Henry Chadwick tin type photo

nyyanksghr · #1 05-06-2009, 02:24 PM

I have this tin type photo which has Henry Chadwick. Does anyone recognize any other baseball players in this photo? Thanks.

slidekellyslide · #2 05-06-2009, 02:31 PM

Interesting photo. Might I ask where it came from?

benjulmag · #3 05-06-2009, 02:45 PM

Why do you say it is Henry Chadwick?

bmarlowe1 · #4 05-06-2009, 02:51 PM

Corey - we do think alike, at least on some issues.

Mark.F.imoff

BrockJacob · #5 05-06-2009, 02:55 PM

It has "Henry Chadwick" written vertically on the mans shirt.

benjulmag · #6 05-06-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrockJacob

It has "Henry Chadwick" written vertically on the mans shirt.

That in and of itself is not enough, unless you know when and by whom that was written. A scam involving just this sort of thing occured in the Sotheby's Copeland sale some years ago. In that auction was a purported signed cabinet of Chadwick. The verso of the cabinet was signed "Henry Chadwick" thereby giving the impression both that the image was of him and he signed it. Well as it turned out the image was not of Chadwick and, needless to say, nor was the signature his.

This tintype image bears SOME resemblance to another known image of Chadwick (a cricket pose). The fact this tintype is not a baseball or cricket image, is concerning, and frankly so is the writing (why would anybody put it there other than to deceive). Bottom line to me -- without more I think there is little chance it is Chadwick.

BrockJacob · #7 05-06-2009, 04:11 PM

I certainly agree Corey, that the name penciled in means very little. But obviously that is what lead the original poster to believe it is Chadwick in the photo.

19cbb · #8 05-06-2009, 04:14 PM

Byron Baseball or Cricket?, 18... Digital ID: 56262. New York Public Library

Courtesy of the NYPL... which btw is asking for donations after facing over $50 million in budget cuts.

Btw, after handling a good bunch of tintypes, both baseball and non baseball related, I have to agree with Corey that the writing is simply a novice job to deceive.

Support the NYPL link

slidekellyslide · #9 05-07-2009, 08:45 AM

Where did the original poster go? I'd be interested in learning where he obtained the photo.

barrysloate · #10 05-07-2009, 09:01 AM

It's a man with a thick beard in a setting that has nothing to do with Chadwick's work as a sportswriter; it has a dubious identification which consists of a pencil notation identifying the man as Chadwick; and I am not convinced it is him.

This kind of spurious photo identification is not enough for me. My opinion is it is not Henry Chadwick.

barrysloate · #11 05-07-2009, 09:12 AM

One other point to consider is the men in the background have the kind of mustaches that were fashionable in the 1885-1890 era, which looks to be roughly the date of the tintype. At that time Henry Chadwick was pushing 65. I don't believe the man with the beard is much older than his forties.

prewarsports · #12 05-07-2009, 09:58 AM

In 20+ years of antique collecting, I have never seen a vintage tintype with vintage writing on the front of it. People would not obstruct something as valuable as a photo like that. These would come from the photographer in a paper slip frame at least which would allow for writing around the paper border or on the reverse. Had this been in a hard gutta-percha case or something like that, people usually just glued or jammed a paper slip in the case with an ID. This is why there are so many tintypes with no chance ever of being identified but a large number of CDV's have identifications. There is no chance in my opinion that the pencil writing was done before WW2. As one other observation, had someone actually taken the time to identify this photo, they would have identified all the guys, not just the famous one.

orator1 · #13 05-07-2009, 10:29 AM

Side by side comparison.
Are there any facial features that indicate they are different people?
I'm no expert but they look the same to me.

