, he looks a lot more like this man than does Alexander (Middle of ambrotype). However, Mark has analyzed this image and has found that Alfred is not the man in the middle either. Based on this, I am drawn to the conclusion that the man in the middle is almost surely a third Cartwright relative and is not Alexander.

benjulmag

10-17-2011, 08:36 AM

This entire thing has been very interesting. I would like to read the technical aspects of the lens distortion, or other distortions possibly caused by the emulsion.

I do have one question and one comment.

I don't see dating the matting as a purely negative exercise. It means more if the item os in hand, but it's not impossible for a photo to be recased either for style after production or by an owner using a similar case much later to replace a damaged case.

My question is - Corey owns the Dag in question. Why was the high resolution image obtained from Ken Burns? The only reason I can think of is knowing it existed made exposing the Dag to the light from scanning unecessary? (Although if I owned something like it I'd do my own high res scan)

Steve B

The high resolution image was obtained from Ken Burns because that was what was required to expose a missing portion of the irises. This is discussed in length in the newsletter supplement.

steve B

10-17-2011, 12:06 PM

The question wasn't about why the high res image was needed.

It was more about why it was sourced from a third party when you own the original.

I don't think the sourcing makes any material difference , I was just curious as to why it was done that way.

Both experts have made good points, and I'm left wondering if there would be as much diference in opinion if both had had the high res scans available.

Steve B

For another hobby I've had to reverse engineer some mechanical parts from photos. Not quite the same thing, but I'm somewhat familiar with reflections causing measurment problems on modern photos.

bmarlowe1

10-17-2011, 12:15 PM

The question wasn't about why the high res image was needed.

It was more about why it was sourced from a third party when you own the original.

I don't think the sourcing makes any material difference , I was just curious as to why it was done that way.

Both experts have made good points, and I'm left wondering if there would be as much diference in opinion if both had had the high res scans available.

In the end Mr. Mancusi had the super-hi-res scan, and his opinion remained,
"So it is highly unlikely almost to the point of exclusionary that Subject A and Subject C are the same individual."

benjulmag

10-17-2011, 01:08 PM

The question wasn't about why the high res image was needed.

It was more about why it was sourced from a third party when you own the original.

I don't think the sourcing makes any material difference , I was just curious as to why it was done that way.

Both experts have made good points, and I'm left wondering if there would be as much diference in opinion if both had had the high res scans available.

Steve B

For another hobby I've had to reverse engineer some mechanical parts from photos. Not quite the same thing, but I'm somewhat familiar with reflections causing measurment problems on modern photos.

When Ken Burns photographed the half plate some years earlier for his Baseball documentary, he gave me a copy of the transparency he generated. I loaned it out some years later and the person I loaned it to lost it. When Jerry Richards told me the image Mark generated (the one Mr. Mancusi used) from another transparency I had (from another photo shoot for another project) was of insufficient resolution, I had the idea to contact Kens Burns to see if he had a high resolution copy that I could use. I no longer had Ken's contact info so I turned to John Thorn, who knew Ken well. Ken did in fact have a very high resolution digital image of it, which he was gracious enough to provide me. I in turn sent it on to Jerry Richards. That was the practical solution to give Mr. Richards what he required. Photographing daguerreotypes is extremely difficult. It takes a skilled photographer to produce a high quality reproduction of a dag. Ken's photographer did a superb job, and using that image was easier and more cost effective than having it reshot.

steve B

10-17-2011, 01:15 PM

Thanks Corey, it all makes sense now.

Steve B

Rich Klein

10-17-2011, 05:26 PM

With any 19th century item from Ken Burns excellent series.

A long-time ago, I was chatting with Marty Appel, who wrote an award-winning work on Mike "King" Kelly. Somehow we were discussing Kelly and the subject of a photo purported to be Kelly on that documentary came up. Marty told me he asked Ken Burns office about that since he thought he had seen every possible photo of the King. Marty told he was told that the photo of the boozing young man was not Kelly but someone who looked enough like him for TV purposes.

This was not the only factual exaggeration Burns made, there was a great SABR-L thread back in the day about all the problems with anything from that documentary. That thread is worth reading and IIRC, Keith Olbermann also wrote a long article about all the factual problems with Burns.

So, if Burns says that is Alexander Cartwright, I'd really take that with a grain of salt.

I'm not a photo expert, but I do know about the Burns issue.

