A thing is-- beyond the images of the people--, you can get definitive opinions about the age of the photo itself. There are many experts who would look at it in person and be able to tell you the age.

I can assure you that the photo is not old enough to be legitimate for the players you say are in the image. However, there's no requirement to rely on what I say. There are all sorts of photo experts out there-- many who know nothing about baseball-- who can tell you about the age of the photo itself.

drcy, thus far, everyone who has seen the stereoview has done so in an e-mail or posted on this board. I totally agree that it's much better to have an in-person view. Unfortunately, I now live in a very small town and it's difficult for me to bring it to experts in person and I'm obviously reluctant to send the original around to various places. But believe me, at some point after I can actually determine which experts' opinions would be considered infallible, I will endeavor to have them see it in person.

After the earlier discussion on the date of the stereoview, I sent an e-mail to the American Antiquarian Society. They have a very large collection of stereoviews and are considered to be experts in dating. The person who responded said that their collection contains stereoviews from the latter-half of the 19th century, and as she felt mine was earlier referred me to the Worcester Art Museum for a more precise date. That museum is coincidentally having an exhibit of historic baseball photos. So I wrote to them. In another nice coincidence, the response came a few minutes ago in the same batch of e-mails that included the notification of your post above. The curator of that museum says that it is her opinion that the stereoview dates to the "mid- nineteenth century." While that is not specific, I would consider that to be 1850s-1860s. I don't think that the 1870s qualify as "mid- nineteenth century."

That said, I am curious about something. If it can ever be determined to your satisfaction that the date of the stereoview can indeed be justifiable to contain Knickerbockers, are you also contending that it would be impossible for even one Knickerbocker to be depicted? Have you looked at all six men closely enough to say with 100% certainty that individually, all six are excluded? As I have said numerous times in this thread, I have reviewed the IDs in every way possible. I am very confident in them. But if someone can prove that a better match exists, or that one or some of the matches seem accurate but others don't, I'm certainly willing to listen.

I think there are two conversations happening in this thread with respect to the purported Knickerbockers photo. One is whether or not this is in fact a Knickerbockers photo. The fact of that matter is that we have insufficient resources to make that determination with high confidence. Most everyone in this thread should be in the "I don't know" camp. Even I am in that camp. However, while it would be extremely difficult to affirm it as a real photo of them, it could be disproven through other methods quite easily. Some of those other methods were stated by the "experts" in this thread, but their supposed expertise was quickly shown to have no teeth when their reasoning about the "gray" paper stock and arches was debunked. No one has responded to the debunking yet, but several people continue to perpetuate the nonsense for reasons I don't understand (but could speculate about).

The other question, and the one I find more interesting here, is the question of whether or not the subjects in the stereoview have similar-looking facial features to the subjects in the 1862 photo. This is where there should be no disconnect and yet somehow, we still have one. Everyone is free to agree or disagree on whether or not they think it's a Knickerbockers photo, but we should have a nearly unanimous consensus here that the subjects at least have some fairly similar, if not remarkable, facial features. This is the question that I would argue, and which I believe Steve is referring to when he talks about asking people outside of the hobby, that would have near-universal consensus among an unbiased population. It is an objective fact that most of these subjects have similar facial features, and yet somehow, we have people in here who want to pretend like white is black and up is down.

Try printing out the pairings that he posted of the players in question and sitting out front of a grocery store or some public space and ask 100 random people the simple question, "Do these men look similar or at least have similar facial features?" and the overwhelming majority will say that they do. I guarantee it. If you run this experiment in an unbiased manner and the results come back to prove me wrong, I'll send you my 52 Topps Mantle.

Thank you, Snowman, for that perfect summary! The only thing I would add is that as I mention in my post above, the very first museum to which I sent the images came back with the date of mid-nineteenth century. Certainly not 1870s. However, I should add that for a '52 Mantle, even I would say that there's no Knickerbockers in the photo.

David, I've seen you on here for many years and know somewhat of your knowledge and expertise, no disputing you're one of the good guys. So please don't take my question the wrong way as trying to be snarky or sarcastic, I honestly don't know the answer and would like to find out something.

It has been said by some on this thread that what appears to be the biggest knock against the claim that Steve's photo is of Knickerbocker players is the stereoview and photo itself, and that it is not from the correct period. And therefore, based on the seeming ages of the players in the photo, cannot be the Knickerbocker players Steve alleges they may be. Have I stated that correctly?

Assuming so, my question is if it is possible that even if the steroview does turn out to have been created later on in the 1870's and not the 1860's or earlier, could it have been made using a photo or negative from a much earlier time, say 10-15 years earlier, which could then explain the seeming age disparity?

I'm not asking the likelihood, just is it possible. If possible, I would assume that likelihood would be extremely small, at best. Just trying to see if there is a 100% conclusive determination that can be made based on the stereoview and perceived ages of the men in the photo. Thanks.

I trust that the Worcester Art Museum curator probably knows what they're talking about. Particularly since they were the experts that the other experts at the American Antiquarian Society referred you to since they specialized in late 19th century stereoviews and they knew yours had to be older than that. While it would have been great to get a more specific/narrow range for the years than "mid-nineteenth century", I think it's pretty safe to say that you have a stereoview from either the 1850s or the 1860s as the 1870s would not qualify as "mid-century" and because the experts who specialized in late-century (which would include the 1870s) expressly stated that it was older than that.

I also think it's pretty safe to say that the self-proclaimed "experts" we have here on the forums might in fact not be actual experts.

Hmmm
 

In the same manner, do you also trust 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? Are they not "actual experts"? Seems like they might know what they're talking about in terms of matching the images to certain players.