Chadwick from NYPL.jpg maybe Chadwick.jpg

bmarlowe1 · #14 05-07-2009, 11:02 AM

Orator1 - I think you have it backwards. While I agree that there is nothing in the tintype in the blurry compressed format as posted here that can absolutely eliminate that guy from being Chadwick - the point is, with what is posted here, one cannot conclude that it is Chadwick. The image lacks sufficent detail for an identification.

slidekellyslide · #15 05-07-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Orator1 - I think you have it backwards. While I agree that there is nothing in the tintype in the blurry compressed format as posted here that can absolutely eliminate that guy from being Chadwick - the point is, with what is posted here, one cannot conclude that it is Chadwick. The image lacks sufficent detail for an identification.

Right! Which is why I'd like to know where the tintype came from.

smokelessjoe · #16 05-07-2009, 12:08 PM

If this guy is not looking at himself in the picture below, than I am going crazy! Barry, in the NYPL picture that was posted there are three guys with very similar moustaches. Also, Henry Chadwick did like to fish. Also, similar hats and clothing.
Ok, I do not know if its him or not, but I think its interesting how this thread goes on to point out the negs and thats it.

Henry in Prison

bmarlowe1 · #17 05-07-2009, 01:00 PM

smokelessjoe -

quoting a disinguished board member from a prior thread:
"There's a RESEMBLANCE. But without more, it should die there. Resemblances alone almost always lead to nowhere."

The reason we are being "negative" is in an effort to counter the large lack of critical thinking that causes people to bid big $ on photos like this.

First of all you are comparing a fuzzy image to another fuzzy image - pretty worthless. BTW - if you compare the nose to a clear Chadwick semi-profile image - it doesn't seem quite right. But again - the tintype is too fuzzy to be sure about anything.

smokelessjoe · #18 05-07-2009, 01:55 PM

Mark,

I am well aware of the reasons to be negative in ones approach at comparing something in question. Obviously there are reasons for looking at similarities as well, I was just pointing out a (what I think) lack there of in that category. A balanced approach from both sides of the coin is what is fair.

First of all, we all are comparing fuzzy images to the like. That is all we have at this point, so that is all we CAN compare. A question was posed and I as well as many others have replied. I see more than just a resemblance including the noses... Again, in my opinion someone is going to buy something whether we criticize it or praise it, and if you do not do your research and find a comfort zone with your purchase then you are at fault.

I for one would not buy this tin-type with the thinking that anyone in the picture is a known person. As others have said, there is not enough info.

barrysloate · #19 05-07-2009, 01:56 PM

Henry Chadwick did have a house on Long Island in Noyac (I too have a house in Noyac) which was near Little Trout Pond, so he may indeed have liked to fish. But as Mark said the picture is tiny and his face is entirely covered by a beard. Similarities with Chadwick for sure, but no way you can simply say it is him. Provenance would be very important here.

smokelessjoe · #20 05-07-2009, 02:03 PM

Barry,

You are dead on... I also know I have read some stories about him fishing in other places.

Provenance could be huge here, it would be nice to here back from the original poster?

I would also like to see the rest of the tin-type. It looks like it is in a hinged case and could have another picture on the other side??? A back image of the whole thing would be nice as well.

bmarlowe1 · #21 05-07-2009, 02:15 PM

smokelessjoe said:

"I see more than just a resemblance including the noses... "

There is no perceiveable resemblace between these two noses.

smokelessjoe · #22 05-07-2009, 02:30 PM

Mark said:

"There is no perceiveable resemblace between these two noses."

There is no perceiveable difference between these two noses.

bmarlowe1 · #23 05-07-2009, 02:42 PM

Wow - I'm guessing you do photo ID for one of the major auction houses.

I could perhaps point out the completely different appearance of his right nostril, or the different angle of the front edge of his nose, or that the real Chadwick nose sticks out way farther - I could draw arrows, do an overlay, etc., but I doubt that would help you.

smokelessjoe · #24 05-07-2009, 02:51 PM

Or... You could point out that "you are comparing a fuzzy image to another fuzzy image - pretty worthless."

Wait, you already have...

bmarlowe1 · #25 05-07-2009, 03:08 PM

Your response was non-responsive - so I guess you agree with my previous post.