Rich

bmarlowe1

10-17-2011, 06:52 PM

Subject F in Corey's dag is wearing an earring (see below). I have no thoughts on whether that has any useful significance, but if anyone else does, please post.

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/earringearc.jpg http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/earringccc.jpg

Jaybird

10-17-2011, 07:37 PM

I know that earrings have traditionally been worn through history by sailors. This is neither here nor there but thought I'd bring it up.

I have to say that the burden of proof question is one that shouldn't come into play. It seems like it is a defensive position to speak about the burden of proof. What does it matter who has to prove what? The argument is what it is and speaks for itself.

The question has been brought up as to the ID and I think the question is in the air. It matters. It is important and the questionable ID brings facts to it like a magnet. It is good to bring it to a public debate because as a collective we have much more knowledge than as an individual. Someone might have an ID or other CDV or DAG of one of the other folks in the Dag and that could bring the whole matter into a different light.

As a side note, I don't see them as wearing uniforms. Hats are all of different sizes, brim width, ties are different, vests different colors, etc. only thing the same is that they are all wearing dark jackets.

19cbb

10-17-2011, 07:37 PM

Subject F in Corey's dag is wearing an earring (see below). I have no thoughts on whether that has any useful significance, but if anyone else does, please post.

Is 'Subject F' the one 'identified' as Henry T. Anthony?

H.T. Anthony and Edward (early 1860s)

http://i.imgur.com/lu7no.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QgBkD.jpg

bmarlowe1

10-17-2011, 07:52 PM

F was IMO incorrectly identified as William Tucker in Baseball in the Garden of Eden.

Leon

10-18-2011, 08:11 AM

I am going to un-stick this thread sometime today. At this point, with everything taken into account, I don't feel a poll will prove anything more than has been debated here. Both parties have been advised of what is happening with the thread and both are fine with it. I want to thank Corey and Mark for their professionalism and civility in a very important and impassioned debate. Of course the thread will remain open for comments but it will be like any other thread and start moving down the page as other threads are responded to. I have to admit I didn't invest the amount of time needed to read the whole article, though I did skim over it and hit the high points. That, along with this thread, has helped me gain knowledge concerning photos and this photo in particular. I personally thank both parties for that too. Thanks also to our board members for their responses. I hope everyone has enjoyed the thread as much as I have. best regards

19cbb

10-18-2011, 09:30 AM

Subject F in Corey's dag is wearing an earring (see below). I have no thoughts on whether that has any useful significance, but if anyone else does, please post.

I contacted professional dress historian Jayne Shrimpton to see if it was common/uncommon for men to wear an earring back in the 1840s/50s, and if it was gentlemanly to do so.

Her response was that it was not common for men to wear earrings in 1840s/50s. Probably a bit more common for Sailors/Laborers. She joked that maybe earrings were more acceptable in the Wild West back then and said the Dag is probably 1850s.

Thought this could help the debate.

J

GaryPassamonte

10-18-2011, 09:39 AM

Barry- Didn't you have an ambrotype with a player wearing an earring many moons ago in one of your auctions?

barrysloate

10-18-2011, 09:43 AM

I did indeed. That's the first thing I thought of when Mark posted that. Perhaps it was a sign of virility, or a bohemian style of a sorts.

oldjudge

10-18-2011, 09:53 AM

"Among sailors, a pierced earlobe was a symbol that the wearer had sailed around the world or had crossed the equator. In addition, it is commonly held[citation needed] that a gold earring was worn by sailors in payment for a proper burial in the event that they might drown at sea. Should their bodies have been washed up on shore, it was hoped that the earring would serve as payment for "a proper Christian burial". Regardless of this expression, the practice predates Christianity and can be traced back as far as ancient Greece where the gold paid the ferryman, Charon, to provide passage across the river Acheron to Hades."---------interesting information from Wikipedia

19cbb

10-18-2011, 10:00 AM

Do we know what brand of cigar was 'Subject G' smoking?

I've heard Doc Adams liked to roll his own... perhaps a sign of virility? :)

bmarlowe1

10-18-2011, 10:15 AM

I contacted two dag experts and got basically the same answer - dags with men wearing earrings are very uncommon, and for what they have seen, they are associated with sailors.

oldjudge

10-18-2011, 07:45 PM

Before this thread slips into the depths of Network54, I was just wondering if anyone on the board, other than Corey, really believes that Alexander Cartwright is in that six player dag.

