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
  #51  
Old 10-16-2011, 01:09 AM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My position was as stated on p. 6:

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

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

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

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


Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-16-2011 at 11:39 AM. Reason: typo line 12, A changed to I
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-16-2011, 08:53 AM
19cbb's Avatar
19cbb 19cbb is offline
Jimmy
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 329
Default

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

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

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

Dag plates used/sold by the Anthony's have about 4 known (at least to me) plate hallmarks ranging from 1847 til 1855.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-16-2011, 08:59 AM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abravefan11 View Post
I have read the entire newsletter and the following are my thoughts. First and foremost I believe it's important to say that I respect that all parties involved showed a refreshing level of decorum even in spite of differing opinions with such an important item in question.
I thought it was good hearing/sharing the opinions of those not directly involved - those posts seemed to be stand-alone, but still valid.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-16-2011, 11:50 AM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-16-2011 at 01:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-16-2011, 12:10 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

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

Last edited by barrysloate; 10-16-2011 at 12:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-16-2011, 12:34 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

Nonetheless Barry, I hope we have the vote. There are probably quite a few people who have read the article but have chosen not to enter the debate.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-16-2011, 12:53 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

That's up to Corey, Mark, and Leon. They can decide whether or not a vote has merits.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-16-2011, 12:59 PM
Abravefan11's Avatar
Abravefan11 Abravefan11 is offline
Tim
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,466
Default

I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this, but I'm not in favor of a poll or vote. I don't think the results, whatever they may be, would add anything beneficial to the conversation. I do appreciate the newsletter being posted so that all sides and opinions can be discussed and anyone that wants to weigh in has the opportunity to do so.
__________________
T206 & Boston National Type Card Collector
T206Resource.com

Last edited by Abravefan11; 10-16-2011 at 01:33 PM. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-16-2011, 01:27 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

I was thinking the same thing Tim, especially if nearly everyone votes they aren't sure. But we'll see what happens.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-16-2011, 01:27 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
I find that in general people interested in this subject are highly intelligent. Based on quite a few emails, I know that they fully understand that two competent experts can publish highly conflicting opinions, and they understand the reasons why. Certainly attorneys should understand this quite well. To say that either one of the experts doesn’t know how to compare faces in photographs is beyond ludicrous. I never said that about Mr. Richards.
The issue here is not competency to compare faces. The issue is knowing what differences are real or illusionary, caused by photographic illusion or studio touch up. And the issue also pertains to methodology. I believe I have the right to point out that Mr. Mancusi is an artist, not a photography expert. That distinction is crucial here as Mr. Richards questions the existence of a number of the differences Mr. Mancusi discusses. I make it quite clear in the newsletter supplement that I intend no disrespect by stating that Mr. Mancusi is being asked to opine on a matter that requires expertise from another field. Since you mention attorneys, that would be akin to a tax attorney being asked to opine on a matter of matrimonial law. Yes, in both instances law is involved, but the skill set and training needed are much different. I believe the iris analysis bears out my point. Having said that, I will also say that had Mr. Mancusi had (i) access to the same resolution image that Mr. Richards and (ii) the same knowledge about emulsion type in conjunction with studio lighting as Mr. Richards, I have no doubt Mr. Mancusi's analysis would have been quite competent.

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

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

At the end of the day, as Barry points out, you came to me with this project. I cooperated fully knowing that your intended objective is to have the HOF change the Cartwright bronze. The half plate is one of the most significant photographs in the hobby. You, as you have a right to do, are making a full scale attack on what it represents. I believe I have the right to vigorously respond to what you bring up, and in the process bring to bear relevant issues as to the area of speciality of your chosen expert. And that is all I have done.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 10-16-2011, 01:40 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is online now
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,196
Default poll - vote

There has not been a definite decision made as to having a poll or not. I want to be very fair to both Mark and Corey and will look to both of them, privately, for their comments on that matter. regards
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-16-2011, 01:58 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abravefan11 View Post
I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this, but I'm not in favor of a poll or vote. I don't think the results, whatever they may be, would add anything beneficial to the conversation. I do appreciate the newsletter being posted so that all sides and opinions can be discussed and anyone that wants to weigh in has the opportunity to do so.
I agree with you regarding the vote.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-16-2011, 02:11 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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

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

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

He is fully qualified to opine on the likelihood of these two faces belonging to the same person.:


Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-16-2011 at 07:52 PM. Reason: changed image source to phtobucket
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-16-2011, 02:17 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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

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

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


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


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

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


That is simply another mischaracterization of a private communication.