I will respond to your comment. First of all, when you quote me, you should include the entire quote - which said that even though the image was fuzzy - the nose did not look quite right. Fuzzy images are often worthless for confirming an identity with high reliability, but they can be useful in showing it is not someone - if there is a feature that retains enough integrity to show that it's outline or basic shape is different than that of a confirmed photo of the person in question.

In any case, I never imagined anyone would actually say that the noses looked similar.

asphaltman · #26 05-07-2009, 04:44 PM

Mark-

Surely in this instance you aren't thinking that either image has a feature retaining enough integrity to confirm any characteristic is in fact different. The image on the left you can't get anything out of.

asphaltman · #27 05-07-2009, 04:48 PM

And for the record, I don't think it's Chadwick. I don't know that for sure...but I know for sure I wouldn't want to purchase it under the assumption of that being Chadwick.

To me...hard to say it is or isn't him....all I know is I don't want it.

bmarlowe1 · #28 05-07-2009, 05:35 PM

Asphaltman said, "Surely in this instance you aren't thinking that either image has a feature retaining enough integrity to confirm any characteristic is in fact different."

------

The "argument" began with smokelessjoe's response that the noses looked similar - they don't - that is conclusive. So, do they look different because they are 2 different noses, or is it because of inherent image fuzziness and wash out combined with jpeg image compression distortion (which can actually change the shape of very small details) - On that I cannot be absolutely sure. An uncompressed scan might provide an answer.

asphaltman · #29 05-07-2009, 06:21 PM

Well, than if Shawn was saying the noses look similar and you're saying they don't...but both of you are feel your opinions are "conclusive" than I'm not on either side of the fence.

Based on that foggy hazy mess I don't know how anyone could think the nose is or isn't the same on both pics..."conclusively"

jmk59 · #30 05-07-2009, 07:46 PM

The problem is in the probabilities. People usually unconsciously take this into account when discussing what appear to be very basic judgements.

There is only one man (Chadwick) that this could be that would lead to the conclusion "this is Chadwick". On the other hand, there could have been ~15 million white men in the US at the time that could lead to the conclusion "this is not Chadwick". In making the visual comparison and trying to decide between same guy and different guy, it is almost impossible to not have the effect of probability cloud the comparison.

Suppose you were given the picture of Chadwick and the tintype, told the Chadwick photo was Chadwick, and then told that the tintype was either Chadwick or one - only one - other unknown white man. You are also told that the other man was randomly drawn and not intentionally picked for his similar appearance.

Knowing nothing else, you would probably conclude that the tintype is surely Chadwick despite any small differences from the photo, because what are the chances that a randomly drawn second man would look more similar to the tintype than the Chadwick photo?

So it is very hard to purely objectively try to evaluate the similarity of the images without having that sense of probability be part of the mental equation. It's fine to consider the probability in your final determination of whether it is or is not Chadwick, but that's different than using it in your evaluation of pure photo similarity.

Personally, I think it is dead on regardless of the little photographic bobbles that may skew the similarity. But I also think it is not Chadwick because when I factor in the probabilities, now all those little bobbles loom large.

J

ramram · #31 05-08-2009, 11:23 AM

For the record, without provenance it's never going to add up. It may be a recent deceptive identification or it could be one of many different men named Henry Chadwick.

However, regarding the time frame of the image, if the tintype is original to the leatherette case, then the image is likely from the early 1860's (when Chadwick was in his 40's). Cases went out of vogue after the civil war. Also, tinting became much rarer after the war (btw - the yellow tint would actually be a very seldom seen tint as blue and red were MUCH more common). I have also seen a fair number of civil war images where the name was scratched into the surface like this. The mat is somewhat unique as well. I'm not going to take the time to dig up any info but, it does not appear to be one of the more common mats and, if it is a fairly thick mat, it would also place this image to the early 60's (if in fact, the image is original to the mat and case).