Cardboard Junkie

10-18-2011, 07:51 PM

Some think it is, some think it isn't, some hope it is, but no one knows that it is.

oldjudge

10-18-2011, 07:59 PM

David-That's not what I asked. I know some people are unsure and some think it is not Cartwright. I'd just like to know who thinks it is him.

mark evans

10-18-2011, 09:50 PM

I sure don't know. But, the retouched photo at the bottom of page 7 of the report is curious, as it looks to me to picture a sort of hybrid between photos C and A1, sharing characteristics of both. If the retouched photo is Cartwright, that lends support in my mind that photo C could be Cartwright as well.

GaryPassamonte

10-19-2011, 05:54 AM

Jay,
Since serious questions have been raised about the image, I don't believe anyone could be 100% sure Cartwright is pictured. On the other hand, I can't be 100% sure it isn't him, given the provenance. As others have said, we will probably never know for sure. But one thing is certain. Once doubts become associated with a piece, it is never held in the esteem it was formerly. I applaud Mark for his earnest efforts and I applaud Corey for his willingness to take the risk of having a piece in his personal collection deemed to be misidentified and thus, much less valuable.

Runscott

10-19-2011, 07:39 AM

Jay,
Since serious questions have been raised about the image, I don't believe anyone could be 100% sure Cartwright is pictured. On the other hand, I can't be 100% sure it isn't him, given the provenance. As others have said, we will probably never know for sure. But one thing is certain. Once doubts become associated with a piece, it is never held in the esteem it was formerly. I applaud Mark for his earnest efforts and I applaud Corey for his willingness to take the risk of having a piece in his personal collection deemed to be misidentified and thus, much less valuable.

That's not actually true. At least one person is 100% sure that it isn't Cartwright, as evidenced by the article. I'm positive that there are others who agree with him. I also disagree that the piece has lost esteem due to the new discussions - it's still the photograph chosen by Cartwright's grandson to be used by the HOF, and it's a 150+ yr-old dag that came from the Cartwright estate.

Please keep in mind that there are many of us who saw this photograph many years ago, along with some of the other Cartwright examples. This is not a new discussion - just a much more detailed analysis. I very much enjoyed the paper and the discussions.

oldjudge

10-19-2011, 08:12 AM

Scott-You are exactly right. As I have indicated previously, I do not believe that it is AC. I'm sure many others feel either that way or are unsure. However, I am still looking for someone, anyone, other than Corey, who is convinced that it is AC.
As to value, that is not the discussion here. The number is immaterial since Corey wouldn't sell it. Ultimately, if it ever comes to market, the market will determine its worth.

Leon

10-19-2011, 08:18 AM

Scott-You are exactly right. As I have indicated previously, I do not believe that it is AC. I'm sure many others feel either that way or are unsure. However, I am still looking for someone, anyone, other than Corey, who is convinced that it is AC.
As to value, that is not the discussion here. The number is immaterial since Corey wouldn't sell it. Ultimately, if it ever comes to market, the market will determine its worth.

I am convinced it is Alexander Cartwright.

bmarlowe1

10-19-2011, 08:19 AM

I sure don't know. But, the retouched photo at the bottom of page 7 of the report is curious, as it looks to me to picture a sort of hybrid between photos C and A1, sharing characteristics of both. If the retouched photo is Cartwright, that lends support in my mind that photo C could be Cartwright as well.

Mark - thanks for taking the time to read the newsletter and post. I would respond:
1) The image you refer to was not used in the analysis by either expert because it was heavily altered and over-painted by an artist.
2) From p. 31 - The only specific similarities between the A's and C pointed out by [Corey's expert,] Mr. Richards, are similar vertical alignment and approximate iris size. Both are commonly shared by different people, and the latter claim requires a liberal interpretation of "approximate."

ChiefBenderForever

10-19-2011, 08:42 AM

Very facinating stuff, I think it is him based on a gut instinct with no merit or qualifications to say so but that's what I think.