BobC, I know you asked drcy, but I wanted to chime in with my feelings on that. I think I mentioned above that I feel it's absolutely possible that this stereoview could have been produced from an earlier negative. Although I think I've provided pretty solid evidence to show that it most probably dates to the 1850s. I attach two photos below, a negative and positive of Edward Anthony. The picture is verifiably documented to have been taken in February, 1847 by Wliiliam Henry Fox Talbot, one of the inventors of negative photography. Anthony visited him at that time to learn from the master, and of course came back home to start his own very successful photography business. So it's clear that negative photography was available in the New York area as early as 1847, and in the hands of someone with a documented association with the Knickerbockers. It's also very well known that earlier negatives were used to make stereoviews, and in fact, there are many thousands of examples of the same picture being used by different companies in different parts of the country/world decades apart (copyright enforcement clearly wasn't a priority back then). So it's most certainly within the realm of possibility that, just to throw out an example, Anthony took the picture and when he started the stereoview portion of his business used an old negative he had lying around to practice or stock up his inventory. I am certainly not saying that happened, and after doing extensive research and hearing back from my first inquiry to a museum regarding the date, I am convinced it is from the 1850s. But as you say, it doesn't preclude that the picture can be from some earlier time. One other thing that I find interesting. At the time of this photo Edward Anthony was 28. So for those who have commented about how old some of the guys look in my stereoview, this is what 28 looked like back then.

OldOriole, as I pointed out a couple of times, the two people you mentioned saw the stereoview only in e-mails, and at a time when I was incorrect on some of the IDs. I was the one who pointed out in my first post in that thread about their opinions. I didn't hide or shy away from anything. But rather than be stubborn, I took to heart what I learned and have been able to make the IDs that I believe are correct, and also document enough research to respond to anyone with questions and concerns. I respect those people greatly when it comes to baseball history. I have learned a tremendous amount and spent literally hours reading books and blogs they've done on baseball history. However -- and this has been mentioned before and is extremely important -- knowledge of baseball history does not equate to having an opinion of the similarity of two photographs. Especially when there are so few pictures available of the subjects. Knowing how Jim Creighton died doesn't mean that one's opinion means more than someone off the street as to whether one picture of Creighton looks like another. I need only point to what I wrote above regarding the 1847 daguerreotype. So if people on this board are being intellectually honest, they would not put so much weight on the opinion of people who have misidentified photos in the past and use their own eyes.

I'm aware of your previous posts, you don't need to repeat them. If you think you have the IDs right now, don't you think it's now time to ask them again? Afterall, in reading all your previous posts, you've twice stated that you would go back to them for another opinion. This is what they love to do so I doubt you'd be putting them out or burdening them. You can't get much more unbiased than them. They have no hidden motives or agendas. Just send the new ID claims to them, get the results, and be done with it.

A Strange Turn of Events
 

In A strange turn of events, it has been determined that two of the guys in the OPs photo are actually the same person! One of the two images has been cut and pasted at either an earlier or later date... TBD... Using googles Age Progression software, the results show with 99% accuracy this is the same person and that the images were taken 15 years apart.
Notice the receding hairline!

Now the tricky part:

1. Is it a younger AND older Doc Adams?
2. Or is it a younger AND older Duncan Curry?

If only we could see all four ears....?

OldOriole, no, I never stated that I would go back to those particular people. I had never sent it to either of them in the first place. As I mentioned above, the first time it was passed along to Mr. T. by someone very high up at SABR who believed that it may be the Knickerbockers. It was passed along to him other times without my consent for the same reason. I don't know exactly how many times, and I'm not complaining about the no consent issue as they believed they were doing me a favor. In one of those correspondences I replied to the original person with whom I was dealing something similar to what I've said here about the controversy regarding the IDs in the 1847 daguerreotype. Unbeknownst to me, when I replied to that e-mail, it got CC'd to Mr. T. He got immediately angry and wrote me back in no uncertain terms that I should never contact him again. So I will respect that, and I would be upset if anyone else passes it along to him with the updated IDs without my consent as I don't want him to think that I had anything to do with it. It was a very upsetting experience for me, as I had learned so much about baseball history from him, and my only personal dealing with him did not leave me with a very favorable impression. Besides, as I've said many times, why are you so trusting of his opinion of a Knickerbocker photo when this very forum ripped it apart ten years ago?

smokelessjoe, you may be onto something. Look at them in the known photos. Has anybody ever seen Doc and Duncan together in the same room?

I think it's more likely Chris Cornell or his great grandfather.

Shoeless Moe, how could everyone have missed that! George Wright never died. He put on a wig and became Chris Cornell. Then Chris Cornell faked his own death, and we'll have to wait another 50 years to see who he comes back as next.

In perhaps another strange twist, I used to mow Chris Cornell's grass when I was in high school. True story. You might be on to something here.

1) 2) (Post #46) "Scott, I am truly honored that your 5,000th post came within my thread, and I will try again with the HOF and make it clearer this time."

Do you think you'll submit it again? Will you try again with the HOF as you stated?

I have already admitted defeat on George Wright because even the known photos of him don't look like the same person to me. But I will say that the first person I thought of for this one was Dabney Coleman.

Side-by-side I now notice more of the differences than the similarities but when I saw the picture, that's the first person that came to mind. Not only came to mind but in my head he looked exactly like Dabney Coleman. I think I picked up on some of the similarities and filled in the blanks until I was convinced that that is what Dabney Coleman actually looks like.

I'm not sure what this means except that the mind does have a tendency to look for patterns and comparisons that may or may not be based on reality (this is not a comment on any of the previous claims or suppositions, which I will leave to others).

This is one of the country's problems right now. Somehow the opinion of the masses is more valid than the opinion of people who have made a real study of something. Frankly 100 random people are largely going to be morons. My apologies to all who consider themself random...

Just want to make sure I'm keeping this all straight. You've been collecting for 54 years (I can't find it now but I think you said that somewhere) You mowed Cornell's grass while you were in High School. If Cornell were still alive he'd be 57. If you've been collecting 54 years one would assume you are older than 57. Let's say you counted the first pack you got at 6 years old as the time you began collecting. That means you graduated high school in 1979 or 1980. When Cornell was 15 or 16...

The photographic prints appear first generation, so I assume not.

