Thanks, Michael. I continue to look for more ways to prove it. And as you mentioned the Red Stockings and non-uniformed poses, I figure I'll toss in something that I picked up. Again, it was simply listed as just a generic guy from Boston, but I'm pretty sure he's George Wright.

Nice find. This one looks like a dead ringer to me. Although I'm sure the expert Mr drcy will tell us all that he looks more like Shaq than George Wright.

Well, no disrespect meant, but (unless you are trying to be funny) the fact that you think that cabinet looks anything like the person below or either of the pictures you posted makes me more doubtful of the Knickerbockers IDs. But that's just me, I guess others could disagree.

I'm glad I opened a whole new can of worms ("He's a dead-ringer"/"He looks nothing like him"). Snowman, did you notice that drcy edited his comment after I responded to it in order to diss you and others? Yet he still hasn't pointed out any specific glaring differences, despite my numerous invitations to do so.

Michael, that picture of George Wright you posted is from his playing days. He eventually lost all of that tremendous hair. Which is kind of reminiscent of the Walter Avery discussion. Here's another pic of an older George.

On the back of the card, does it look like it reads "3rd 5th" on the right hand side? Or is that 'Stll'?....hard to tell. If so, maybe that could represent a civil war regiment or battalion and this was some sort of reunion or formal meeting?

Or perhaps something to do with the history of 5th 3rd bank?

Sorry, just spitballing.

I think one of the guys might be Shoeless Joe :D

slightlyrounded, I appreciate your looking at the back view that I posted. From what I can tell, it's written with a modern pen. I think it has to do with the way the guy from whom I bought it kept track of his inventory. He had a lot of old photographs listed, and others also had similar numbers on the back.

Interestingly, this photo of George Wright looks far less like the other photo of George Wright than the one Steve posted above. Steve's photo looks much more like the other photo of him than this one lol. It's amazing how much age can change someone's appearance. But the side-by-side Steve posted above is pretty difficult to argue against in terms of appearance. Those two photos are dead wringers side-by-side. Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous.

All right, I will leave it to others to chime in. It is a very interesting experiment in what people do or don't see while looking at the same thing (and what evidence people use to either support or disprove a theory). Again, no disrespect meant if I sounded a bit snarky.

Ah, modern pen! Well there you have it! This photo couldn't possibly have been taken prior to 1953 as this is when Bic pens were invented! :rolleyes:

bdk1976, say it ain't so!

Michael, in no way did you sound snarky! All your comments have been thoughtful, honest, and insightful. Another thing about the Wright photo is that it was taken by a Boston photographer who was known for having only the most prestigious customers. By this time, George was known in that town not just as a player, but he had established one of the country's top sporting goods businesses, Wright & Ditson.

Snowman, yeah, getting old sucks. And it's too bad Doc Adams didn't autograph this stereoview with his Bic.

I do not think that is George Wright.

You all need to stop.

These are NOT close.

Also, for your own sanity stop buying cabinets of "learned gents" or "generic Boston guy" on ebay

Re the George Wright and his close-ish cousin images, two things jump out at me pretty quickly that say not the same person.

First is level at which the top of the ears finish.
The authentic Wright images show that top of his ears are fairly low at roughly bottom of the eye ball if you imagine a horizontal plane crossing his face. The other image gentleman has ears that seem up around top of the eyeballs or higher at eyebrow level. Fairly significant difference to me.
Eyebrow shape also look quite different to me between the two gents.
Secondly, Wrights lower lip is fairly full and rounds outwards creating a noticeable 'shadow' effect in both authentic images.
The one you're relating it to has a tight lower lip that doesn't furl at all.
I think there are enough other differences to also suggest not the same person.

With your other comparisons relating to the '6', the issue I have is that more often than not if I see faces of people at a certain age, even if they gain a little weight/lose weight and age somewhat/hair styles change - I usually can quickly feel whether they seem related. It's kind of a quick recognition thing.
While I understand why you are making the case, I just don't get that 'feeling' of recognizing the similarities such that I'd know that person having seen them once, and then re-seeing them some years later.

All the best though with your endeavor, unlike some I don't see any harm in your venture regardless of your motives.
Should it become accepted or agreed upon by enough experts then it will be a good story, and if not it is still a fun adventure you've embarked on.

I feel like I'm in an episode of the Twilight Zone now. Are you guys just trolling now? You can't be serious here, surely.

There's no way someone can look at these two photos and at the very least not say that George Wright clearly has a doppleganger if this isn't him. I just can't take you seriously if you want to sit here and pretend like the subjects in these two photos don't at least look EXTREMELY alike.

OK, I won't bet on the Knickerbockers photo, but if anyone think I'm nuts and wants to place a wager with me on the George Wright photo, please send me a PM. I will wager money that this photo is of George Wright.

Edited to add: I'll wager up to $10k on it. I will also wager a testicle on it. I am 100% convinced that this photo is of George Wright.

The problem with all of these threads is that the burden of PROOF is on the person making the claim, not the skeptics. However, with a vested interest the person making the claim often wants to jump from evidence to a closed case.

Members on this board would like nothing better than to be part of a cool discovery. Pretty sure the board was instrumental in discovering the T202 Joe Jackson center panel.

We have some incredibly knowledgeable people on this board, some who have offered their opinions. However it is not their job to convince you why it isn't what you say, it's your job to convince them why it is.

OK, I'll take a stab even though it's not my photo and I have no stake in the matter (unless someone wants to lose a bet against me lol). Here's why I'm so confident. First, let's start with the photographer, Elmer Chickering. According to Wikipedia, "Elmer Chickering (1857-1915) was a photographer specializing in portraits in Boston, Massachusetts, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He kept a studio on West Street, and photographed politicians, actors, athletes, and other public figures such as Kyrle Bellew, John Philip Sousa, Sarah Winnemucca, Edmund Breese, and the Boston Americans."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Chickering

Remember, George Wright wasn't just a HOFer. He was a sports LEGEND in Boston at that time. He also owned and operated a hugely successful sporting goods store "Wright & Ditson" just a few miles away from Chickering's photography studio in Boston. He founded the sporting goods store in 1871, the same year he began playing for the Boston Americans, and ran the store for over 50 years! Part of the business would later become Spalding. He was so successful that in the early 1900s, he expanded to NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco. George Wright wasn't just a baseball player, he was THE baseball player of his era in Boston. And you could go into his store any time to meet him in person. He was a local celebrity. But his store didn't just sell baseball stuff. He also brought golf to the United States, building the first public golf course in the USA in Boston in 1890. He also made the top tennis racquets in the country. Wright & Ditson was a HUGE, HUGE brand in the late 1800s and early 1900s. As noted above, the photographer behind this photo, Elmer Chickering, was known for photographing famous people; important public figures, and the Boston Americans in particular. If there was one athlete in the city of Boston during that time that he would have photographed, it would have been Goerge Wright. He was that famous in the city of Boston.