GaryPassamonte

10-19-2011, 09:01 AM

It seems there are those who feel 100% for and against. I stand corrected. Nonetheless, I'm certain the vast majority are somewhere in the realm of unsure.
As to esteem and value, though not part of the original point at hand. You would be hard pressed to find a card or piece of baseball memorabilia not damaged by doubts cast upon it, with the possible exception of the "Gretzky" Wagner to some degree.

mark evans

10-19-2011, 12:43 PM

Late last night I thought I had figured out who the fellow in the middle of Corey's dag was. If you look at the fellow on the left in the ambrotype shown below you will see Alexander's brother Alfred. If Alfred's face is compared to the enlarged mid-back row face from Corey's dag, he looks a lot more like this man than does Alexander (Middle of ambrotype). However, Mark has analyzed this image and has found that Alfred is not the man in the middle either. Based on this, I am drawn to the conclusion that the man in the middle is almost surely a third Cartwright relative and is not Alexander.

Anyone got a photo of Benjamin? A quick internet search shows him to be the third brother in the family.

bmarlowe1

10-19-2011, 12:47 PM

Anyone got a photo of Benjamin? A quick internet search shows him to be the third brother in the family.

Mark - an excellent question. I have not been able to locate one.

oldjudge

10-19-2011, 01:05 PM

Sorry, I couldn't help myself

oldjudge

10-19-2011, 01:07 PM

BTW, he also looks more like subject C than Alexander Cartwright.

tnfoto

10-19-2011, 01:16 PM

I am a long-time lurker who has never posted on Net54, and I am not an expert, but as the moderator of a baseball photo forum I have spent a great deal of time collecting, cataloging and identifying baseball photos. Having read the entire supplement and all of the messages in this thread, I finally feel compelled to speak up. :)

My personal opinion is that the subject in the Dag is not Cartwright.

To the issue of provenance, I would add that, IMHO, given the task to supply an artist with an image that will be used to memorialize my grandfather's legacy with a bronze plaque, I would try to select the most iconic photo I had. The other images I have seen of AJC are decidedly less-iconic than the image in question. In a ca. 1855 two-person image he looks respectable but not legendary, in a ca. 1860 three-person image he looks tired, and in the others I have he is a much older man. The strong-chinned, steely-eyed subject in the Dag certainly looks more legendary than any AJC image I have, and in the 1930s (as history proves out), who would question Bruce C. when he states that the image is his long-deceased grandfather?

I can also see how, as mentioned earlier in this thread, Bruce C. could have mistaken his grandfather for the other man. There is some resemblance, but as has been stated, family members (and, for that matter, even persons not related) may *appear* similar, but are not the same person. Another case in point--my grandfather and his two brothers were virtually indistinguishable separately. I knew my grandpa for the last 26 years of his life, but given the task of definitively identifying a man generally resembling my grandpa at a much younger age in a photograph showing a group of men I did not know, it would be impossible for me to categorically state whether the photo showed my grandpa, when it could easily have been one of his brothers.

T. Scott Brandon (tsb)

barrysloate

10-19-2011, 01:33 PM

Scott- welcome to the board, and I must say your first post was a well thought out one. If you go back to post #44, I said exactly the same thing about my grandfather. Since I never met him, I had trouble distinguishing him from his brother in one of the only photographs I have of him (he died so young even my mother did not remember her own father!).

Rich Klein

10-20-2011, 08:15 AM

And for the trivia fans on the board, please email him, he (and his partner in Horsehide Trivia) sends out a daily trivia question to more than 600 receipients. Those questiions get more difficult during the week.

Slight plug as I'm one of the "moderators" for those questions

Rich

bmarlowe1

10-20-2011, 08:44 AM

Scott is also a well-known contributor to SABR’s Pictorial History Committee image database, finding photos of early major leaguers for whom none had yet been found and correcting misidentified photos.

benjulmag

10-20-2011, 10:18 AM

I want to thank everyone who read the newsletter supplement for taking the time to do so. I also want to thank everyone who followed this thread, as well as those who posted, for their interest in this question. I think threads such as this represent this board at its best.

To address briefly some of the points made:

1. First off, I totally understand the concern a number of people are having with the identification. I too had the same concerns 20 years ago when offered the opportunity to acquire the half plate. It was not until after I expended considerable time and resources researching the question that I became comfortable enough to purchase it.

