Mark,

As I said we are going to agree to disagree. I disagree with your view how ears can change over time. And I do not believe you fully understand how light and photographic process can impact facial comparisons. I respect that you see differences; rarely does one not when comparing two images. But I vigorously disagree that scientifically the tintype can be proven not to depict Anson, as you claim. That type of conclusion is very much the exception when one does comparisons of faces that resemble each other. My view, and my view only, is that you present but one factor of many, and when one weighs it against the plethora of others consistent with it being Anson, I am comfortable it is.

This was an incredible auction to bid on and watch, some of the other items I bid on had been the bats – no wins after bidding and watching for two hours!
Thanks for pointing this auction out Alan – hope you had a good 4th!

Jimmy

Hope all is well with you. My view as to how little ears change is based on the scientific literature on the subject and experience comparing at least few thousand photos over the years and seeing results that are consistent with that literature.

Mark,

We have a difference of opinion on this issue. My statements are based directly on what Jerry Richards, the expert I hired to do the Knickerbocker analysis and with whom you spoke at its conclusion, told me. Mr. Richards hasn't seen a few thousand photographs over the years; he has seen tens of thousands, and is as respected an expert in facial ID based on photographic analysis as exists. This was his profession for close to half a century. His conclusions about how ears can and often do change differ from yours, something he told me after he spoke with you. He also stressed to me ad nauseum the margin of error in doing photo ID based on images taken years apart under different photographic processes and under unknown lighting conditions, and that much more often than not the results are inconclusive.

So there is no misunderstanding as to what I am saying, I do not believe your analysis, taking into account how certain facial features can change over time, coupled with the margin of measurement error caused by photographic process, resolution, lighting, changes in appearance during different photographic poses, proves the person in the tintype is not Anson. And that unless it can, other factors can and should be legitimately considered, which when I do make me comfortable Anson is depicted in the tintype.

It's not Anson
 

but I've got better news for you, it's Larry Fine

The very same Jerry Richards appeared on an episode of a memorabilia show on the history channel and quickly concluded that a photo of an old man could not depict Jesse James because the ear did not match that in a photo of a young Jesse James.

Forensic professionals can be hired to either tell you what they think or to take a side (like a lawyer). The arguments you made, in my view, are kind of boiler plate when the photo details aren't supportive of your point of view. Also they presume that I have no aptitude for visualizing how the appearance of complex 3-D objects are affected by lighting and shadow. As to aptitude, I think I have proven otherwise. My first career choice was commercial art and I did take lessons.

>>taking into account how certain facial features can change over time, coupled with the margin of measurement error caused by photographic process, resolution, lighting, changes in appearance during different photographic poses,...

So, if pose, shadow and unspecified distortion can so easily fool the eye, couldn't that make someone who is not Anson look like Anson?

What I would love to see is a photo of the earliest known Cap Anson, compared to those taken of him 20 - 25 years later. Using similar grid lines and the same analytic techniques, it would be interesting to see how the comparison (young vs. old) stacks up.

I can definitely see how the angle of the camera and the differing lighting conditions could produce results that are not exactly "apples to apples".

And it does not need to be limited to Anson... it would be interesting to see how these same comparative techniques stack up for any well-known player (with the initial image being from the player's teens, and the final image being from his early 40s).

As for the comparison at hand, I believe Anson's most defining feature is his deeply inset eyes and protruding brow. The photo from the tintype does not seem to confirm or deny this trait, but I would not be too surprised it it is indeed him. Either way... a very interesting debate!

Mark is the preeminent facial recognition expert in th hobby. I am glad that his opinion coincides with mine, or else I would just assume I was wrong. The good news is that this photograph will probably remain in Coreys collection for a long time and he can call the kid in the image anyone he wants.
JC-You still want to buy it?

Mark's Post # 53 nicely illustrates how the facial features remain static over time, especially with regard to the ears.

Mark, can you tell us Anson's approximate age in those 2 photos? And if not, how many years likely passed between those two images?

Great stuff!

In the above post #53, the younger Anson is from an 1885 Chi NL team composite. The older I am not sure.