As far as resemblances go, here are several more photographs of George Wright in his later years that collectively, all but prove that this is in fact a photo of George Wright. First, notice the eyes in the black and white photo of George in his older years that I've zoomed in on, you can see that George Wright has very light-colored eyes in this photo. The subject in Steve's photo also has very light-colored eyes, which a very small percentage of the population has. Next, look at the photo with the all-white background where Wright is wearing a white shirt. Look at his hairline in that photo. Follow the angles of it. It is exactly the same hairline as the subject in Steve's photo. Also, look at the mustaches in pretty much any photo. All of them are the same as the mustache in Steve's photo. Same angles and triangular shape. Next, look at the noses and angle of the bridge in each photo. The same long pointy nose in all of them, exactly like the nose in Steve's photo. This is particularly evident in the photo of him when he's older and looking up to the right. And look at the jaw lines, again, exactly the same. Also look at the chin in the yellowish photo. Pay attention to the highlights of how the light hits his chin in that photo and in Steve's photo. That's the exact same chin and shape with a somewhat rounded proud shape to it. Also, look at his hair, he has the same wavy hair on the sides in each photo. Also, look at the noses photo and notice the angle of the nose in both, as well as the shape of the nostrils. Someone previously said something about his bottom lip being bubbly so it couldn't possibly be him, but that's simply not true. That's just a bad shadow from a poor image. Look at the crystal clear image of him when he's older and looking off to the right. Look at his bottom lip in that photo. You can see it clearly there. It is the exact same thin bottom lip as the one in Steve's photo. Also, look at the photo of him in his older years where he's in his sporting goods store holding the golf club and notice what he wears in his store: the same style sport coat with a white shirt and a bow tie. Same thing he's wearing in Steve's photo.

In my opinion, this is almost certainly a photo of George Wright taken by a local Boston photographer of the same era who was well known for photographing famous people in Boston and the Boston Americans in particular during a time when George Wright was about as big of a name as there was in Boston sports. He was the right age, in the right city, at the right time, and the right type of public figure for Chickering to have taken his portrait. The subject in Steve's photo is an absolute dead ringer for George Wright. And if anyone was going to take a professional-looking photo of him in Boston, Elmer Chickering would have been at the top of the list to do it.

I see a resemblance in the Wright images. Would not bet a testi on it, but it would be worth digging into further. The KBBC is way off to me. Unless I missed it, there's no provenance provided.

***Update*** After further review, I would not bet on the Wright.

Nope
 

OK, I'm trying to be impartial and objective. I've read through the entire thread two more times today to try to take it all in. I just do NOT see it. I think when we want something to be a certain thing so badly, our mind starts to connecting dots and we go from being hopeful to thinking we have proof.

I applaud the level of effort on this and it's been an interesting thread to read (at least for me).Some of the commenters being dismissed by our newly registered optimists (welcome to the board in 2021, BTW) are experts in the field, have written books on photography, early baseball, etc., and are not just being 'disingenuous'. They're giving you their honest , learned opinion that these are both examples of grabbing at straws.

If you want to keep thinking you made the amazing discovery of the Knikerbocker team or George Wright (who wouldn't want either of these to be true?) go right ahead. Please just hear the people who politely disagree. We're fans of this era, of baseball, of it's history, We'd love it to be true, but do not feel that it is. I'm going to fall on the side of Rhett, drcy, and many others on this thread. You don't have to agree with us (you think you have PROOF) just like we don't have to agree with you (we don't think this is PROOF).

Wow, a lot of great discussion while I was asleep! Let me see if I can address everything. First of all, I want to say a little bit about my background in the hobby. I got my first Topps pack in 1967 when I was two years old. I went to my first card show in 1975 when I was ten (it was at the Marriott or Hilton next to LAX). In 1979, when I was 14, I was listed in "The Sports Collectors Bible" as one of "The World's Leading Hobbyists." This was in the days before there was a uniform price guide (I think Beckett's first book came out later that year), so I had people calling me from that listing asking if I could appraise their cards. They were shocked to see a young kid come over. Now, in no way would I say that I have ever been a big-wig in the business. That's because I have never treated it as a business. It has always been a hobby for me, one that has become much less enjoyable over the years with the introduction of fraud, even by the grading companies that are supposed to keep it out.

As for the Knickerbocker stereoview, as I have said, I saw it on eBay and first noticed the strong resemblance to Doc Adams. I was more familiar with him than the other early members of the team, as he had been in the news more recently with the discovery of "The Rules of Baseball." I don't remember how I stumbled on the stereoview, as it didn't have much of a description. It was a week-long auction, and two days before ending someone placed a bid. As you know, when clicking on bidders one can't glean too much, but it was very interesting to me that this bidder's history showed interest in only sports cards and memorabilia. Not old photos or anything like that, and seeing as how the stereoview was not listed with any connection to sports, I figured I was onto something. Luckily there were no other bids, and I got it with the second bid.

When it arrived, I started my endeavor in trying to figure out who was depicted. I began with my initial ID of Adams, who to me seems like a lock. So obviously the next step was to compare the other gentlemen to his teammates. Some of the resemblances were apparent immediately. At that point I was not as informed about photographic history and facial recognition as I am now. I made mistakes in my initial identifications. But I did not dismiss people's critiques and suggestions. I learned from them. As well as studying up very hard on photography and facial-matching. At this point, I am very confident in the identifications I have made. I have pointed out specific unique features in the Knickerbocker photo that are matches. I have not been shy in inviting any naysayer to point out anything glaring in the facial features that do not match. It's very interesting to me that the person who purports to be a photography expert claimed that a white/cream-colored stereoview with squared corners and arched photos could not possibly be from the 1850s, yet there are several photographic history websites that say just that, and numerous examples of such date-verified photos in museums and collections. I've already posted one, and another member in this thread verified what I said from his own collection.

Believe me, I did not choose this board randomly. I know that you all are the very top of the collecting mountain. Not only did I expect a grilling, I wanted it. And I believe that I've withstood it pretty well. I have not backed down or shied away from any answers, and my answers have addressed each question and concern individually. As I go through this thread, I once again point out that while I see opinions saying, "I don't think it's them," I don't see any specific glaring differences mentioned. I truly believe that when you look at each comparison individually, following the shape of each facial feature one at a time, you will see how close they are. I have seen and read about people who have taken photos who kinda/sorta resemble someone and then forge identifying information on the back with period ink. Some of these people are so successful at it that they fooled top experts in the auction and collecting fields and their fraud was not uncovered until years later. I am presenting to you what I purchased on eBay, exactly as I received it and without embellishing any background. Eventually I would like to auction it at some point, but it would not benefit me unless there's enough evidence to say that it's the Knickerbockers. I believe that I have presented such evidence. I don't feel that the opposing evidence has been sufficient other than, "I've been doing this for a long time and I just don't think it's them." I would love to hear specifics, such as, "I see a clear scar on Subject A that isn't on Subject B." I have spent many an hour trying to convince myself that this isn't what I think it is. But I am very confident in my IDs and prepared to respond to anyone who wishes to call out any specific differences that they see.