2. At the time I purchased it, I did so without any belief Adams was depicted within the half plate inasmuch as at the time I had never seen any image of Adams. As to Mark's analysis of why the person identifed as Adams cannot be him, I will refrain from commenting until I have heard Mr. Richard's views. He is unavailable until next week. As to Curry, I did feel then, and continue to feel now, Curry is depicted. Based on superficial review done some months ago, Mr. Richards told me he liked the resemblance, though admitedly because he did not undertake a detailed comparison his views on this question are very preliminary. As to Henry Anthony, Jimmy in post 98 shows a later image of him. That is the first time I have seen that image. Based on resemblance alone, it looks to closely resemble the person seated to the right in the half plate. I have done no individual facial feature comparison of those two images so therefore I recognize that it is possible that person is not Anthony. I should point out that at the time the Knickerbockers organized in 1845, they had 28 original members. The significance is not which specific Knickerbockers are in the half plate, but whether these individuals are Knickerbockers.

3. I agree with Mark Evans in post 110 as to the strong resemblance of that image to the half plate image. That other image was acquired directly from the Cartwright family, and I believe it dates to the 1870's-1880's. It is a repro of what I believe to be an 1840's dag of AJC. Because I believe it to be the most contemporaenous comparison image to the half plate, I am not surprised as to the strong resemblance. As Mark (Fimoff) points out, because of the significant inpainting both experts agreed that that image was not a suitable comparison image for analyzing individual facial features. However, I still believe the image is important because it shows a strong overall resemblance.

4. Given the great rarity of half plate dags in mid-1840's, I continue to feel that the 6 people depicted within the half plate are individuals who share an important common bond. I also feel a Cartwright is one of the 6 subjects; much more likely than not this dag would have been in the possession of one of the depicted subjects. AJC's brother Alfred was a member of the Knickerbockers. Assuming what has been said is correct and he is not the person identified as AJC, IMO that reinforces the AJC identification. As to whether the person might be the other brother Benjamin, I have never seen an image of Benjamin so I can't prove that it is not. However, assuming the half plate to be a Knickerbocker image, which I believe it to be, I can't imagine why he would be in it inasmuch as he was never a member of the club.

5.(a). For those who opine there is no resemblance between the person identified as AJC in the half plate compared to the other A comparison subjects (views cited by both Mark and Mr. Mancusi as partial support for their conclusions), it makes no sense to me why resemblance amongst sibblings would fool the Cartwright family in the 1930's into believing AJC is depicted in the half plate. If there is no resemblance, what existed to fool them? Accordingly, that would suggest the family made the identification based on external information (e.g., it being long known within the family, originating with AJC himself, that the half plate was a Knickerbockers image depicting AJC).

(b). For those who say there is enough of a resemblance amongst the comparison images to mislead the family, then it would seem to me that that resemblance, in conjuction with the absence of exclusionary differences and the strength of the provenance, should at minumum make it more likely than not that the AJC identification is correct.

6. If it is true that the Cartwright family could have misidentified an ancestor one or two generations removed, why then could the misidentification not be of the person in the quarter plate, sixth plate or ambro? Why can't that same argument be used to support the identification by saying the comparison images are not AJC?

7. If two comparison subjects are not the same individual, then much more likely than not exclusionary differences would be found to exist. Therefore the absence of exlusionary differences here is quite significant.

bmarlowe1

10-20-2011, 11:08 AM

>>> If two comparison subjects are not the same individual, then much more likely than not exclusionary differences would be found to exist. Therefore the absence of exlusionary differences here is quite significant.

There is no basis for that assertion. In fact it is not uncommon for photos of two different persons to not exhibit exclusionary differences, especially when the ears are not visible.

>>> I agree with Mark Evans in post 110 as to the strong resemblance of that image to the half plate image. That other image was acquired directly from the Cartwright family, and I believe it dates to the 1870's-1880's. It is a repro of what I believe to be an 1840's dag of AJC.

There is nothing that I know of to support the other image being an 1840’s image. The wrinkles at the corner of his right eye (viewer’s left) are probative of an older man. As to Corey’s opinion on resemblance, he is certainly entitled to it, but IMO it lacks strong probative value.

>>> If it is true that the Cartwright family could have misidentified an ancestor one or two generations removed, why then could the misidentification not be of the person in the quarter plate, sixth plate or ambro? Why can't that same argument be used to support the identification by saying the comparison images are not AJC?

That is becaause Mr. Mancusi’s analysis pointed out a number specific significant similarities among the A images and the old-man Cartwright images (B images), similarities not shared by subject C. One B image appeared in Cartwright’s 1892 newspaper obit - so we know the B's are Cartwtight.

>>> For those who say there is enough of a resemblance amongst the comparison images to mislead the family,…

It should be evident from this case and other, that resemblance is not needed for people to be mislead as to photo ID. In any case, what is most troubling about the provenance is the complete lack of mention of what would be a highly valued and significant Cartwright baseball heirloom in any relevant correspondence until it suddenly appears in 1935.