Realize that a stereoview or other photograph from the 1850s (Which it would have to be about from) is very, very early photography. The very first photograph was made in 1839. That REA Knickerbockers is a salt print, a process that was invented before albumen and one of 2 or 3 baseball salt prints known to exist. An 1850s photograph is going to be very distinct. I often compare photograph history to automobile history. A 1910 card is going to be very different in many and obvious ways from a 1930s or 1940s car.

Also note that the earlier the photo, the different the material. One way cabinet cards, CDVs and stereoviews are dated are by the thickness of the mount.

OldOriole, I already did. After Scott made his suggestion I went back to my original e-mail to them. I felt that I was pretty clear that I just wanted help with the IDs, but they wrote back saying they are forbidden from doing appraisals or authentications. I attach below what they sent me. I clicked on a link on their website to send it, and the response came from someone in the Reference Service Department. So I did not deal with the person you mentioned before. But I did send another e-mail to them in the same way I did before, and I was very clear about not wanting to know about value or anything, only the IDs. I'll update when I get a response.

Michael, I see a bit of Gabe Kaplan in him. But I don't want to further with this type of thing as it's a serious matter for me.

Scott, first of all, I will stand by my contention that anybody is as qualified as anyone else to judge whether in their opinion two people look alike. No matter how moronic they may be. Second, you have the wrong person. It was Snowman who said that he mowed Chris Cornell's lawn. I am 56 years old. But a young 56, if I may say so myself.

Yup, populism run amock. Don’t think I haven’t noticed how many times the term “expert” has been used as a derogatory term in this thread. The pundit is king now. If you’re a Pundit / Everyman, and right one time out of 10, you’re a prophet. If you’re an “expert”, and wrong 1 time out of 10, you’re a moron.

Anyone can have an opinion, but it's the value of that opinion. There are people who do forensic examinations of photos to determine identity for the courts. Those types of opinions would actually matter as to getting the photo accepted by the hobby as opposed to 100 people at WAWA.

In this day and age we seem to be discounting actual expertise in favor of mass opinion. Just an observation and it has nothing to do with whether or not your photos are legit, but it has a lot to do with whether or not you can convince the hobby at large.

Look at it this way. I own an auction company and we have a number of other guys in this group who do as well. Do you think for one minute that you wouldn't be getting flooded with consignment offers if auction companies thought you had unassailable proof? I can assure you, we all watch these boards and get in touch when something cool comes up. The second you convince the broader population rest assured they will come calling. Rhett runs an amazing auction that basically does nothing but photographs. He'd much rather you be right. I honestly believe we ALL would rather you be right. Again this board has been home to some amazing discoveries that took a ton of group research to bring to fruition. That's a helluva lot more fun than telling someone "no"

I quoted Snowman about the Cornell thing. Can't find it now but I thought he made a claim that he had been collecting for over 50 years. He has edited a number of his posts, so maybe he retracted that statement. Was just a light-hearted :confused:

Yes, sorry, I get that. Not trying to hijack this into a "separated at birth" thread. But I think it is interesting that people can look at the same thing and have their mind take them to a totally different thing. I see Dabney Coleman you see Gabe Kaplan (which I get as well, but I see less of). And I don't see Chris Cornell at all. Maybe I am seeing something in the expression and not the actual features, maybe I am looking at one particular feature and not another, who knows?

But I do think that people that say they do or don't see similarities are being honest about it (or as honest as they can be without underlying subconscious influences).

drcy, I guess I'm still confused as to how you can judge the generation of the photo and thickness of its mount with the 100% certainty you've been maintaining without having seen and held it in person? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that it appears to be something to you, rather than it is absolutely something? After all, through no fault of your own the color appears to be different to different people. I've posted it next to a gray sample and a cream sample to show the best that I can that it is a shade of cream. Also, I have owned stereoviews from the 1850s-the early-20th century. I posted earlier in this thread a few of my baseball-related ones from the 1860s (Leon posted the same one that he has). Believe me, I know the difference between a thicker mount with rounded corners and the manufacturer's/distributor's info versus a thinner, flat mount with squared corners.

D. Bergin, the word "expert" itself wasn't used derogatorially. It was used facetiously with regard to the people who claimed that the age of the stereoview could not be from before the mid-1870s because of the arched photos. That has been disproven enough times in this thread, and it's just a basic thing that someone calling himself an "expert" should know, that at least in my opinion it discredits everything that comes next. But you won't get any argument from me about the intelligence of the general population.

Scott, I don't know if Snowman said that and edited it later. I said it a couple times in here, and it's true. Up until a certain age, pretty much every extra cent I had went to baseball cards. After that certain age, and with the proliferation of fraud, it took a backseat to other things. Also, the reason I chose this board to post the stereoview is because I knew that it would be the toughest to convince. I'm really not sure that I will ever be able to convince everybody with 100% certainty. In fact, I have absolutely no idea what would be needed to tip that scale. However, I truly believe that by being well prepared and responding to every question and concern without cowering, that I've been able to sway some people to the maybe/plausible category. I do know that many people are loathe to jump into the fray on social media, especially when there's a fear of being ganged up on by people who claim to know everything and attack anyone who disagrees. So I feel that there are a decent number of people who see a resemblance (not necessarily agree that it's absolutely Knickerbockers), but won't say so for fear of being ridiculed by a handful of others.

Michael, I'm totally fine with the people who give their honest opinion either way. It's the ones who state it as fact rather than opinion and look down their noses at anyone who dares to disagree that I just tune out.

I guess I disagree with the idea that this board is the toughest place to convince people. I have seen a number of cool discoveries here, if the evidence is clear this board will champion your cause pretty quickly. I have not, and will not offer my opinion on your claims, because mine is about as valid as the moron's from WAWA :) but I really don't see this as a group of skeptics.

Anyway best of luck, I've managed to tiptoe through all of this without pissing anyone off, gonna quit while I'm ahead!

We're not talking about solving differential equations though and polling the general public. We're talking about whether or not two people look similar. Why you guys keep wanting to pretend like this skill requires an "expert" is beyond me. I'm not talking about dating a photograph or what methodologies might have been used to develop the print, or what decade someone's apparel is most likely from. We're talking about looking at two photos and determining if the people in those photos look alike. That's it. This isn't rocket science.