If you've read through this thread and this long diatribe, I thank you so much and appreciate it greatly. If you've contributed a comment, please know that I am grateful and take it seriously, regardless of where you stand. And Snowman, thanks for having my back! I think your money and balls are safe.

The only thing I have learned from this is that even George Wright doesn't look like George Wright to me. Meaning, in my mind "George Wright" looks like the 1870's era George Wright. If I saw pictures of him as an older man and was not familiar with the image as one already having been identified as him, I have to admit that I would not see the resemblance to the younger man and would say "that's not George Wright".

It would be great if the Chickering photo was dated on the back in period writing so we could get a match against Wright at a similar age. Barring that, I guess I can't offer an opinion having admitted I couldn't pick the older Wright out of a lineup (unintentional pun but very happy with it).

Michael, your pun is fantastic, and I say that as a former TV writer. You also bring up an excellent point with regard to trying to compare people at different ages. A cursory -- or even a close look -- may yield the opinion that they look nothing alike. But when you give a really close look at individual features, especially ones that are unique to the individual, you can see it more clearly. Especially when it happens with six different people.

I'll take that $10K bet. That is not George Wright. Jeremy

First off, I posted the Wright photo only because I thought it would be interesting to Michael after he mentioned his areas of interest. The focus of the thread is on the Knickerbocker photo. But out of curiosity, Jeremy and anybody else, what would constitute "proof" to you? Snowman laid out a ton of matching characteristics in the Wright photo and information to support its provenance (taken by a prominent photographer in Boston), yet all we have from you is a conclusion with nothing to back it up. An opinion is one thing, and I certainly respect it. But backing it up is quite another, which I believe I have done in pointing out unique matches in the Knickerbocker photo. So tell me what more I can do to prove it to your satisfaction?

It's also not George Wright.

And drcy, as I've said numerous times throughout this thread, your conclusions without anything to back them up are taken with a grain of salt.

By you and snowman, I have no doubt.

The photo experts are telling you that your identifications are wrong and that you pretty much don't know what you are doing (For just one example, the stereoview is from the 1870s and a man doesn't become 25 years younger in negative 15 years-- Not even in Doctor Who), and you are using snowman as your 'expert support.'

If you and snowman want to continue, that is fine by me.

Knickerbocker 6 - Definitely not. Sorry.


George Wright - Yes, he looks similar. However, matching something like hairline does not a match make. You can't pick out one or two or even three characteristics and say, those characteristics match, therefore, it's the same guy.

Trust me, I have a giant stack of old unidentified boxing photos, and if half of those photos were of the guy I originally thought, or hoped they were at first glance.........well, that pile would be a lot smaller, and the other pile would be worth a lot more then it is.

ALL the characteristics have to match.

On the Chickering photo: Ear canals are different, Top of ears are higher on the head, then on George Wright, Eyebrow line is different, Chin line is thinner. Wright has a much fuller chin line, then the Chickering fella. Just overall, George Wright has a fuller rounder head then the other fella. The other guy has a longer face.

D. Begin, thank you for laying out specifics. Snowman has done the same in close-up views, which I appreciate greatly, and it's up to the viewer to decide.

drcy, I am not using Snowman or anybody else as expert support. Anyone is free to comment here either way. As far as I know, I don't know anyone here personally and I don't know their background other than what they purport to be in their posts. But I think in the time I've been involved with this stereoview, I've come to the conclusion that one's background really doesn't matter. Either you look at it and see resemblances or you don't. I've taken it further and pointed out specific unique matches, but I also know that I will never satisfy everyone. As I stated above, the purported 1847 daguerreotype was given to the HOF by Alexander Cartwright's grandson, yet there's a lengthy thread of disbelievers on this very board. As for the date of the photo, I post a statement about dating white/cream-colored stereoviews with squared corners from a website that I presume you'll take seriously. I also post a couple of stereoviews from museum and library collections that look very similar to mine (including the color, corners, and arched photos -- one is even taken outdoors) that have been dated conclusively to 1854-1857.

It is interesting to hear different opinions about whether or not these are or are not Knickerbocker players or George Wright, and the back and forth as to similarities and dissimilarities of the images and other ancillary data and information to support the suppositions that these are photos of the alleged parties. At the end of the day though, there is no way to 100% prove, or disprove, either side of the argument, which is unfortunate. And human nature being what it is, there will always be someone to disagree with you, no matter what the topic or issue is.

What makes me wonder though is the way that some parties just summarily dismiss any and all thinking and logic and simply declare someone is just wrong, and that they are right, period. I am no photo or facial recognition expert, but like everyone else, have a lifetime of experience in deciding what does or doesn't look similar to me. For the alleged Knickerbocker players, there clearly are not enough contemporary photos of the parties involved to allow for a more comprehensive comparison and determination as to who the parties are in the picture. And the chances of the six gentlemen being the Knickerbocker players is extremely remote at best. And without some other irrefutable evidence and provenance to prove the photo of the six gentlemen are the alleged Knickerbocker players, aside from some perceived facial similarities, the naysayers know you'll never get consensus agreement from the "experts" and can therefore confidently claim it is not them. The issues with photo quality, questions of aging and respective age differences of the parties involved, and so on, make it literally impossible to make an absolute verification of the identities of the six individuals in the gentlemen's photo. But that goes both ways as you can't absolutely disprove that maybe one, or more, of the six gentlemen were in fact Knickerbocker players. To sway the minds of the "experts" you'd need something like a descendant of one of the alleged Knickerbocker players to suddenly come forward with a similar photo of the same six gentlemen taken during the same photo session. And have them tell how it has been in the family for generations, handed down from the relative in the photo who was in fact on the Knickerbockers, and that the further family story is that he is pictured with former teammates. You'll still find some "experts" that will vehemently deny the story and say it is false, and that the photo is not what it is then claimed to be. But a majority of "experts" would likely acquiesce and go along with the story and new found provenance, and that would colloraborate the authenticity of Steve's photo. Will that ever happen, probably not. But it could!

