Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Circa 1846 Daguerreotype – Alexander Joy Cartwright debate (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=142624)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 931965)
...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

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 (Post 931869)
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/s.../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

a small plea
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 932004)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 932006)
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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:31 PM.