No. I've been collecting for about 35 years.

Scott, before I posted my pic here I scrolled through some pretty brutal threads with people who did the same thing. But I appreciate your contributions to this one, and that's quite a feat to not have pissed off anybody!

Snowman, I think I've presented enough evidence with regard to not excluding that the stereoview is from the 1850s. After that, as you say, unless someone can point to specific unique areas that don't match, it's pretty much subjective whether someone sees the resemblances, regardless of their knowledge of baseball history.

People ask and people say things are authentic regularly on this board (as well saying things are reprints, fakes, etc.): trading cards, photographs, autographs and memorabilia.

Steve never mind I will contact Jacob Pomrenke to see about corresponding with John Thorn, the official historian for MLB or is Mr. Thorn a net54 member-thanks

drcy, hey I'm throwing you guys a compliment when I say you're tough.

Directly, you can check out the posts above on this page for the answer to that.

The thing that isn't sitting right with me: You initially made several identifications and reached out for some professional opinions. When those were met with doubt you revised half of your identifications and reversed the image to more closely match the comparisons. Correct?

Several of the hairlines and facial similarities were enhanced when you flipped the image, which I assume is why you did this....but I think the kerchief issue is a problem. I don't understand how the kerchief is shown in 'Niebuhr's' left breast pocket in your stereoview, but you somehow thought this image should be flipped, placing it on the right. Especially when the salt print has him wearing a kerchief in his left, as is customary.

Further: if the Henry Anthony association is being proffered as a reason this may be an earlier, 'cutting-edge' photograph, then why are neither he nor his brother in the picture? I don't think it's credible to lean on this association.

I accept that you can't be talked out of your belief that you've uncovered a historically significant find, but you need to understand the skepticism here. You've provided no 'when', 'where', 'why', or 'how' for the origin of this stereoview...only a 'who' after multiple revisions and a very subjective framing.

Most old photos found on eBay and flea markets are of unknown people whose identities have been lost in time. Having antique photos of unidentified people is the norm, and you own two. There's nothing wrong with that.

To answer snowman's question, yes there is a resemblance with some of the people. That the "Fraley Niebuhr," where, yes there is a resemblance, couldn't possibly be Fraley Nieburh, demonstrates why "some resemblance" isn't proof. Even SteveS admitted it wasn't Nieburh and suggested a different identity. This is why "some resemblance" means little with random 100 years old photos.

If you go through high school yearbooks you are going to find nobodies who resemble someone famous. That's the way looking at old anonymous photos work. My dad resembled Bob Newhart, and I can promise you that my dad wasn't Bob Newhart.

This also is why the photo itself, including its age, along with provenance, are important. It doesn't matter that the person resembles Babe Ruth if it's an 1880 cabinet card. Can't be Babe Ruth.

I apologize for what will be a disjointed reply to various posts.

The original poster writes, “It's also possible that a previously-taken photo was made into the stereoview by taking a picture of that picture or using the negative process of that era.” There is more assumed in this sentence than is immediately apparent.

To create a stereoview in the middle of the nineteenth century, the photographer needed a camera with two lenses placed as the eyes are, side-by-side. With two lenses, you have two images, each slightly different. One could not take a single photograph, taken with one lens, and turn it into a stereoview. There must have been an intention to take a stereoview.

Your albumen silver print stereoview was taken using the wet plate collodion process. That process was not invented, I believe, until 1851. Prior to that time, photographers like Fox Talbott used paper negatives (when they used negatives at all), which recorded much less information than glass negatives.

I have made wet plate collodion negatives, and printed them on home-made albumen paper, and I have also made ambrotypes and tintypes, all of which are wet-plate processes. I am less knowledgeable about the chronology of the development of these processes, but am confident that if your stereoview was printed later, the original could not date from the 1840s.

As to whether the stereoview was taken or printed by the Anthony brothers, there is no evidence presented for such an assertion. I believe Henry T. Anthony was a member of a group that traded stereoviews, and I vaguely recall that some of these stereoviews survive with notes to fellow members on the verso. If that were the case here, you’d have a more compelling argument. But there is nothing about either the prints or the mount that tie it to the Anthony brothers.

I have spent over 25 years collecting photographs, learning in the darkroom, and training in nineteenth century photographic processes. None of that, as the original poster correctly points out, gives me any advantage in facial recognition. But—it does give me some perspective. Finding a photograph that resembles another person is a commonplace. Take, for example, the two albumen photographs shown below. Couldn’t almost all of us agree on their identification?

I’m not trying to poke fun in any way—I’m just trying to impart some very hard-won learning. Within the last two weeks, the subject of a very valuable photograph that I own was shown to be someone else entirely—and this was a baseball photograph of the team founded by the subject in question.

Before I forget: for those wishing a good reference book on dating stereoviews, I recommend the work of William C. Darrah. I would consult my own copy now, but everything I own is in storage pending a house sale.

Also: someone above made the point that nearly all discussion participants agreed that the ‘Knickerbocker stereoview’ attribution was questionable. Although my own skepticism was correctly included on that list, I do not believe popularity is a good measure of the truth of an idea.

And: I was wrong to say in my first post that probabilities have margins of error. I should have said ‘Estimates have margins of error.’

Finally, one poster asks the skeptics to put their money where their mouth is. This is a reasonable request. I am willing to wager the suggested amount for the George Wright photograph [edited to make clear that I am wagering against a match] based on the following criteria: that we jointly share the cost of retaining Mark F. and have his report published here. Mark uses preponderance of the evidence.

I will go further and make the same offer on the ‘Knickerbocker stereoview.’ If Mark believes the stereoview does not contain enough information to make a determination, then I would ask the original poster to bear the cost of the report.