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-16-2011 at 02:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-16-2011, 03:08 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
You are saying that Mr. Mancusi is not qualified to compare faces in photographs and has no understanding of the effects of lighting and retouching, as if one would think that was not a significant part of his job as the NYPD’s senior forensic artist for 24 years. That is of course completely ludicrous.
I am sure in the 24 years Mr. Mancusi has been a NYPD forensic artist he many times had occassion in his line of work to analyze mid-19th century daguerreotypes of current crime suspects.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-16-2011, 03:22 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
>>As to methodology, Mr. Mancusi's belief that individual comparison of each of the A Subjects to Subject C is not necessary, that one can apply the Subject C to Subject A4 comparison conclusion to a Subject C to Subject A1, A2 or A3 comparison, is simply incorrect.

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

When you want to measure something, you don't have to go to the National Bureau of Standards to get "the" ruler. Any ruler from Walgreens will do just fine. That's because we know that the Walgreens ruler is sufficiently close to the NBS ruler to do the job.
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]
From page 34 of the newsletter supplement:

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

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


This response pertains to the "art" component inherent in photographic facial ID.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-16-2011, 03:33 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by benjulmag View Post
I am sure in the 24 years Mr. Mancusi has been a NYPD forensic artist he many times had occassion in his line of work to analyze mid-19th century daguerreotypes of current crime suspects.
Exactly what illusionary effects unique to dags are present that would explain the specific gross differences apparent in the above images?

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

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



Last edited by bmarlowe1; 11-26-2011 at 03:46 PM. Reason: photobucket problem corrected
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-16-2011, 03:52 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

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

Last edited by oldjudge; 10-16-2011 at 03:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-16-2011, 03:56 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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

No it is not so simple.




Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-16-2011 at 04:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:01 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
Exactly what illusionary effects unique to dags are present that would explain the specific gross differences apparent in the above images?

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

Please tell us how the dag process or hand tinting can, for example, change the shape of the lower edge of the upper lid in these two clearly open eyes from subjects C and A. This feature is apparent in all the subject A images.
First, they're gross differences to you. Please allow that others might feel differently.

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

Third, as a partial answer to your question, iris size. Mr. Mancusi felt he saw a very significant discrepancy, which I believe influenced him greatly in his conclusion. Yet in the end that discrepancy turned out not to exist. (And please don't mention the 20% difference you still see. May I respectfully suggest you educate yourself on margin of error analysis associated with daguerreotype emulsion type.)
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:11 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldjudge View Post
First, Jimmy made a great point before which has not been addressed. What are the markings on the dag? If we can date it we may be able to say for certain whether it could be Cartwright. If it dates from post 1849 then it can't be Cartwright as that is when he left for the Gold Rush and ended up in Hawaii. If dating is not possible, or it dates from before Cartwright's departure, then it's back to facial recognition.
To my knowledge there are no markings on the dag. However, based on the plain brass matting, it is consistent with dags produced in the mid 1840's (the early stage of daguerreotypes). By the 1850's, the matting become more ornate. This is a great point that Jimmy raises and one that 20 years ago when I purchased the dag I looked into closely.

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

Last edited by benjulmag; 10-16-2011 at 04:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:27 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
>>If there are no exclusionary differences between the comparison subjects, the conclusion that the subjects likely are different individuals then becomes a subjective determination

No it is not so simple.



I agree it's not so simple. If these differences exist in all photo shoots, are not affected by the passage of time and are objective, then they would be exclusionary. Yet your own expert does not characterize them as such. So perhaps their presence is a function of the time difference between comparison images and particularities of pose.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:36 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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

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

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

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

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

It does exist. I'm sure you will tell us without explanation that this is but another illusion. Note that C and A4 are both from dags.





Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-16-2011 at 04:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:47 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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

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

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-16-2011 at 04:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:56 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
>> Second, what blows my mind about this is that you raise a point in your response yet prohibit me from seeking a response from Mr. Richards. Wasn't it the case that the publication of the newsletter supplement was delayed for a few days while you and I went back and forth on whether my reference to lens focal length was generated by the knowledge I obtained from being a college physics major who studied optics, as opposed to being obtained from Jerry Richards?

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

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

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

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

It does exist. I'm sure you will tell us without explanation that this is but another illusion.




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

Second, from Mr. Richards' report.

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

As to why he says that, I would respectfully ask you to educate yourself on margin of error analysis associated with daguerreotype emulsion type. In the alternative, just as you were kind enough to put me in touch with Mr. Mancusi, if you desire, I will ask Jerry to discuss it directly with you.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:58 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

Agreed. i would be happy to talk to him.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-16-2011, 05:08 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
>>I agree it's not so simple. If these differences exist in all photo shoots, are not affected by the passage of time and are objective, then they would be exclusionary. Yet your own expert does not characterize them as such. So perhaps their presence is a function of the time difference between comparison images and particularities of pose.