But here is Anson from the 1881 Chi NL team composite, and a much older and fatter Anson from the HoF library. The head angles are a bit different, and the HoF photo is higher res (with more apparent detail), but the ears look substantially the same. Of course in life there were very small differences in the ears to be sure, but not that can easily be seen in a photo. This is virtually what you always will see.

Hate to add one more component to this discussion, but here goes...

It must just be the lighting or shading... but the older/fatter Anson in post #60 appears to have a cleft in his chin. Since none of the other Anson images even hint towards this, I'm guessing it's just a shadow or something else making it appear that way. :confused:

My experience is that a very shallow chin cleft can appear or disappear depending on photo resolution.

I have a couple of other Anson scans where you can barely see it, others where you can't see it at all. I have never been able to find anything written about how stable a shallow cleft is. Of course a very deep cleft should be visible (unless it was washed out which was sometimes done in the 19thC).

Corey and Mark are both heavyweights in the hobby, and I respect their opinions. I think it looks like Anson, because of the hair. It's very distinctive hair. Notice I say it looks like Anson, so many people look alike. Rob

Jerry Richards was hired to tell me what he thought without any skewing of his opinion. In regard to another item on which I hired him to opine, he told me that one was not what it was represented to be. He also told me with respect to the item for which he supported my conclusion that had he collected that sort of thing he would have bought it. It is my view he was being honest when telling me this.

Photography as applied to photo ID is very different than art applied to photo ID. IMO a background in one does not give one expertise in the other.

And yes, just as factors that can make one appear not to be someone he/she is, those same factors can make someone appear to be someone he/she is not. My point is that there is uncertainty when one does this kind of photographic comparison, and the results typically are not either "it is" or "it isn't", but scales of probability in between that then invite one to consider other factors. That is all I have ever said about this comparison. You are the one making the absolute statement of a definite conclusion, that respectfully I do not agree with.

>> but scales of probability in between that then invite one to consider other factors...

My understanding has been that the guy holding the ball in these earlier 19thC team photos is THE pitcher (or maybe I should say "probably" the pitcher.) Your "Anson" is holding the ball and I can only find mention of him playing 2nd base at Marshaltown. I can't find mention of him being the team's pitcher, though my 10 minutes of research has not been exhaustive. So how does does this factor into your probabilities?

“I dated the Marshalltown tintype as c. 1870, because in it Anson seems more developed than in the albumen image dated c. 1868. The question rises, even if the images are from different years, whether there are any overlap of players, as one would reasonably expect at least a few. Logic would suggest starting one's search by focusing on the players sitting to Anson's right and left, as by their prominent positions in the front of the photo adjacent to Anson they would seem to be good candidates to be team veterans. The person on the front right in the tintype bears a strong resemblance to the person standing in the middle of the albumen image. Among its consistencies are a comparable tilting of the lips when the reverse image of the tintype is factored in.”

Corey-if you date the tintype as two years later than the albumen photo how do you account for the fact that the majority of the players in the tintype are younger looking than the players in the albumen photo? Why would Anson be playing with younger players as he aged?

He's holding a ball and a bat, the props of the game, as one would expect the team's best player to do. Interesting coincidence, by the way, that the team's best player happens to be an Anson look-alike.

We can go on and on about this. But, to repeat my main point, photo ID in this instance is inconclusive. We are in the area of shades of gray. To some it could be a dark gray, to others a light gray. Once you transverse out of the area of science to the area of art, subjectivity comes in and different people can reasonably have different opinions. You made a comment earlier about your aptitude. I don't question that you have knowledge in this area.
But, and I say this respectfully, you might want to consider that another sign of increased knowledge is an increased appreciation of what you don't know and the limitations of what available evidence can conclusively tell you.

And while other aspects may be interesting to talk about, I believe the face ID evidence here is conclusive. I don't expect us to agree.

Not the first time that has happened. Truce? :)

Yes - stay safe.

Thank you. You as well.

To the members who posted items they won, great pickups! Joe, I especially like the 1865 one. No one posted it, but the caricature tintype of the pitcher throwing underhanded was pretty cool. It went for about 400+ which I was surprised about.

What do you think of the Athletics player? A friend of mine bought it. The uniform does not match the 1874 woodcut but it is close. Do folks think it might show a Philadelphia Athletics player?

Alan