I do not not know Mark and have never spoken to him. We did exchange a few emails about some photographs that I own about five years ago.

https://c.tenor.com/U8ilc5nXc50AAAAM...-wickerman.gif

This is true, and these elongated threads usually have at least one person who has no clue what he's talking about (but keeps on talking). However, that no one (OP excluded) in this thread ultimately said they believe it's the Knickerbockers, and the No's included several hobby-known experts, is significant.

If I am not mistaken, I believe the phrase "mowed Chris Cornell's grass" is a commonly used euphemism for smoking marijuana.

Brian

We are in agreement on these images, but continue to disagree on theories of knowledge. I do not believe that authority (“known experts”) is the basis for the truth of an idea. I would say, rather, that authorities can be important because they may share important ideas not understood by laymen; but their authority, in and of itself, confers nothing. Some here (you are not among them) might dismiss theories of knowledge, but I think it’s at the heart of some of these discussions.

Separately, the original poster has repeated several times that the 1862 salt print is an amalgamation of numerous separate negatives. I do not believe that to be the case. To be fair, I’ve never seen it in person, but I’ve made enough albumen and salted paper prints to believe the print is from one negative. The odd relative sizes of some of the subjects can be explained by lens distortion more easily than it can be explained by what would be a very rare practice. There was a recent photograph of the Bidens and the Carters that displayed a similar distortion. The hand coloring of the photograph was used because enlargements from wet plate negatives on salted paper were difficult to make, required extraordinarily long printing times, and were typically too light. If you look up “solar enlarger,” you will see how this print was made.

slightlyrounded, you have raised an excellent point regarding the kerchief, and I appreciate it greatly, as I believe it points out a major error that I made, but also makes my identifications stronger. I thought I had read somewhere awhile back that stereoviews are reversed, like tintypes and dags. After your post, I researched that info and found out that I was incorrect. So the original orientation of my stereoview is proper. I have posted below the comparison photos with that orientation. To my eye, not only do the resemblances now look stronger, but the unique matches I pointed out earlier have not changed. But more importantly, slightlyrounded noticed something that I did not. Of the six men who are depicted in both my stereoview and the 1862 salt print, only one is wearing a kerchief in both pictures. And it's the same man -- Niebuhr. Now of course that is not going to make everybody here drop their jaw and concede the IDs. But the math experts can figure out the odds of that.

As for the Anthony connection, in no way would I ever rely on that nor say that he or his brother or someone in his company took this photograph, as there is no attribution. I am pointing out that the technology to take this type of photograph definitely existed in the 1850s and definitely in the area where the Knickerbockers were located.

drcy, Thank you for recognizing that there are resemblances. While I know that doesn't change your ultimate conclusion, at least you can see that much.

sphere and ash, I respect very much your experience in photography, and I wish you the best in your house sale and many glorious years in your new home. I regret that bets are being discussed with regard to my photographs, as I know that, especially when bet money is on the table, either side can find someone to justify their conclusion, and of course, the other side will not accept it. I worked for a time in a law office, and we had two stacks of solicitations from experts literally up to my knee. One stack was from people who were inclined more favorably to defendants, the other to plaintiffs. I'd like to think that they were testifying honestly, and not just leaning towards who paid them. I also remember seeing a documentary about a photo alleged to be of Amelia Earnhart after her disappearance. They had a parade of experts, including facial-match professionals and former FBI agants, all bragging about their experience in the field and swearing on their reputation that the person pictured was Earnhart. Shortly after the show aired, someone discovered a copy of the exact same picture in a travel pamphlet published before her disappearance and in a place that was confirmed she wasn't present at the time. So as 100% certain as these experts were with their impeccable resumes, they were dead wrong.

I also point to the earlier thread on this forum regarding the 1847 daguerreotype. I respect greatly Mark F.'s knowledge of baseball history and have learned a lot reading things he's written. In that thread, he turned to a professional facial-recognition expert, and the dag owner (C.S.) did as well. Both of these experts, whose credentials were not questioned by anyone, came up with diametrically opposed opinions on the identifications in that photo. Do you think that if there had been side bets anyone would have been satisfied with the result to have paid?

I also point to the experts here who claimed that there's no way on the face of this Earth that the stereoview can be from before the 1870s. One thing about which I'm very confident is that I've proven that it could most definitely have been done in the 1850s. Even you said that the technology existed in 1851. I think someone needs to see it and hold it in person to get a better grasp of its color, thickness, etc. But while I don't wish to question the knowledge or skill of anyone on this board, I tend to discount a conclusion that is based on being so incorrect on a basic thing.

I posted on this board with the full expectation that I would face a ton of skepticism and criticism. I certainly don't mean that in a bad way. My reputation is important to me too, and I don't want to look like a jackass going around saying a photo is something it's not. I am not ignoring a single thing that's been written, and in fact listened to the kerchief clue and found it enormously helpful in providing further proof of my IDs (although I know that wasn't the poster's intention). I am quite certain that I will never convince everybody, just as I am certain that both sides can find experts who will come to opposite conclusions. So if you want to give me specific reasons why you think the stereoview can't be from the 1850s, or you want to post comparisons of specific unique features that are glaring non-matches, I welcome you to do so. I don't think, "I've been doing this for 20 years and it just doesn't look right to me," is convincing. But as I have demonstrated, my mind is open....

sphere and ash, I didn't notice your comment about the 1862 salt print until after I posted. I actually got that info from Mark F. I post below a snippet from the report made regarding the 1847 daguerreotype. As you can see, it points out that it's a composite, and apparently another composite was contemplated at some point as Alexander Cartwright wanted to send in a CDV to be included. One interesting thing is that I'm not sure that the date of the salt print has ever been confirmed. I know that it says "December, 1862" on the back, but I don't know whether that date is verified or written by Avery at some later time.

c'mon man

One's a salt print and the other photo shows men who all used salt.

This is hysterical! I get criticized by a select few people here saying that I'm stubborn and not listening. Then when I see something constructive and listen to it and take action on it, I'm criticized for that. So unless you have something very specific that you can point out in a side-by-side comparison (as with the kerchief above), I can assure you that "I've been doing this for 20 years and you're wrong" simply doesn't cut it.