As for the George Wright photo, there are a lot more photos of him out there to use for comparison purposes to the one Steve has than there are for the alleged Knickerbocker players. Some have stated how there are dissimilarities between Steve's alleged photo of Wright, and the confirmed photos of him, thus proving to them that Steve's photo is not of Wright. However, forgetting Steve's photo and looking just at all the confirmed photos of Wright shown in this thread from over his years, if you didn't know the provenance and acceptance of those photos and simply had them laid out in front of you, could you honestly beyond any doubt say they were all of the same person? I honestly could not. Photo quality, age differences, angles, lighting, shadows, they all factor in to what we see, or think we see, along with the bias from being told up front that all the pictures are confirmed as George Wright.

So there is no definitive proof either way that Steve is right or wrong, and likely never will be. Just estimated probabilities on either side of the question. Good luck to Steve in additional research. You never know, sometimes miracles do happen and the "experts" are proven to be anything but.

Bob, thank you immensely for that! You really summed it up perfectly in a thoughtful way. I am enjoying this discussion regardless of who agrees with me or doesn't, as nothing beats talking about baseball!

I mean, it could very well be a cousin, uncle, nephew, brother or other family member of George Wright.........but it's not George Wright IMO.

I have a different opinion then Snowman obviously, but do thank him for posting all those other views and close-ups of Wright. It was that post that convinced me it's definitively not him.

That smaller c. 1889 photo that was hard to see the detail on, that you or somebody else posted, had me wondering long and hard for a minute or two.

Thank you, Dave. I appreciate your opinion as I know you've taken a close look at it. Wright is difficult, as it's pretty clear that his appearance changed pretty drastically over the years. I think mine fits at the start of his "older adult look."

For the Knickerbocker photo, I want to include here another tool that I used. This one is very helpful, in that it lays one photo over another, so any differences would stand out pretty clearly. Here are the known photos of Doc Adams and Charles Birney placed directly over mine. The slider is right in the middle, so the result is half-known/half-mine. If I move the slider either way it would show more known or more mine, depending on which way. As you can see, they line up exactly. Ear placement and size, eyes, nose, everything. It even shows the shadow that obstructs Doc's hairline in the original. I get similar results with all six men. I think this provides another perspective as to how well the features match up.

The problem about the ages was pointed out by someone else, but I'll give just one example:

After pointing out that there weren't gray mounts in the 1860s and the stereoview necessarily is from after the 1860s, I'm curious how one explains how the man on the left is at least twenty years younger than the man 10+ years later on the right?

The initial post said that it "seems irrefutable" that it is the six Knickerbockers "Walter Avery, Doc Adams, Duncan Curry, Charles De Bost, Fraley Niebuhr, Charles Birney". However, it more than seems irrefutable, it is irrefutable that it is not.

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1630627685

As far as the "George Wright" photo goes, it should also be pointed out that their heads aren't even the same shape.

On a lighter note, when I was a kid I was convinced that Ken Berry (the outfielder) was the same person as Ken Berry (star of F-Troop). There could not be two famous (to me) people with the same odd name, plus they looked enough alike to my young self. It wasn't until several years later that I grudgingly had to admit that this was not the case.

drcy, you raise an interesting issue. One thing I can tell you is that the mount is most definitely an off-white/cream color. Because of its age, I can't tell how white or cream it started, but it is absolutely 100% not gray. Yet you said that it's a gray mount and therefore has to be from the 1870s. When I first sent out pictures of this, people had trouble seeing them. I made sure to send out originals, with no sharpening at all. However, it really was quite difficult to make comparisons. So as I have a pretty good photo app on my phone, I sharpened the pictures. They look nice and clear on my phone. However, I never really thought that they may show up differently on other people's screens. The fact that you see gray when I see off-white/cream (and know that to be the case in person) tells me that I may need to go back to using the originals or fine-tune them on different types of screens.

That said, the rendering may also be affecting the clarity of the images. Also, there are blurs within the photo in key places that obscure some key features unless the picture is blown up and observed very closely. Yes, Niebuhr looks young. But when you blow up the comparison and look very closely, even to the point of following strands of hair, you can definitely see the resemblances.

As for clothing and grooming styles of the period, I post a pic of men's fashions from the 1850s. You can see that the jackets are very similar in style, including the dark band around the jacket collar and the length of the jacket (which can be seen draped over the chairs in which they're sitting in my pic). The ties are also the same. Another interesting thing is that several of the men have beards in the 1862 photo, but not not in mine. Beards came into fashion after the election of 1860 (for obvious reasons), and stayed in fashion through the 1870s (Garfield was the last of the bearded bunch). After that, fancy mustaches were the rage, as seen in the Old Judge set. So yes, the time frame and matches of unique features are consistent with these men being Knickerbockers.

Michael, I did too!! I also just figured that Bobby Valentine was somehow related to Karen Valentine of "Room 222."

But but but, the "expert" in this thread who has handled a million of these said its not possible! That has to be from 1870s or later because of the arches! :rolleyes:

And neither do all the heads on the Wright photos that are confirmed as him all look to be the same exact shape either. There are differences in angles, lighting, shadows, age, amount of hair, how it is or isn't combed, clarity of the image itself, and so on that can effect how a photo image is perceived by someone. The one common trait that all the George Wright photos do have (besides him being a man) is that you were told these were all confirmed Wright photos, which normally adds a bias to anyone's opinion, whether they will honestly admit it or not.

Quite frankly, I am not at all familiar with what George Wright really looked like before following this thread, and I honestly couldn't tell you whether all these supposedly confirmed photos of him are actually him or not. I'm relying solely on the word of the people posting them, but know absolutely zilch about the evidence and provenance that proves each of these so-called, confirmed Wright photos is actually him. For all I know, one or more of these Wright photos could be deemed him simply because someone very early on said it looked like other pictures of him, and therefore it was him. And with no other evidence or provenance than that and the passage of time, such a photo may have been accepted and regarded as a true George Wright photo today. I'm not saying that is the case, but it is possible, isn't it? Otherwise, can you tell me the evidence and provenance of each and every one of these supposed real Wright photos that you are comparing Steve's photo to in this thread?

And that is another thing, back when pictures of individuals like Wright weren't necessarily considered as valuable, would it be possible that the effort to prove the authenticity of such a photo wasn't as difficult and people more readily accepted such a photo as real merely due to the resemblance? Nowadays, a new real photo of Wright being discovered would prove quite valuable, agreed? And for that reason alone, if one suddenly did appear out of nowhere, like Steve's photo, the initial thinking by many would be that this is too good to be true, if this is real it would have been found long before now, or that the person claiming it as real is just trying to cash in, and so on. And because of that inherent thinking, there is an immediate added bias that will likely kick in with many so-called "experts" that will have them only accepting such a photo as real if there is an extraordinary amount of virtually irrefutable evidence and provenance to go along with it. Just human nature.