You have made the same point several times and my answer is the same. If what you say is true, then one should be able to go though dags of famous people or photos of 19thC ball players and relatively easily find multiple feature differences between faces of the same person such as those exhibited in the C vs. A comparison. I maintain that such examples would be at least extremely difficult to find. In any case - you don't have to do it today, I am patient. I'm even willing to help you. I can certainly supply the faces.
I really really wanted to go back to Jerry to respond to this Mark, but I knew you wouldn't allow it. So the question now is, after one year of doing this, are we to continue? I don't know. I know that for what matters, I have satisfied myself, which as I said earlier has always been my main objective. I now have to weigh whether continuing the discussion and investing more time and money is something I want to do. I tend to think not, but in time I might feel differently. As I consider the matter, would you agree to split the expense?

Last edited by benjulmag; 10-16-2011 at 05:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-16-2011, 05:13 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
Agreed. i would be happy to talk to him.
I will ask Jerry to discuss it with you.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-16-2011, 05:45 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

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

Corey, if the dag is not sealed, could you post a high resolution scan of the back?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-16-2011, 06:08 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-16-2011 at 06:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 10-16-2011, 06:10 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

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


http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2004/2.html
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 10-16-2011, 06:29 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

Jay- the date 1855 was approximated. I was the consignor of that lot.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 10-16-2011, 08:35 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
I was really not aware of the extent to which you felt that your own skills were not up to responding to me (and I'm still not sure you felt that way). I really don't think lens effects or perspective distortion are an issue in this case, but perhaps someone could argue otherwise.
I believe I have skills in this area, but they don't compare to Jerry Richards'. IMO the experience of doing thousands of photographic facial comparisons gives a perspective that no amount of book learning can replicate. It bears directly on your point of providing instances of identical subjects that exhibit the same facial discrepancies we see in this instance. I know what Jerry told me over the phone. He and I had several in depth discussions about it. As to providing examples, he would be the person to provide them both because presumably he would have the data base to do it, and because without such a data base I can't justify the tremendous amount of time required for the task.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 10-16-2011, 08:49 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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

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


Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-16-2011 at 08:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 10-16-2011, 08:49 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldjudge View Post
Corey-This looks like a plain brass matting and it is on an 1855 dag. What am I missing?


http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2004/2.html
The dating of a dag by the matting is a negative test -- that is it shows what something is not, not what it is. Perhaps the wording in my earlier post contributed to the confusion. But by negative test I mean that since the more ornate brass mattings did not begin to appear until the 1850's, had the half plate exhibited it, we would know it could not date to the period AJC was in NYC. However, just because the half plate matting is plain, that does not mean the dag had to have been produced in the 1840's. More likely than not it was. But it is still possible that it was taken in the 1850's by a studio that was still was offering the option of the plainer mat, and that is what the customer chose.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 10-16-2011, 09:03 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
>>I believe I have skills in this area, but they don't compare to Jerry Richards'. IMO the experience of doing thousands of photographic facial comparisons gives a perspective that no amount of book learning can replicate. It bears directly on your point of providing instances of identical subjects that exhibit the same facial discrepancies we see in this instance.

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

I have always understood that Mark, and that is why, contrary to what you have said, I do not question Mr. Mancusi's competence in comparing facial features. But since presumably his work does not involve dealing with daguerreotypes and the particularities of that photographic process, he would be lacking in certain knowledge relevant to knowing what discrepancies he perceives he sees even exist. As to the issue of methodology (i.e., his belief that it is not necessary to undertake separate comparisons with each of the A subjects), that still continues to trouble me.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 10-17-2011, 05:37 AM
edhans's Avatar
edhans edhans is offline
Ed Hans
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Buffalo, N.Y.
Posts: 1,222
Default Re: Cartwright dag

Quote:
I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this, but I'm not in favor of a poll or vote. I don't think the results, whatever they may be, would add anything beneficial to the conversation. I do appreciate the newsletter being posted so that all sides and opinions can be discussed and anyone that wants to weigh in has the opportunity to do so.
+1
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 10-17-2011, 07:49 AM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,087
Default

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

I do have one question and one comment.