Here are a few specific issues I have. These may have been addressed before so apologies if this is the case.

In the pair on the left, I can honestly say that to my eye these two men do not resemble each other (and it seems to me the person on the left is older than the person on the right).

However, in the three pairs stacked on top of each other, clearly the people on the right are older than the people on the left.

(Sorry about the way the photos loaded, I can't figure out how to make the pair on the left line up with the top of the three other pairs.)

Thanks, Michael! I appreciate that you took the time to do that (and on my screen, I see four comparisons that are stacked on top of each other). As for the ages, they are supposed to be older on the right. The comparison photos used are from later in these men's lives. I believe you're referring to the De Bost comparison as the one you don't see the resemblance. Originally I thought that gentleman in my stereoview was wearing glasses. He is not. His eyes are almost completely shut. But if you blow up that comparison shot and look very closely at each feature (including following the hairline), you'll see that it's the same person.

Okay, I guess I still see glasses and he still looks older to me. But that's just my take.

So, to be clear, the dating of the stereoview is very important because for these people to be younger than the others, it would have to be taken before the composite of 1862. And, not saying this to be negative, it would have to be one of the earliest stereoviews known or else a stereoview made from an earlier photo. Because to me you need at least a five year difference to get from the left to the right for these guys, and they would all have had to age badly (or, to be nice, let's say quickly) for even five years to explain the difference.

This is the image I find most troubling of the 6. The subject on the left also appears older to me than the subject on the right. There are however similarities with respect to a few facial features that line up well (shape of nose, where the brow meets the nose, the lines from nose to mouth, the highlight to the left of his nose just above that line, and possibly the oddly shaped receeding hairline). However, the overall dimensions of the skull don't quite line up to me as the subject on the left appears to have a slightly wider and shorter skull whereas his purported match on the right has a somewhat narrower and longer skull. But the level of detail in that 1862 photo is quite poor, particularly with respect to this guy. I don't see a reason to be anything other than agnostic on this particular pairing.

Yes, clearly these men are older, and not by just a few years. If these are indeed the same people, then these photos must have been taken at least 10 years apart, I would argue. If the salt print was definitively taken in 1862 and the stereoview image couldn't possibly have been taken prior to 1857 then this would be very problematic for me. However, there are a lot of 'ifs' in that statement. How solid is the 1862 date? How old could the stereoview possibly be? Is 1857 the floor? Is 1852 the floor? This is where I think the actual experts really add a lot of value to a conversation like this. Knowing the history of how these prints were made and when those techniques were invented and where, when, and how they were used. All of that knowledge is extremely useful here.

Where I roll my eyes though is when someone wants to extend that area of expertise in the history of photography to pretend that they are somehow better than someone else at determining whether or not two noses or ears have the same shape. Also, someone's track record with their claims of expertise matters as well. You can't say "there's no question whatsoever that this couldn't possibly have been made prior to the 1870s because those arches and mounting style. If you ask any expert on earth, every single one of them will say 1872-1875" or some such nonsense, only to have you proven wrong by multiple people posting images of their stereoviews dated a decade before that, and then to have a museum curator assign a date range to it that places it potentially upwards of 2 decades prior to that.

Thank you for being honest about there at least being a resemblance. This is primarily what has been driving me insane about this thread. I also completely agree with everything else you've said above. Resemblance alone simply isn't enough to warrant "authentication" of a photo as being of a certain person or group. As you state, this is one of the reasons why provenance matters. This is also where the guidance of experts is quite helpful. An expert can eliminate a match without even looking at the face of the subject in the photo simply because of other elements about the photo itself not lining up with the timeline of the person in question. They can also increase the likelihood of a match by providing details that correspond well to the subject in question.

I think the problem is that we cannot date the stereoview. We can come up with theoretical possibilities but we can't date it.

So we are basically left with a situation where the defense calls expert witnesses that agree with their side and the prosecution calls expert witnesses that agree with their side. That doesn't mean these people are not experts, it means experts can have differences of opinion.

My problem is that even with the earliest possible dating of the stereoview as 1857 (I am disregarding the idea that it is a stereoview of a photo) some men seem to have hardly aged, some seem to have aged 10-20 years, and one looks to me like he got younger...but no one seems to have aged five years.

Michael, believe me the glasses issue drove me nuts. Which is why I thought originally that he was William R. Wheaton. But after sharpening it and blowing it up, it definitely isn't glasses. I do agree that the stereoview should be older than the salt print (unless it's somehow shown that the stereoview is from an earlier negative or the date written on the back of the salt print turns out to be incorrect). But in no way would it make it one of the oldest stereoviews. I've posted some early ones here, and there is no shortage of available images on the Net. Using your five-year period, stereoviews were already being sold in New York by 1857. One final note: The Curry comparison is made with a photo of him later than the 1862 salt print, while the De Bost comparison is made using the 1859 team photo. I posted earlier De Bost's 1859 and 1862 pictures, and he looks nothing alike, and in fact, looks older in 1859 than in 1862.

Snowman, I believe I've presented WAY more than enough evidence that this stereoview can be from the 1850s. But here's what I find interesting. I don't want anyone to interpret this as my backing away from my identifications, as I most emphatically am not. But there were definitely IDs that were more difficult for me to make than others, where I had to blow up the pictures to determine what was a shadow and what was a wrinkle. I understand completely those who say that some of the comparisons look stronger than others. So let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you think Doc Adams is a very good match. OK, maybe it's Doc Adams and his Knickerbocker teammates. Or maybe it's a reunion of Doc Adams and his medical school buddies. But then let's say that you also think Duncan Curry is a very good match. As the mathematicians pointed out here earlier, that would increase the odds of this photograph containing Knickerbockers. Again, this is not a reflection of my opinion, but you don't have to see all six to say that there is a chance for this to be a Knickerbocker stereoview.

I mentioned before that I don't want to derail this thread into a side discussion about prop bets, and I'd like to adhere to that, so this will be my last comment regarding any wagers people might like to place with me.