>>> As to Henry Anthony, Jimmy in post 98 shows a later image of him. That is the first time I have seen that image. Based on resemblance alone, it looks to closely resemble the person seated to the right in the half plate.

The quality of that image as we now have it is not so good, and I also found it on wiki – which is not always a reliable source for early images - so at the moment is is unconfirmed. It seems to be a poor match to Henry Anthony in the 1862 Knick reunion salt print, and the nose does not seem to compare well to the guy in the front row right in Corey’s dag (and would Henry Anthony wear an earring?)

oldjudge

10-20-2011, 11:48 AM

I agree with Corey that most likely a member of the Cartwright family (or a close family friend) is in the six person dag, and that all six people shared a common bond. I also agree that to a group of family members in the 1930s, none of whom saw Alexander as a young man, none of the dag images looked that dissimilar. However, using analysis which was unknown to them, Mark has demonstrated that the fellow in the six person dag is not Alexander Cartwright. Who it is remains an open question. The bond that the six gentlemen in the dag share is also unclear. Most conjecture as to them being specific Knickerbockers has been refuted. While the earing in particularly interesting to some; I don't find it useful. What I would find useful is a full front and back scan of the dag (without matting) to determine with certainty if there is a hallmark on the dag. Finally, Mark's expert's analysis compared subject C to a universe of seven other purported Alexander Cartwright images. These seven other images were analyzed and found to be very likely the same fellow. Could they all be someone else and the man in the middle of the six person dag be Alexander? This is theoretically possible I guess, but only at winning-the-lottery type odds.

benjulmag

10-20-2011, 11:55 AM

>>> If two comparison subjects are not the same individual, then much more likely than not exclusionary differences would be found to exist. Therefore the absence of exlusionary differences here is quite significant.

There is no basis for that assertion. In fact it is not uncommon for photos of two different persons to not exhibit exclusionary differences, especially when the ears are not visible.

>>> I agree with Mark Evans in post 110 as to the strong resemblance of that image to the half plate image. That other image was acquired directly from the Cartwright family, and I believe it dates to the 1870's-1880's. It is a repro of what I believe to be an 1840's dag of AJC.

There is nothing that I know of to support the other image being an 1840’s image. The wrinkles at the corner of his right eye (viewer’s left) are probative of an older man. As to Corey’s opinion on resemblance, he is certainly entitled to it, but IMO it lacks strong probative value.

>>> If it is true that the Cartwright family could have misidentified an ancestor one or two generations removed, why then could the misidentification not be of the person in the quarter plate, sixth plate or ambro? Why can't that same argument be used to support the identification by saying the comparison images are not AJC?

That is becaause Mr. Mancusi’s analysis pointed out a number specific significant similarities among the A images and the old-man Cartwright images (B images), similarities not shared by subject C. One B image appeared in Cartwright’s 1892 newspaper obit - so we know the B's are Cartwtight.

>>> For those who say there is enough of a resemblance amongst the comparison images to mislead the family,…

It should be evident from this case and other, that resemblance is not needed for people to be mislead as to photo ID. In any case, what is most troubling about the provenance is the complete lack of mention of what would be a highly valued and significant Cartwright baseball heirloom in any relevant correspondence until it suddenly appears in 1935.

>>> As to Henry Anthony, Jimmy in post 98 shows a later image of him. That is the first time I have seen that image. Based on resemblance alone, it looks to closely resemble the person seated to the right in the half plate.

The quality of that image as we now have it is not so good, and I also found it on wiki – which is not always a reliable source for early images - so at the moment is is unconfirmed. It seems to be a poor match to Henry Anthony in the 1862 Knick reunion salt print, and the nose does not seem to compare well to the guy in the front row right in Corey’s dag (and would Henry Anthony wear an earring?)


I don't think the B images mean much in this analysis. Certainly Mr. Richards doesn't believe so. I would hope the basis for saying the A subjects are AJC go beyond an opinion they correlate to the B images.

As to perceived differences in wrinkles at the corner of the eye, that is precisely the sort of thing touch up and/or placement of lighting would conceal in the half plate. In addition, IMO the fullness of the face in this other image seems more consistent with his pre-Hawaii images. Finally, even if the image is later, I still feel there is a significant resemblance to the half plate image, and this resemblance lends support to the identification.