Just to clarify my stance on both issues, as some people seem to either hand mistaken or intentionally distorted it, I don't believe we have enough evidence to state that the purported Knickerbocker's photo is indeed a photo of them. I would want to see more photos of the players and understand more of the history before making that determination, and unfortunately, we may never get that. For now, I just see some pretty remarkable resemblances and have pointed out the fact that having several of the subjects all with high resemblances to Knickerbockers make it statistically more likely that it is a photo of them. But that does not mean it is and I wouldn't wager money on it unless I were getting style extremely compelling odds.

With the George Wright photo, I would say that I'm 98% confident that this is indeed a photo of George Wright and I would be happy to wager good money on it. The resemblances of numerous unique features is just far too similar and situationally, everything lines up perfectly; timeline wise, location wise, and even the fact that the photographer himself was well known for taking photos of the players. This photographer almost certainly took a photo of Wright at some point given their respective backgrounds and locations. And the resemblances are simply uncanny.

I'm dead serious about accepting bets on the Wright photo. If you want to put your money where your mouth is, send me a PM and we'll work out the terms.

Snowman, yes, I feel sorry for all those museums and libraries that will have to change all the dates in their collections because they've been wrong all these years. But what I'm wondering is how exactly would you be able to prove who wins the Wright bet? As you can see here, it's nearly impossible for everyone to agree, and the "experts" sometimes end up striking out.

Bob, you are a very wise man. I should point out that I won the auction for the Knickerbocker stereoview on 12/26/19. Almost two years ago. So it's not as though I haven't had time to research it six ways to Sunday. I posted here after I felt that I would be ready to answer any question or concern, which I believe I have. Of course whether my answers are accepted by the questioner is up to him. But I certainly haven't run away from anything. I think Snowman said it above, but it echoes my feelings that I can totally understand how someone can say that it's difficult to believe that a Knickerbocker photo could just be purchased on eBay without any provenance or history. But it's quite another, in my opinion, for someone to say that he sees absolutely no resemblances at all and not one of these people looks remotely like the comparison photo. I seriously question their motives.

Out of curiosity, what this the proof needed to win this bet?

I haven't read every line of every post in this thread, so forgive me if this comment is redundant. At this point my sole interest in this thread is regarding the possible dates this stereoview was made. I still contend this stereoview may have been made earlier than 1870. There were gray colored mounts used circa 1860, although they are uncommon. I have seen them, although not with the arched top photograph style, which also can date circa 1860. I have also seen both light and dark gray mounts on many later stereoviews, particularly from the 1890s and beyond. These later gray mount stereoviews are of the curved variety which post date the stereoview in question here since it does not appear to be a curved mount. I do respect the opinions of others on this thread, but I think this point needs to be made. I'm not defending any other arguments being made in this thread regarding the identity of the six men in the image. I'll leave that to everyone else.

Gary, thank you! I wouldn't expect anyone to read every post in this thread, but I pointed out a few posts above that this mount is definitely an off-white/cream color. I don't know if it is showing up gray on others' screens, but there's no doubt about the color in person. And from everything I've read (some of which I've posted here), the earliest albumen stereoviews are on white or cream-colored mounts with squared corners, just as mine is.

Exactly. I perfectly understand people wanting to see more evidence for the Knickerbockers photo. There's a lot of uncertainty surrounding it and questions regarding the ages of the players in question and when the photo was likely taken. But if someone wants to sit here and pretend like there aren't at least some strong resemblances among the subjects then they're clearly not here for an honest conversation and everything they have to say on the matter should be dismissed entirely.

I also find it interesting that people are still referencing prewarcards' posts and deferring to him as the "expert" here in when this photo was taken despite the fact that he has been proven wrong multiple times already in this very thread.

Note, he stated the following:

I have no doubt that he is extremely knowledgeable about the history of photography in general and that he has handled countless photos from the 1800s. He seems to have a lot of knowledge about civil war photos as well. I'm confident that I could learn a lot from him. But his claims above that this photo couldn't possibly have been taken prior to the 1870s, let alone in the late 1850s based on the framing and arches used in the stereoview has been pretty clearly debunked in my opinion. Perhaps it was taken in the 1870s,and that it could still be demonstrated using some of the other characteristics he mentioned like the apparel worn by the subjects or the fact that it was outdoors or the technology used to develop the print. But he claims to have never seen one with arches like these prior to 1870 out of over the half a million that he's handled, yet somehow, 3 people in this very thread have posted images of theirs from the 1850s and 1860s with the very features he claims can't be found on photos from that time period. I'm not trying to throw him under the bus. We all learn something new every day, and I'm no stranger to discovering that something I had previously believed to be true simply wasn't. But I always adjust my views in the light of new evidence. I care deeply about what is and isn't true. I enjoy being proven wrong. It reminds me to always remain open minded and that learning/knowledge is a lifelong pursuit. Perhaps to the point of it being an obsession.

I'd be curious to hear from prewarcards now in how he responds to the evidence posted in this thread that appears to refute his claims about the arched framing of the photos and the corresponding dates assigned to them. Do you stick to your guns, claiming that those dates are all wrong, or do you make adjustments to your previous understanding? I'm not asking him to suddenly arrive at the conclusion that these are the Knickerbockers, but can we at least all agree now that the arches used in the stereoview do not preclude it from having been made prior to the 1870s?

If I get any takers, we'll have to figure that out. I'm open to suggestions though. I'd prefer to handle those conversations via PM as I don't want to derail this thread into being about side bets.

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1630627564

The above and back image do not show a white or cream-colored mount.

Take as many photos as needed, and post images here showing it that it is white or cream-colored. If it is white or cream-colored, certainly you can post images showing so.

I'm not sure what is SteveS's contention this far along into the thread. However, at this point, even the #2 biggest defender of the photo, snowman, does not claim that it's the Knickerbockers and says "There's a lot of uncertainty surrounding it."

At this point, excluding the OP, I don't know that anyone is saying it is those six Knickerbockers. I'm not even sure that the OP is still claiming it is those six Knickerbockers.

He can't control your monitor though. He could post 1,000 different images of it but if your monitor doesn't accurately convey colors (and most do not, FYI) then you'll never see it for what it is without holding it in person or getting a new monitor.

I'm using a Macbook Pro with a well-calibrated retina display to view the images. Colors on my screen are about as accurate as possible on a computer. However, it's only as accurate as the photo itself (I don't know how accurate those are vs holding it in hand). The mount looks like a beige or light tan color on my screen, definitely not gray. What the implications are of a beige mount though, I have no idea. But that's how the color comes across on mine.

Adding proof to combat the inevitable nonsensical replies to follow... Here's a screenshot of the RGB color values and color code name for the screenshot of how the color of this image is conveyed on my screen. My color-picking eye-dropper app defines the color as shown attached below. It is clearly some version of a light brown, here described by the app as "rosybrown". See attached.

Is there a known Knickerbocker photo also showing the 3 in the back row standing so you can compare their heights? Dude in the back middle is considerably shorter then the 2 next to him.