To be clear, I am not a mark. I do not place sucker bets. You aren't going to get me to agree to some 50/50 even money wager where I put up $10k and you put up $10k and I win only if expert X gives this photo a certificate of authenticity so that it can be sold at auction, but I lose if he does not. That would be a sucker's bet. I am completely ignorant about 19th-century photography and about how authentication of such things would even work. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the default position for an expert to take on something like this would be that of agnosticism with regard to the subject in question. It is one thing for even an expert to say, "wow, that sure looks like it might be George Wright and I believe it probably is him", but it's something else entirely for them to say, "yes, that is George Wright. Here is your certificate of authenticity." However, there are any number of ways that an expert could clearly demonstrate that the photo is in fact NOT George Wright (e.g., the dating of the photo is off by 30+ years, the eyes are a different color, the person in question has already been positively identified as a member of Congress, the photo was taken in Botswana while Wright lived in Boston, etc.). If you wish to place a wager with me where the only way I can win is if Steve gets handed a certificate of authenticity but you win in all other outcomes, then you're going to have to lay some serious odds in order for me to accept your bet or change the terms. Perhaps that means we won't be able to come to an agreement on the terms of a wager, perhaps we will. I just know that I firmly believe this photograph to be of George Wright and most people here do not. If you'd like to place a bet with me, send me a PM and we can discuss the terms, but let's keep it out of this thread going forward, please. But I assure you, I don't place sucker's bets, so if you're just looking to "catch" me throwing away free money, you're probably wasting your time.

I’ve been following this thread since it began, and even posted a couple of times along the way…not opinions as to authenticity of the image or the alleged identifications of the subjects…but to add some dates and context in furtherance of the discussion. Context being the issue for me when things like a photo authentication are in question. The who’s, what’s, where’s, when’s, and why’s of the image have to be painstakingly examined when there is so much disagreement over the identities of the subjects. If the supporting elements of the image back up the primary subject matter, a stronger case could be made for such images (and, I’m speaking generally about all disputed imagery).

As this is the angle that I’ve been thinking of and focused on, I was moved to review the backgrounds on two tintype photos of 'Billy the Kid' that made BIG news some years back. I was interested to see how they were evaluated, investigated, researched, and ultimately accepted as authentic images of that legendary figure.

In going thru a number of articles pertaining to these images, it was clear that complete consensus was not going to be reached (and, for the record, it still hasn’t been). However, the owners of these images felt so strongly about them that they spent years pursuing the opinions of numerous expert researchers. They had geographic analysis done on the scenes and settings of the images, and had scientific/forensic facial recognition tests conducted by licensed professionals in that field. These evaluative procedures ultimately led those that mattered…auction houses…to accept them as authentic.

The definition I’m using for “authentic” in the case of these ‘Billy the Kid’ images is that they could be written up in an auction catalog with descriptions that cited expert analysis, AND the fact that they sold for millions of dollars. Those individuals that needed to be satisfied by the research obviously were and, lets be honest, that’s exactly who any of us with such an image would want to satisfy.

This ‘expertly researched/auction angle’ was raised in a previous post, and I think…in many ways unfortunately so…is the best and most legitimate gauge for authenticity and acceptance of the purported KBBC image (or any such disputed/debated sports image). If the owners, presidents, pickers, and buyers for the innumerable sports auction houses leaned towards this image as being authentic (and we ALL know they’re aware of it), we’d know about it by now. The OP would likely be shouting it out loudly (as I would be, too) in validation of his assertions, OR it would quietly go away only to be formally and professionally researched like the ‘Billy the Kid’ images prior to being auctioned for a boatload of money.

I don’t know that at this point the questions being asked about the image are even the most important or most obvious ones. My suspicion at this point is that the image may be radioactive and there would have to be a HUGE, laborious, and lengthily process to try and hit re-set in making the case for authenticity. That said, if the OP feels the same way about his image as the owners of those ‘Billy the Kid’ images felt about theirs, it seems to me there is a way to pursue validation. And, if it were my image, I would try and do just that. In my humble opinion, an authentic image of the 6 Knicks alleged to be in the photo would be the baseball equivalent of those ‘Billy the Kid’ images to historians and collectors of the West.

In reading those articles on the ‘Kid’ tintypes it seems as though this sort of pursuit could be very long and costly and may still not yield the desired answers when all is said and done. However, if one is convinced and serious about such an image, I cannot see why they wouldn’t pursue every scholarly avenue available.

Remember, at the end of the day its those registered bidders you need to satisfy. IF NOT, then we should find contentment with what we have and enjoy it for what it is or what we believe it to be.

That’s just my 2 (well, maybe 4) cents. And, as I posted early on, I am one who would want an image like the alleged KBBC example to be legit. As someone who is always searching for that hidden treasure it would be motivation to keep on looking.

Regards and happy hunting to all,

Jonathan
www.dugouttreasures.com

Snowman, while I want to stay out of any wagers here, I just see it as extremely difficult to nearly impossible to find an end point where both sides of the bet will be satisfied with the findings.

Jonathan, I appreciate your following the thread. I mentioned the Amelia Earhart photo/documentary above, but I also watched the one on the alleged Billy the Kid tintype. The experts the show had did not convince me. I can't say for sure that the croquet tintype depicts Billy or any of the other people purported to be in it, mainly because the people are so tiny and rather blurry when blown up. To me, the person claimed to be Billy looks more like Alfalfa from "The Little Rascals." It's my understanding that most Old West historians haven't bought into it, and it hasn't been sold at any auction.

Please tell me those are supposed to resemble Nick Cage and Matthew McConaughey. If not I REALLY need to stay out of photo ID threads lol.

...yes, to your point, I believe a sale was privately brokered for 5 million...clearly someone(s) was more than convinced of its authenticity per the exhaustive, professional research process. Another image, that underwent the same sort of process/scrutiny, did auction for 2.3 million in 2011. But, as you said, you yourself were not convinced by the years worth of research and evidence laid out for the former image.