As to your opinion that the nose on the two "Anthony" images differ over 16 years, well you know my opinion of nose difference over such a time difference.

As to the earring, I have no idea what it means. I don't think anyone does. The half plate doesn't come across as being an image of sailors. Maybe Anthony in his earlier days was a sailor. I honestly don't feel at this point the earrring is significant either way.

As to the lack of documentation that refers to the half plate prior to the 1930's, I believe that to be a classic example of a negative test -- its existence would support the identification, but its absence means nothing. In addition, we have no way of knowing the extent to which the surviving documentation compares to what once existed.

Also, as with almost all issues that come up, there are always arguments on both sides. I don't say you raise irrelevant points. But IMO the implications of saying the identification is incorrect raises significantly more questions than saying it is correct.

EDITED TO ADD that it makes no sense to me that the family, assuming they believed the half plate image bore no resemblance to the other images, would still say AJC was depicted within it unless they had dispositive external information indicating such. This bears on Mark's point that families still misidentify ancestors based on their assumption their ancestor must be in the image regardless if they recognize his image. While that may be true in some cases, it would seem highly unlikely in this instance where (1) the family members believed they were staring at other images of their ancestor that bore no resemblance to the image in question, (2) they were making the most important ID of the family's existence, thus presumably making certain they were correct (as opposed to assuming they were correct).

Runscott

10-20-2011, 11:56 AM

I agree with Corey that most likely a member of the Cartwright family (or a close family friend) is in the six person dag, and that all six people shared a common bond. I also agree that to a group of family members in the 1930s, none of whom saw Alexander as a young man, none of the dag images looked that dissimilar. However, using analysis which was unknown to them, Mark has demonstrated that the fellow in the six person dag is not Alexander Cartwright. Who it is remains an open question. The bond that the six gentlemen in the dag share is also unclear. Most conjecture as to them being specific Knickerbockers has been refuted. While the earing in particularly interesting to some; I don't find it useful. What I would find useful is a full front and back scan of the dag (without matting) to determine with certainty if there is a hallmark on the dag. Finally, Mark's expert's analysis compared subject C to a universe of seven other purported Alexander Cartwright images. These seven other images were analyzed and found to be very likely the same fellow. Could they all be someone else and the man in the middle of the six person dag be Alexander? This is theoretically possible I guess, but only at winning-the-lottery type odds.

But that is exactly what we are dealing with here.

bmarlowe1

10-20-2011, 12:11 PM

Corey - I do appreciate your skillfully raised sincere arguments and the challenge they bring to me in answering them.

>>> As to perceived differences in wrinkles at the corner of the eye, that is precisely the sort of thing touch up and/or placement of lighting would conceal in the half plate.

Your are partly misinterpreting me on this one. Even if that is AJC in the half-plate - he would be likely too young to have such wrinkles. What I am saying is that the AJC depicted in your dag repro (see botom p. 7, or ill. 4 p. 39) is not likely an 1840's image as you claimed because we can see wrinkles at the outer corner of his right eye (in spite of all the touch-up) - I believe that this is most probably at least a middle-aged or a bit older AJC.

oldjudge

10-20-2011, 12:31 PM

"But that is exactly what we are dealing with here"--right. The odds are realllllllllllllllllly long that it is AC in the half plate and very high that it is not.

bmarlowe1

10-20-2011, 06:12 PM

Here is another thought on provenance.

The heavily over-painted photo, below right, originating with the Cartwright family, was used by Corey in his response to me in the newsletter. For some reason that completely escapes me, Corey feels that this person resembles subject C in his dag. Except for a slightly similar hat shape, I really don't know what it is he sees. But, what is most interesting is that some members of the Cartwright family say that this colored image depicts Alexander Cartwright, while others disagree. How could that happen?

subject C:
http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/DagSubjectCcm266.jpg http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/Ill6cr.jpg

Note the two photos below, with the one on the right being subject E from Corey's dag. These two photos below that obviously depict two different human beings have been claimed by (different?) Cartwright family members to depict brother Alfred Cartwright. Is that surprising? I think not. In fact such things are very common.

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/photoDAlexanderCartwrighttrio1.jpg http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/knickerbocker6flash.jpg

Runscott

10-20-2011, 06:28 PM

Note the two photos below, with the one on the right being subject E from Corey's dag. These two photos below that obviously depict two different human beings have been claimed by (different?) Cartwright family members to depict brother Alfred Cartwright. Is that surprising? I think not. In fact such things are very common.