No way that guy is George Wright. Look at the closeup and you can easily see the bridge of their nose is completely different, with Wright's being much more flat/square (as seen in all of the other known pictures as well).

Also the grey haired version of Wright has MORE hair on the top of his head than the supposed pic of him when he was younger. And it doesn't appear as though he is wearing a toupee either.

So your theory is that the known photos of Wright in his older years show that he magically regrew some hair on top despite the other younger known photos of him clearly showing him as being completely bald up top in his middle-ages. Got it. Thanks for your input.

Now what was it you were saying about those identical noses being "completely different"? :rolleyes:

You do realize that the light sources of the two close-up nose photos are in different locations, right?

In other words, even you, his biggest defender, are already preemptively saying he won't be able to post photos in this forum demonstrating that the mount is white or cream-colored. And, as some strange form of defense, post your own RGB color analysis that shows that the mount in the image isn't white or cream-colored.

Whatever. I'm done with this thread.

Snowman, thank you for your input on the color. Please let me know if you get any takers and how you will decide a winner.

bdk1976, take a look at the 1889 photo of Wright that I posted, and also the one of his bending over golfing that Snowman posted. He's bald on top.

Shoeless Moe, the 1862 photo shows some of them standing, but as I pointed out earlier it is a composite cut-and-paste, and I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that it can't be relied on to determine sizes. In the 1859 photo, which I've also posted, De Bost and Adams are standing next to each other and line up very well with the heights in my picture.

drcy, I find your MO interesting of editing your comments after people have already responded to them. It's happened pretty much every time. Very telling. I don't feel the need to post any more pictures of the stereoview. You already have an unretouched scan of both sides, and however it renders on your screen is not up to me. But what I will do is post a comparison of mine with a stereoview of a chess game that is known with 100% certainty to have been taken in 1858. It was a very famous match in its day, and the date cannot be disputed. However you see the color, you can't miss that it's very close to mine, it is flat with square corners like mine, and it has arched photos like mine. And in case you missed it from every single post that I've made, yes I absolutely stand by my contention that this photograph depicts Knickerbockers. So please keep your promise and take your ball and go home and be done with this "dumb thread," because every single thing you've said has proven to be grossly incorrect.

The 2 pictures shown show up as very different colors on my screen. The one on the left is a tan and the one on the right is greyish.

bnorth, look more inside of the card portion, not the edges. The edges look as though they have stains from being handled a lot. But the card portion is pretty close. The squared corners and arched photos are also very important, as other posters within this thread have said that it's not possible for a stereoview from before the 1870s to have those features. I found a stereoview from the Met Museum that dates to 1856. To me, this one looks gray, especially next to mine. It also has squared corners and arched photos.

And seeing as though one issue people seem to have is the age of the person I identified as Niebuhr, I debated with myself for a long time whether it could be Harry Wright. He was with the Knickerbockers from 1857-1863, ages 22-28, about 30 years younger than everyone else in this photo. There are a lot of pictures of him as an older man, but not a lot from this era. I am attaching a comparison with his picture from the 1859 Knickerbocker photo (using the photo from the left side of my stereoview). It's a pretty good match. But I ended up thinking that it's not him because it doesn't seem to match as well against pictures of older Harry. But after the discussion about his brother George and seeing how different he looks in various eras, maybe some of you will think that he's a better fit.

I do realize the lighting is different. It still doesn't change the bridge of his nose significantly in either pic.

Either way I'm done here. I have better things to do than argue with delusional, self aggrandizing idiots who are trying to take random photographs from 150 years ago and turn them into something they are not and instantly start pumping out insults if you don't agree with their nonsensical conclusions.

If you're going to be a condescending dick when people contradict you, why ask/participate in the first place?

Confirmation bias at its finest.

Wow, you're brilliant. This is a big loss to this thread. I'm devastated. Toodle-oo.

This thread is starting to turn batshit crazy. Here are the screenshots of the two colors of from those two stereoviews. They're clearly both some hue of browns. One slightly deeper with a bit more reddish tone and the other lighter and more pale, but both are clearly browns.

Ah yes, I'm the one who's biased here lol. You just want so badly for this to be someone other than who it so clearly is that you're magically seeing hair on the top of his head as a septuagenarian when he quite clearly lost it decades prior in the other photos. Those two noses in the close up are EXACTLY THE SAME. EXACTLY. Not similar. Not somewhat close. CLONES of one another.

bdk1976, I'm the one who started the thread and asked in the first place, and in nowhere in this thread did I argue with you or insult you. My response to you was to take a look at pictures that have been posted that show George Wright's bald head. There was no reason for you to insult me for that, which is exactly what you are upset about that you say someone did to you.

Snowman, I can't fault someone because colors render differently on their screen. Maybe something like this will work better. It's the back of my stereoview on the left, and a swatch of cream color on the right. Mine is a hair darker, but it's 160+ years old. But no matter how the colors show up on different screens, I think it helps show that my stereoview is a shade of cream.

You are a being a clown and completely out of your depth. Your knowledge of this subject is zero and it shows.

David is one of the foremost experts in his field and has literally taught courses about photography. The lack of respect being shown to him is beyond the pale.

Simply put you are terrible at this. There is no need to combat any of the points in this thread put forth by you and Steve because YOU HAVE NO BASIS TO MAKE THE CLAIMS THAT YOU ARE. NONE.

ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD:
These are literally photographs of completely random men from the 19th Century. The facial structures of these men is not even close. You and Steve they seem close but again neither of you have any idea what the heck you are talking about.

The only things the subjects of these photos have in common with the men you are claiming they are is that they have faces (and some have mustaches)... that is it. Ears are off, facial structures are off, hairlines are way off, ages are off, etc., etc.

The logical problem people like you have about this subject is that you are treating this as if it is a 50:50 chance of the photos being the person that is being claimed. That is not how this works. THERE IS NO CONTEXT FOR THESE PHOTOS TO BE WHO IT IS BEING CLAIMED THAT THEY ARE... NONE!!! The burden of proof to prove that a random photo purchased off ebay is a famous person is on the claimant, and it is a heavy burden of proof. Close doesn't cut it, these aren't close. The odds of Steve being correct is infinitesimally small.


TO SNOWMAN:
I have no idea who you are as you started posting on this forum like 5 minutes ago. Each time in the past few weeks that I have seen you post in a thread it immediately goes down hill. My suggestion would be to sit down and listen for a minute. Making fun of respected people on this forum like David will not get you far.