Rob M.

barrysloate · #32 05-08-2009, 12:33 PM

Dating images by the frame or case they are in is extremely unreliable. I used to always buy spare cases which I kept in stock for raw images. Then when I bought a tintype I would have a nice case to put it in. As such, dating them that way would be erroneous. I never consider the mat or case at all when dating a photo, unless it is a sealed dag.

nyyanksghr · #33 05-13-2009, 08:27 PM

Wow I posted this last week and never checked back. I never dreamed that anyone would question this being Chadwick. I was just looking to see if there were other persons of interest in the photo. The photo is in fact Henry Chadwick. Provenance:The photo came to the market directly from his great grandaughter. If she is agreeable, I'll post her comments as I am in contact with her regularly. She got a kick out of anyone questioning that it was Henry. Some of you don't need to quit your day jobs to go into photo identification!

Her mother, Henry's granddaughter is believed to be the one who wrote his name on the photo. This was in their family and is the earliest known tintype of Chadwick. So, back to the original reason of the post: Does anyone recognize any of Henry' pals in the photo?

prewarsports · #34 05-13-2009, 09:10 PM

I was simply mentioning what you confirmed, that the notation was done later down the line as I have never seen a period notation on the front of a tintype. It is a really cool photo.

bmarlowe1 · #35 05-13-2009, 09:20 PM

nyyanksghr --

>> Henry's granddaughter is believed to be the one who wrote his name on the photo

Why would she do that? I would never write my grandfather's name on a vintage family photo since we all know who he is. If I was concerned about the next generation knowing who he was, I would write it on the back. If he was famous and I wanted to perhaps sell it, I would not spoil the photo by writing his name on the front, especially if I expected no question as to his identity.

>> The photo came to the market directly from his great grandaughter.

What do you mean by "came to market"? when? was there an auction?

HRBAKER · #36 05-13-2009, 09:23 PM

When did we move from ears to noses? Very interesting discussion, conclusively inconclusive.

Abravefan11 · #37 05-13-2009, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

nyyanksghr --
Why would she do that? I would never write my grandfather's name on a vintage family photo since we all know who he is. If I was concerned about the next generation knowing who he was, I would write it on the back. If he was famous and I wanted to perhaps sell it, I would not spoil the photo by writing his name on the front, especially if I expected no question as to his identity.

Mark-

I understand your point and agree that you or I would never do this, but given all of the cards and photos we have seen over the years, wouldn't you agree that many people have done things to items that you or I wouldn't do.

I don't think that just because we wouldn't do something, or it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean that the item isn't authentic.

nyyanksghr · #38 05-13-2009, 09:37 PM

The photo was sold by his greatgrandaughter to the individual I obtained it from. She kept a photo copy of the photo for the family. She confrmed that she indeed sold it to the collector I purchased it from and even identified her mothers handwriting on the photo. I have the largest collection of sports photography in private hands...2.4 million images. I have hundereds of vintage photos that are identified right on the front. Its not common but certainly happens. Chadwicks granddaughter, who passed in 1978 wrote on most of the Chadwick items. n the 60's or 70's, this photo had no value.She would simply write "Henry Chadwick" or "H. Chadwick" on many items, cabinets, letters, scrapbooks, etc. Wy she did this? So generations in the future would know who he was.

bmarlowe1 · #39 05-13-2009, 09:46 PM

nyyanksghr --

last week I said "if you compare the nose to a clear Chadwick semi-profile image - it doesn't seem quite right. But again - the tintype is too fuzzy to be sure about anything. "

Can you post, say a 600 dpi (preferably a .tif file) of the Chadwick face from your photo?

nyyanksghr · #40 05-13-2009, 09:50 PM

No, I probably won't post a 600 dpi image. We scanned at 350 already. We can post 350 but I believe we already did. 350 is the same as 650 for comparing a nose. At the end of the day, you can compare a nose, foot, hand, head, ear...it's still Henry Chadwick. It's ok to be wrong my firend

bmarlowe1 · #41 05-13-2009, 09:53 PM

"the tintype is too fuzzy to be sure about anything." is not wrong.

Anyway - with 2.4 million sports photos, you can't figure out who the friends are - is the tintype too fuzzy?