The 20th century Cartwright family members who knew young Alfred so well?

benjulmag

10-20-2011, 07:14 PM

Here is another thought on provenance.

The heavily over-painted photo, below right, originating with the Cartwright family, was used by Corey in his response to me in the newsletter. For some reason that completely escapes me, Corey feels that this person resembles subject C in his dag. Except for a slightly similar hat shape, I really don't know what it is he sees. But, what is most interesting is that some members of the Cartwright family say that this colored image depicts Alexander Cartwright, while others disagree. How could that happen?

subject C:
http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/DagSubjectCcm266.jpg http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/Ill6cr.jpg

Note the two photos below, with the one on the right being subject E from Corey's dag. These two photos below that obviously depict two different human beings have been claimed by (different?) Cartwright family members to depict brother Alfred Cartwright. Is that surprising? I think not. In fact such things are very common.

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/photoDAlexanderCartwrighttrio1.jpg http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/knickerbocker6flash.jpg

Mark,

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that in the 1930's there was a split decision among Cartwright family members as to who was who? Or are you referring to family members 4 or 5 generations removed? If the latter, I feel that has little relevance to this discussion to the extent they are at variance with what descendants 3 generations removed from them were saying. Finally, do you refer at all to identifications made by Anne Cartwright, deceased widow of AJC's great grandson William? I had spoken to Mrs. Cartwright a number of times, thought her to be a fine woman, and am aware of many of the statements she made (which covered a great many things). If you want more information about Mrs. Cartwright and what she said, I would be happy to discuss this with you off line.

I also think something I said earlier bears repeating. One can always come up with a hypothetical to make a point. Very little if anything in the world is black and white, and there will always be counter arguments. But I believe it is the far more likely scenario that the Cartwright family knew precisely what it was doing in the 1930's when, for this family-defining moment they had labored many years to arrive at, they identified AJC in the half plate. Could they have erred? Yes. But I believe that possibility to be the far less plausible possibility.

EDITED TO ADD that regardless of one's view of the probative value of what modern Cartwright family members are saying about AJC's sibbling(s), to the best of my knowledge there is no record of any Cartwright family member, now or in the past, ever challenging the half plate identification.

Runscott

10-20-2011, 07:32 PM

Here is another thought on provenance.

The heavily over-painted photo, below right, originating with the Cartwright family, ......
.....what is most interesting is that some members of the Cartwright family say that this colored image depicts Alexander Cartwright, while others disagree. How could that happen?

This resemblance is sort of hard to ignore. Perhaps you've found the photo they used to paint up fireman #2.

http://runscott.homestead.com/Photos/Alfreds_Chin.jpg

bmarlowe1

10-20-2011, 07:43 PM

My information on the family disagreement with respect to the colored image came from you. I was told by another source that Anne Cartwright ID'd the man with the beard as Alfred (if that is wrong I stand corrected). I was also informed that author Jay Martin ID'd subject E as Alfred based on modern family information. And, I intend no disrespect towards Anne Cartwright or any Cartwright family member whom I can only presume said what they thought to be true.

>>>the Cartwright family knew precisely what it was doing in the 1930's....

As far as what happened in the 1930's, I can only find a record of Bruce Jr. claiming subject C was Cartwright. There is no record of this being a "family decision." (If there is please inform me). I don't know of any other family member who was theoretically in a better position to know and I can't imagine any family member publicly disputing it regardless of what they may have thought.

smokelessjoe

10-21-2011, 06:47 AM

I am sure all of these have been seen... But I thought I would post them for whatever it is worth... Wilcox was a Vice President of the company.

bmarlowe1

11-18-2011, 10:05 AM

FYI - there is a mis-ID in the photo of the 3 older gentlemen just above. They are L to R, Edward Anthony, V. M. Wilcox, Henry T. Anthony. Hence, the man in the Civil War uniform is Wilcox, not Anthony.

I've received some interesting commentary about all of this. This link was emailed to me today:

http://whitebetsy.wordpress.com/

smokelessjoe

11-21-2011, 07:14 AM

Hi Mark,

You are correct, I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up the misidentifications of Anthony & Wilcox....

It seems it was even noticed back in 1881. Please see the attached article from the Philadelphia Photographer January 1881!