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?

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.