CONCLUSION:
This discussion is not a serious debate and is not scientific.

rhettyeakley, throughout this thread I have done my utmost to respond to every single person who posted in a full and respectful way. I have not made anything personal. But I have to say that when you, the person I believe is your brother, and drcy say that there's no way this stereoview can be from before the 1870s because of the color and arched photos, you immediately lose any right to call yourself an expert, no matter how many classes you've taught. It's such a basic thing, and I've posted numerous examples of such stereoviews that are confirmed to be from the 1850s. So frankly, everything you say after that carries little weight. But even people without any knowledge of photography or baseball history can render an opinion as to whether people look alike. As I go back and read through this thread, it's been the three people I mentioned above who have found it necessary not just to give their opinion, but to do so in the most condescending and dismissive way. Please understand that in no way am I a novice or an idiot. As I mentioned above, I have been collecting sports memorabilia for 54 years. But as I also mentioned, anyone with a working set of eyes can say whether or not two people are a match. The fact that the three people I mentioned above go well beyond giving an opinion and find it necessary to say how superior they are and ridicule those who disagree with them (despite their being proven incorrect on most everything they've said), shows that there must be some sort of agenda beyond just commenting on a chat board.

The idea that one needs to be an expert in photography or the history of photography or that it is even remotely helpful in a discussion regarding whether or not two people look similar is ridiculous. The fact that people here demand that their "expertise" be somehow respected is the problem here. No one has earned the right to identify facial features better than someone else because they have a dark room at home or because they have a collection of stereoviews.

As far as lending even an iota of respect to David is concerned, I'll gladly pass on that offer. Go back and read his nonsense in this thread. Every post is complete an utter nonsense. Brown is gray, bald is a full head of hair, etc. All he's done is shit on everyone else's arguments with every post while offering nothing of substance despite being asked politely numerous times by the OP to explain his positions. He's just trolling this thread. I don't offer respect to trolls.

Again, at I've said repeatedly. If you want to argue that the photos are not who Steve thinks they are, that's fine. Bring your arguments as to why. But if you're going to sit there and pretend like there's no similarity whatsoever between the purported George Wright photos, then you're clearly just here to be a prick. Go take those photos to 100 random people off the street who aren't vintage cards collectors and at least 90 of them will say, "ya they definitely look similar and might be the same person". The only thing causing people here to see otherwise is their bias.

this this this. 1000% this

I tried. Not sure why I let myself engage sometimes.

Steve you are going to continue to see what you want and continue to confirm your own bias. I wish you well with your endeavor.

Snowman you add nothing.

I also love how the naysayers continue to completely ignore the the relevance of who the photographer is. You guys keep pretending like it's just some random photo taken by some random guy despite the fact that it has been proven in this thread (with links to his Wikipedia page provided) that the photographer wasn't just some random guy taking photos of random people. He was the Boston Americans' team photographer. He specialized in portraits of important public features and Boston Americans in particular (the very team George Wright played for). And his studio was only a few miles away from George Wright's store. He almost without question photographed George Wright at some point in time. If that holds zero weight to you, perhaps you need to read it again, because it's not nothing. Reading the bio of the photographer is what pushed me from "man, they sure look like they could be the same person" to "this almost has to be George Wright".

Toodle-oo "expert".

rhettyeakley, thank you for your well wishes. I sure can't deny that I'm biased because I'm the one who owns the photograph. However, I have done my level best to talk myself out of it, and simply can't. Putting aside any bias and human element, the facial-match results are pretty conclusive. Also, of the people to whom I've shown it off of this thread, including a nice mix of baseball historians and "laypeople," most have ranged from it's plausible that it may be the Knickerbockers to it's definitely them. Only two people have been emphatic that it's not. One thing I definitely learned from this thread is that computer screens affect how it's viewed. I will try to figure out a way to correct that, as it's tremendously important when making these comparisons to look closely, beyond the lighting and shadows

As for Snowman, I appreciate greatly that he has my back. I disagree that he adds nothing. He has pointed out actual, observable matches. It's one thing to disagree with them, but he has taken the time with no bias or skin in the game to look at the pictures and form an unbiased opinion. And I'll repeat what I said above. It's always fun to talk about baseball!

What years did George Wright play for the Boston Americans?

My first look I thought most of the suggested IDs were stretches that could be put in a "maybe" category at best (and that was just going off the supplied comps and not looking for more/better comps)...and some wishful stretches of what I call The Billy the Kid effect or maybe better for here The Joe Jackson effect (which I have been guilty of)

but the reality of it is the first and most important ID here is the date of the item in question which prewarsports, an expert, very concisely made. He knows what he's talking about.

Sorry, Boston Red Stockings.

Except for the fact that he clearly does not as proven multiple times throughout this thread already. Why do people keep pretending like this never happened? How many times do we have to go over this? It has been proven several times already from multiple photos that the stereoviews of this type did in fact exist in the late 1850s and 1860s. Multiple people have posted screen shots of their stereoviews from those years in this very thread, despite the "expert" claiming it's not possible.

It's also been proven, that his stereoview is NOT gray, and that it is a cream/beige color. Both through his color palette card adjacent to the photo of the actual stereoview and through my screenshots of how those colors render through an extremely high-definition color balanced retina display screen.

At what point do you guys consider the actual evidence provided in this thread?

16. Koquak (also Fauxtographer or Failface)
After someone starts a “Does anyone know who this player is??” thread, this person’s guess isn’t anywhere even remotely close to having a resemblance to the person being asked about, as if he just picked a random name out of the Baseball Almanac and posted it.

See also: Clueless Joe - a person who’s convinced any player pictured in an old B/W photograph is Joe Jackson.

ThomasL, Snowman summed up perfectly what I would say in response. I would add that I wish there were other comps; it would make this whole thing a lot easier. Unfortunately, half these guys have only one known photo, and for the ones that have one or two others, most of them are not from the same era.

JollyElm, look closer. It's not as big a Gamble as you think (see what I did there?). Seriously, look at other pictures I posted, such as the comparison to Adams as an older man. Tell me where you see glaring differences. Look at the overlays I posted of Adams and Birney. They are perfect matches. Not close matches; perfect matches. Both photos fit over each other with every single facial feature lining up exactly. I can understand someone saying, "Yeah I can see resemblances, but here are specific differences I spot which make me think it's not them." But so far, not one single person has pointed to a specific facial feature in one that can't be seen in the other. Also notable are the people who say it's not them without providing anything else except for some sick need to throw in an insult. I can speculate what's going on there, but I'll leave it to other readers of this thread to judge their behavior and contribution to the discussion.