BTW - the posted photo is 100 dpi (according to my measurement via photoshop). I would be happy to say the image is likely Chadwick (or not) if I could see it in sufficient detail.

nyyanksghr · #42 05-13-2009, 10:03 PM

I'd b one lucky guy if even a fraction of my archive was from 1860. Unfortuantley it's mostly post 1890. My assumption is that they are not ball players. His greatgranddaughter believes they are coworkers from The Brookyn Eagle. Mark-You've bought a ton of pics from me "lexibell" We have a huge offering coming over the next year. I just purchased the archives of Sport Magazine...85,000 photos, mostly original from staff photogs: coming soon to Ebay
P.S> I'd never post the image at 600 dpi...you'd have it posted on Getty before I woke up in the morning!

bmarlowe1 · #43 05-13-2009, 10:27 PM

I've never purchased a photo from you nor do I have any images on Getty (or anywhere else) - I think you have your "Mark's" very confused. Just who do you think I am? Should I send you a 600 dpi scan of my face?

Anyway - It's hard to conceive how a 600 dpi cropped out "face only" would degrade the value of your photo.

nyyanksghr · #44 05-13-2009, 10:34 PM

My mistake...I was told you were Trascendental Graphics...wrong Mark!

bmarlowe1 · #45 05-13-2009, 10:49 PM

Wow - that's really funny. If one is looking for an incorrect photo ID, just pull a TG photo off of Getty - some of those are just ludicrous.

nyyanksghr · #46 05-13-2009, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Wow - that's really funny. If one is looking for an incorrect photo ID, just pull a TG photo off of Getty - some of those are just ludicrous.

agreed.

slidekellyslide · #47 05-14-2009, 08:09 AM

I'm not Mark, but I've bought lots of photos from you John. The Matty McIntyre's were my favorites.

And for the record you can't just drop in this forum with a previously unknown photo of Henry Chadwick and then disappear for a week.

prewarsports · #48 05-14-2009, 11:05 AM

The Matty McIntyres were a travesty of History in the name of profit. I could not believe it when I received mine only to find photos on the back completely sliced in half and destroyed, many of whom were baseball players. I understand breaking things up to make money as I do it all the time, but you probably could have sold those by the page or something and at least not destroyed baseball history in the process. Dont get me wrong, I bought a bunch and still have some, but when I saw the method used to get them out of the book I had to cringe and wonder how much history was destroyed in the process.

slidekellyslide · #49 05-14-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prewarsports

The Matty McIntyres were a travesty of History in the name of profit. I could not believe it when I received mine only to find photos on the back completely sliced in half and destroyed, many of whom were baseball players. I understand breaking things up to make money as I do it all the time, but you probably could have sold those by the page or something and at least not destroyed baseball history in the process. Dont get me wrong, I bought a bunch and still have some, but when I saw the method used to get them out of the book I had to cringe and wonder how much history was destroyed in the process.

I agree there had to be a better way to get those photos out. I'm a bit torn on whether the book should have been left together or not...it was a great piece of history, but one in which I could not afford as a whole so I'm glad I was able to get what I got.

nyyanksghr · #50 05-14-2009, 03:22 PM

I agree 100% on the Matty book being handled wrong. We screwed up, plain and simple. The month before, I had my guys remove photos from a family scrapbook that depicted stadium shots from Ebbets Field. As per my instruction, they just cut them out with scissors, which was fine, in that instance. There were about a dozen burried between 200 or so unimportant family photos. I picked the Ebbets photo book up at The Chelsea Flea Market in NYC(Always some finds there) Unortuantley, when I presented the Matty book with the instructions to "remove the photos" to sell individually, I failed to inform them of the importance. Before I caught it, I saw they had removed them in the same fashion as the unimportant family scrapbook from two weeks before....snip, snip. My heart sank! I lost a lot of money and a lot of good photos were cut in half. It was in the name of profit, I make no appologies there. The photos should have been professionaly removed.