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


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

Steve B

Quote:
Originally Posted by benjulmag View Post
The dating of a dag by the matting is a negative test -- that is it shows what something is not, not what it is. Perhaps the wording in my earlier post contributed to the confusion. But by negative test I mean that since the more ornate brass mattings did not begin to appear until the 1850's, had the half plate exhibited it, we would know it could not date to the period AJC was in NYC. However, just because the half plate matting is plain, that does not mean the dag had to have been produced in the 1840's. More likely than not it was. But it is still possible that it was taken in the 1850's by a studio that was still was offering the option of the plainer mat, and that is what the customer chose.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 10-17-2011, 07:56 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

Late last night I thought I had figured out who the fellow in the middle of Corey's dag was. If you look at the fellow on the left in the ambrotype shown below you will see Alexander's brother Alfred. If Alfred's face is compared to the enlarged mid-back row face from Corey's dag, he looks a lot more like this man than does Alexander (Middle of ambrotype). However, Mark has analyzed this image and has found that Alfred is not the man in the middle either. Based on this, I am drawn to the conclusion that the man in the middle is almost surely a third Cartwright relative and is not Alexander.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ambro.jpg (65.5 KB, 332 views)
File Type: jpg dag2.jpg (23.0 KB, 323 views)

Last edited by Leon; 10-17-2011 at 09:06 AM. Reason: re-position photo
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 10-17-2011, 08:36 AM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B View Post
This entire thing has been very interesting. I would like to read the technical aspects of the lens distortion, or other distortions possibly caused by the emulsion.

I do have one question and one comment.

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


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

Steve B
The high resolution image was obtained from Ken Burns because that was what was required to expose a missing portion of the irises. This is discussed in length in the newsletter supplement.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 10-17-2011, 12:06 PM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,087
Default

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

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

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

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


Steve B

For another hobby I've had to reverse engineer some mechanical parts from photos. Not quite the same thing, but I'm somewhat familiar with reflections causing measurment problems on modern photos.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 10-17-2011, 12:15 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B View Post
The question wasn't about why the high res image was needed.

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

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

Both experts have made good points, and I'm left wondering if there would be as much diference in opinion if both had had the high res scans available.
In the end Mr. Mancusi had the super-hi-res scan, and his opinion remained,
"So it is highly unlikely almost to the point of exclusionary that Subject A and Subject C are the same individual."
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 10-17-2011, 01:08 PM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B View Post
The question wasn't about why the high res image was needed.

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

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

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


Steve B

For another hobby I've had to reverse engineer some mechanical parts from photos. Not quite the same thing, but I'm somewhat familiar with reflections causing measurment problems on modern photos.
When Ken Burns photographed the half plate some years earlier for his Baseball documentary, he gave me a copy of the transparency he generated. I loaned it out some years later and the person I loaned it to lost it. When Jerry Richards told me the image Mark generated (the one Mr. Mancusi used) from another transparency I had (from another photo shoot for another project) was of insufficient resolution, I had the idea to contact Kens Burns to see if he had a high resolution copy that I could use. I no longer had Ken's contact info so I turned to John Thorn, who knew Ken well. Ken did in fact have a very high resolution digital image of it, which he was gracious enough to provide me. I in turn sent it on to Jerry Richards. That was the practical solution to give Mr. Richards what he required. Photographing daguerreotypes is extremely difficult. It takes a skilled photographer to produce a high quality reproduction of a dag. Ken's photographer did a superb job, and using that image was easier and more cost effective than having it reshot.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 10-17-2011, 01:15 PM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,087
Default

Thanks Corey, it all makes sense now.

Steve B
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 10-17-2011, 05:26 PM
Rich Klein Rich Klein is offline
Rich Klein
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Plano Tx
Posts: 4,476
Default I personally wuold be cautios

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

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

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

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

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

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 10-17-2011, 06:52 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

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

Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 10-17-2011, 07:37 PM
Jaybird's Avatar
Jaybird Jaybird is offline
J@son M1ller
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,430
Default

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

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

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

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

Last edited by Jaybird; 10-17-2011 at 07:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 10-17-2011, 07:37 PM
19cbb's Avatar
19cbb 19cbb is offline
Jimmy
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 View Post
Subject F in Corey's dag is wearing an earring (see below). I have no thoughts on whether that has any useful significance, but if anyone else does, please post.
Is 'Subject F' the one 'identified' as Henry T. Anthony?

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


Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 10-17-2011, 07:52 PM
bmarlowe1's Avatar
bmarlowe1 bmarlowe1 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,431
Default

F was IMO incorrectly identified as William Tucker in Baseball in the Garden of Eden.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 10-18-2011, 08:11 AM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is online now
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,196
Default Un-stick this thread

I am going to un-stick this thread sometime today. At this point, with everything taken into account, I don't feel a poll will prove anything more than has been debated here. Both parties have been advised of what is happening with the thread and both are fine with it. I want to thank Corey and Mark for their professionalism and civility in a very important and impassioned debate. Of course the thread will remain open for comments but it will be like any other thread and start moving down the page as other threads are responded to. I have to admit I didn't invest the amount of time needed to read the whole article, though I did skim over it and hit the high points. That, along with this thread, has helped me gain knowledge concerning photos and this photo in particular. I personally thank both parties for that too. Thanks also to our board members for their responses. I hope everyone has enjoyed the thread as much as I have. best regards
__________________
Leon Luckey
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 10:42 AM.


ebay GSB