Fuzzy Math
 

Steve, I agree you've been civil throughout the thread and this has been an interesting discussion. Many on here have applauded your effort (as have I) and wished you luck in your endeavor, but almost none agree with you (just one does). Not sure to whom you're speaking outside of this thread, but there seems to be a theme. Let's sum up the responses on the alleged Knickerbocker image:

YES:
1) Snowman - "I'm definitely leaning toward yes" (post #33). I'll count this as a 'yes', even though he also said "I won't bet on the Knickerbockers photo". (post 96)

NOT SURE:
1) vtgmsc - I have no idea" (post 8)
2) GaryPassamonte - "I cannot speak to the identification of the men in the stereoview". (post 18)
3) Directly - if 100 experts were polled, you'd get 25% yes, 25% no, 25% inconclusive, and 25% maybe. (post 21)
4) jpop43 - neutral and informative (post 23)
5) BobC - no definite proof either way (post 111)

NO:
1) old judge - "I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid (post 4)
2) prewarsports - 100% of antique photography experts would date it 1870-1876. (post 11)
3) benjulmag - "I would be very skeptical of the reliability of the facial recognition in this instance". (post 28)
4) rhettyeakley - almost 0% chance (post 35)
5) bgar3 - "I would be very surprised if the market place agreed with you without an astonishing amount of additional information". (post 36)
6) sphere and ash - "I am not convinced the stereoview depicts 'six learned gents', let alone the Knickerbocker Club". (post 37)
7) drcy - "it does not appear to be the Knickerbockers". (post 51)
8) oldoriole - "I just don't see it". (post 100)
9) slightlyrounded - "this is a complete stretch". (post 68)
10) D. Bergin - "Knickerbockers 6 - Definitely not. Sorry". (post 109)
11) molenick - ""I lean more to the 'I need to see more proof' side". (post 80)
12) Tao Moko - "The KBBC is way off to me".
13) ThomasL - prewarsports knows what he's talking about. (post 152)

I hope I did not misinterpret anyone's comments. If not, we have 1 YES, 5 NOT SURE, and 13 NO. When to we have a consensus?

I just saw this original thread on the subject from earlier this year:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=295178

It looks like John Thorn, the official MLB Historian, has also seen the Knickerbocker photo and did not feel that it was them either.

If John Thorn, the official historian for MLB, and Mark Firmoff, the top forensic facial recognition expert and co-chair of SABR's Pictorial History Research Committee already said no, doesn't that pretty much seal the deal? If their two opinions had been mentioned at the beginning of the thread, this thread would have been about 1/10th as long

I've been correct all along that is not the Knickerbockers. However, I made snide and snarky remarks once or twice-- and I apologize to SteveS for that. My error in not being more polite.

As I said earlier, they are both nice original photos of anonymous people- and there's nothing wrong with that.

OldOriole, thank you for recognizing my civility and your well wishes! My first step after doing my own research was to show the comparisons to friends and family. The consensus there was unanimous in seeing the resemblances. Now, clearly that is in no way scientific, but it helped tell me that I'm not grasping at straws, as I can assure you that if they had disagreed many of these people would have told me to shove that stereoview up my you-know-where.

After that, I sent the images to someone considered very important at SABR (I don't want to use any names here, as these were private e-mails and I don't have permission from anybody to divulge anything). He said that he felt that I might have made a very important discovery, but he wanted to pass it along to another very important SABR member who knows more about 19th-century baseball history. That person gave a thumbs down, but without any specific reason other than it would be a needle-in-a-haystack to find a Knickerbocker photo on eBay. I searched the Net for e-mail addresses of people considered to be baseball historians and authors who wrote seminal books on baseball history, including the Knickerbockers. Of the ones who responded, the consensus was that they definitely see the resemblances, but couldn't commit to saying that they are definitely Knickerbockers without further information, such as where it was taken (although a couple did say it was their belief that at least some Knickerbockers are depicted for sure). Some of them forwarded it to the same SABR person who they were not aware had already said no before, and/or to another SABR person who is considered to be knowledgeable in that era who also said no. Those two received forwarded messages so many times that they ended up getting seriously pissed at me, even though I never sent it to them directly in the first place. Nonetheless, they are the only two people of the ones I've shown it to off this board who are flat-out nos.

And again, much as with on this board, no one has been able to point out anything specific in the facial features that don't match in such a glaring fashion that it would exclude them definitely without further argument. As has been mentioned, it takes no expertise in any field to say whether two people look alike. And whether or not it's my photo, I absolutely do believe that somebody who looks at it and says categorically that he or she sees absolutely no resemblances at all without giving specific reasons is just being a jerk for whatever motive they may have. I know it's customary to give the new guy on a message board a hard time. I'm fine with that. While I am not new to the hobby after more than a half-century of collecting, and while I have read this board for several years without joining, I chose it for the specific reason of knowing that you guys would be tough cookies. I believe I've held up pretty well to the grilling. Of the naysayers you pointed out, as I've said many times, not one of them has pointed to a specific glaring facial-feature mismatch. I have posted results from completely neutral facial-match programs, including overlays that show perfect fits. I have also shown beyond the shadow of any doubt that the people who said emphatically that the stereoview cannot be from the Knickerbocker era are emphatically incorrect. Of course I'm not saying that any of that proves conclusively that this stereoview depicts Knickerbockers. But I do feel that I've demonstrated enough for people reading through this thread to stop and think that there actually is a chance it could be them, without dismissing it out-of-hand with an insult and nothing to back it up.

robertsmithnocure, I mentioned the original thread in my first post in this thread. I also pointed out that I took into account everything everybody said and realized that I was incorrect in some of my original identifications. I don't know whether the people you mentioned have seen the images that are now clearer and with correct IDs, but I do suspect from their previous comments that their opinions would not change.

drcy, thank you for your apology! Absolutely accepted!! I posted the best picture I have of both sides of the stereoview. Both are the best resolution I can get with the cameras/scanner that I have. I can't post anything else to showcase the color without adjusting sharpness, resolution, etc., which would defeat the purpose of showing the true color. I believe the side-by-side comparison with the confirmed cream-shade sample shows that it is definitely a cream color. As for your conclusion that the person you mentioned dismissing this as a Knickerbocker photograph means that you are correct for also coming to the same conclusion I need to point to only one thing. As I recall, the first thread I ever read on this board was about another purported Knickerbocker photo, the 1847 daguerreotype. The person you mentioned was one of the authorities who believed that it was absolutely Alexander Cartwright and his teammates and used it in his own book and it was included in Ken Burns' "Baseball" in which he appeared and other books and shows. The IDs of those players even changed over the years. But the other person you mentioned had serious doubts, and he and the owner of the dag hired experts and ended up with a fascinating report of dueling opinions. Reading through the Net54 commentary on that report, it seems that most people agree that the dag does not depict the people claimed. I don't know the owner personally, but I have exchanged a couple of e-mails with him and he seems like a genuinely nice guy and he's unarguably one of the world's top collectors of 19-century baseball memorabilia. I am rooting like heck for him and hope that he will eventually be able to prove the IDs in his photo. But my point is, serious doubts have been raised about that photo that had been accepted as the truth by the person you mentioned, so why would his dismissal of mine be accepted as gospel?