My point is that there is a process by which an individual...any individual who believes in what they have...can have said item assessed and evaluated in ways that others can more or less understand and accept. Otherwise, one just ends up with a contentious photo that I hope they themselves can enjoy.

Again, I hope that someday, somehow you get the answers you want on your image. When you do, I'm hoping you will let us know.

The obvious start would to have the photograph itself dated.

Unless someone can recognize a 160+ year-old building from the few bricks that can be seen, or Doc Adams comes down from Heaven to advocate for his Hall of Fame candidacy, I doubt I will be able to provide rock-solid provenance. I definitely agree that dating it is important, which is why I've sent the images to places with notable stereoview collections, and as I said above, the first response came back "mid-nineteenth century." When I look that up the consensus seems to be that "mid-nineteenth century" means 1830-1860, but as we're talking about a stereoview most likely 1850s. But yes, I will keep pursuing all avenues and keep everyone posted.

I meant the physical photograph, not sending in images of it.

drcy, agreed about having someone see it in person! And now, I'd like to take a moment to say something about you, if I may. Before I even had this stereoview, I would go to various photography websites to help date other photos that I have. When I got the stereoview, I went to those same sites, and they were all in 100% consensus regarding the oldest stereoviews' colors and corners. So when you and others said that it had to be from the 1870s, I went back to those sites to make sure that I hadn't misread anything. To my great surprise, I found out that one of those sites was yours (which I posted above)! I guess the other times I had visited the site I never noticed the name. But I want you and everyone else to know that I absolutely respect your knowledge of photographic history, and anybody looking to date an old photo should definitely visit the Cycleback website.

Please post the dimensions of the stereoview

drcy, I don't have it with me where I can measure it right now, but as I recall it's approximately 3.5" x 7".

Have any experts dated the purported George Wright cabinet photo yet? When I was looking for comparable cabinets, it looked to me like it was most likely made in the 1890s, just going by other similar photos/mounts with known dates. But I have no idea. Is it an albumen print? Anyone have any insights on its age?

Also, could you post an image of the back of the purported George Wright cabinet?

Your dating of the cabinet card is accurate. Black with gold letters/edges come from a particular time.

LOL

Scott, You may need new glasses. You got Nicholas Cage right, as someone had already posted a photo of Cage next to that 19th century photo on the left in that earlier post. I thought the other photo is a dead ringer for Noah Wylie though. I also remember seeing a 19th century, or extremely early 20th century, photo that was a dead ringer for Eddie Murphy at one time as well. There are doppelgangers out there throughout history for quite a few people it seems. And if I'm wrong about Wylie, then I need new glasses. :D

Here's an anonymous cabinet that looks like it was dated 'Nov. 19 of 89' or maybe '1890'? and a Beaneaters Cabinet of General Stafford that would date to 1898-99.

I was hoping to match the Anon photo that I bought to an Allen and Ginter type subject, but never found anything on it.

I would guess late 80's early 90's on your cabinet.

Snowman, here's a pic of the back of the Wright photo. An interesting thing is that it measures 2 1/2" x 4 1/8", so it has a cabinet design in a CDV size. I haven't had anybody date it, and no one else has even seen it other than this board. I had no intention of posting it, but I thought it would be neat when Michael mentioned his collecting interests above. It's not black, but a dark brown. Also, it looks like the very outer edges are gold. I had originally thought 1880s, so that's in the range of what others are saying.

RCMcKenzie, cool pix! The front of that Chickering is very similar to mine, but I don't know the size of yours.

Also, here's the results of the facial-match program. I was able to use Betaface on this one as there are quite a few examples of Wright photos. It comes out blurry here, but it shows a match as the same person ranging from 81%-90%, and that includes pictures of Wright at various ages.

The black mount Chickering that I have is about the size of an n173. Here's a cabinet from a different studio from 1888 with a somewhat similar mount. As for the Wright id, I don't know. I agree it sort of looks like him, and Chickering Studio was in Boston, but I am not very good at facial recognition. My experience with trying to id old photos is that a lot of people look alike.

RCMcKenzie, along those lines and just for fun, I ran your Chickering cabinet through a reverse image search. This is one of the possibilities that popped up. Everyone needs to note that in no way am I saying this is Cap Anson. I'm not going down that rabbit hole, and I have no idea if he had any connection to Boston. But there are noticeable similarities. Again, not at all saying it's him and it came up not through my IDing it but through the reverse search. Just a fun thing to throw out there.

Chinese bots have taken over this site, right???

No. Russian.

That's awesome, Steve. The ears match don't they?

Yes, among other things. To me, the eyes are very close. Looking at this and other pictures of him, notice how his left eye stretches out, and the eyebrow extends well past his nose. You don't see that in a lot of people. The same hairstyle can also be seen in other photos of him. I'm sure you can find some connection to Boston; I'm sure he must have played a game there at some point. Chickering certainly would have been a candidate to take a picture of someone of his status there. But again, I am not going down that rabbit hole and I'm not saying for sure that it's him. That's something you can investigate further if you want. Maybe you can start another thread on here and enjoy the experience that I've had. I'm kidding about that last part. It's actually been fun, because talking about baseball is always fun.

Cap Anson? Seriously?

:eek:

No, the ears do not match. Nor do the eyebrows. This is definitely not the same person.

Just gonna say it one more time. In no way did I say that this is Cap Anson. I didn't see a resemblance to anyone when I first looked at it, but the reverse image search spit out this photo of Anson. After looking at this and other pictures of him, I can't say that it's absolutely ridiculous. So I posted it for RCMcKenzie to investigate further if he wants, but again, I am not making any claims. I have enough on my hands with Knickerbockers and Wrights.

It looks like the purported Wright cabinet photo most likely dates to the early to mid 1890s based on drcy's feedback and the artist's other similar work that I've been able to find online. George Wright was born in 1847, so he would have probably been in his early to mid 40s when this photo was taken. Obviously that doesn't prove that it's him, but if you were to ask me how old I thought the subject in the photo was without any other information, I would have guessed mid 40s.

One has detached ear lobes the other one attached.