NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-14-2011, 07:44 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,196
Default Circa 1846 Daguerreotype – Alexander Joy Cartwright debate

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://www.gamefront.com/files/20873...hoto_10_11_pdf


.
.
.
.
.
.
__________________
Leon Luckey

Last edited by Leon; 10-14-2011 at 08:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-14-2011, 07:45 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-14-2011, 07:54 PM
oldjudge's Avatar
oldjudge oldjudge is offline
j'a'y mi.ll.e.r
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Bronx
Posts: 5,353
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-14-2011, 10:05 PM
Abravefan11's Avatar
Abravefan11 Abravefan11 is offline
Tim
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,466
Default

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.
__________________
T206 & Boston National Type Card Collector
T206Resource.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-14-2011, 11:50 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

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.

Last edited by benjulmag; 10-14-2011 at 11:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-15-2011, 12:29 AM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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.

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-15-2011 at 12:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-15-2011, 04:44 AM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

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.

Last edited by barrysloate; 10-15-2011 at 04:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-15-2011, 07:03 AM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

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.

Last edited by benjulmag; 10-15-2011 at 09:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-15-2011, 07:45 AM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,196
Default stuck to the top

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.
__________________
Leon Luckey

Last edited by Leon; 10-15-2011 at 11:43 AM. Reason: added note
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-15-2011, 07:46 AM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

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."
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-15-2011, 07:55 AM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-15-2011, 09:06 AM
terjung's Avatar
terjung terjung is offline
Brian T.
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 933
Default

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.)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-15-2011, 09:11 AM
Abravefan11's Avatar
Abravefan11 Abravefan11 is offline
Tim
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate View Post
...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.
__________________
T206 & Boston National Type Card Collector
T206Resource.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-15-2011, 09:40 AM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:01 AM
novakjr novakjr is offline
David Nova.kovich Jr.
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 20 miles east of the Mistake
Posts: 2,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
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?
Adams 2 looks an awful lot like John Astin..

Last edited by novakjr; 10-15-2011 at 10:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:05 AM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

And John Astin played Gomez Addams...another Adams.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:08 AM
novakjr novakjr is offline
David Nova.kovich Jr.
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 20 miles east of the Mistake
Posts: 2,269
Default

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.

Last edited by novakjr; 10-15-2011 at 10:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:09 AM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,196
Default a small plea

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate View Post
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.
__________________
Leon Luckey

Last edited by Leon; 10-15-2011 at 10:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:14 AM
novakjr novakjr is offline
David Nova.kovich Jr.
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 20 miles east of the Mistake
Posts: 2,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:16 AM
oldjudge's Avatar
oldjudge oldjudge is offline
j'a'y mi.ll.e.r
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Bronx
Posts: 5,353
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:19 AM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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.

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-15-2011 at 11:57 AM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:21 AM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

Same here Leon. I apologize, just responded to David.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:24 AM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by novakjr View Post
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.

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-15-2011 at 10:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:29 AM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:48 AM
Exhibitman's Avatar
Exhibitman Exhibitman is offline
Ad@m W@r$h@w
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank
Posts: 13,042
Default

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.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true.

https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/

Or not...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:12 AM
oldjudge's Avatar
oldjudge oldjudge is offline
j'a'y mi.ll.e.r
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Bronx
Posts: 5,353
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:21 AM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate View Post
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?:



Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-16-2011 at 08:02 PM. Reason: changed image hosting to phtotbucket
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-15-2011, 12:23 PM
novakjr novakjr is offline
David Nova.kovich Jr.
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 20 miles east of the Mistake
Posts: 2,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
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.

Last edited by novakjr; 10-15-2011 at 12:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-15-2011, 12:26 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by novakjr View Post
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.

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-15-2011 at 12:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-15-2011, 12:39 PM
novakjr novakjr is offline
David Nova.kovich Jr.
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 20 miles east of the Mistake
Posts: 2,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
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..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-15-2011, 12:42 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-15-2011, 12:56 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-15-2011, 12:59 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-15-2011, 01:01 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

With that I absolutely agree.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-15-2011, 01:09 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

"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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-15-2011, 01:10 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
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.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-15-2011, 01:26 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-15-2011, 01:39 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate View Post
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:

__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-15-2011, 01:42 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

>>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)

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-15-2011 at 01:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-15-2011, 01:43 PM
oldjudge's Avatar
oldjudge oldjudge is offline
j'a'y mi.ll.e.r
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Bronx
Posts: 5,353
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 10-15-2011, 01:45 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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

Real 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.

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-15-2011 at 01:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-15-2011, 02:01 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

Scott- that photograph is ca. 1859, and by then uniforms were worn by players. In the late 1840's, I just don't know.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-15-2011, 02:02 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate View Post
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."

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-15-2011 at 02:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-15-2011, 02:05 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-15-2011, 02:07 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

Thanks Mark. That was one of those things I was curious about.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-15-2011, 02:37 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate View Post
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.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-15-2011, 03:05 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
>>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.

Last edited by benjulmag; 10-15-2011 at 03:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-15-2011, 05:56 PM
oldjudge's Avatar
oldjudge oldjudge is offline
j'a'y mi.ll.e.r
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Bronx
Posts: 5,353
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-15-2011, 07:05 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

>>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.

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-16-2011 at 01:45 AM. Reason: typo - added word 'in' 8th line up from bottom
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-16-2011, 12:38 AM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1928 Fro Joy Babe Ruth - Authentic? Clutch-Hitter Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 27 07-05-2011 10:30 PM
Cartwright Documents: Signature Question Archive Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 2 11-14-2008 12:08 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:32 AM.


ebay GSB