The Knickerbockers -- Now In Living Color!
 

Hi all. Many of you will remember the stereoview photograph I posted before that I believe depicts members of the Knickerbockers, baseball's founding team. After reading the comments on the previous posts and taking into account the suggestions of others, I ran the photo through a colorizing program. That helped distinguish between shadows and actual facial characteristics, and made it much easier to pin down the identifications. I know from previous experience there will be skeptics, but I think the evidence presented here is pretty compelling. The players are Edward Anthony, Doc Adams, William R. Wheaton, Fraley C. Niebuhr, Charles S. DeBost, and Harry Wright.

Here are half-and-half comparisons, using the left side from one photo and the right from the other. Again, it seems pretty compelling that they came from the same people.

With that kind of compelling evidence there should be several of the major auction houses contacting you soon. I hope to someday see this piece on the cover of a major catalog.

Wow and/or
Drop the Mic

This again?

You’ve got a million reasons to convince yourself this is the Knickerbockers but literally no provable who, when, where, what or why. Confirmation bias at its finest.

The date of the stereoview has been confirmed by the Department of Photographs at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC to be from the late-1850s-to-early-1860s. As for the identifications, I will let the photos speak for themselves, for those who actually take the time to look.

I can see this on pawn stars next year.

"Maybe it is the knickerbockers. But you heard what my expert said. The faces don't match up, the bone structure comparison is all wacky. And I don't sell items that dont have a 100% guarantee. Period."

This is the third thread on the same topic
 

Why are there three separate threads about the same subject?

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

The second thread :
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=307403


And add me to list of those who are not seeing much (if any) of the 'proof' needed to convince me of the identities of those in the photo(s).

Doug

Which image is Harry Wright?

The last two in the first post (and the last one in the second).

Actually, the guy seated at right looks a lot like one of the Smith Brothers. According to the box his name was Mark 🤣. The time period fits.

I decided to do a separate thread on this subject as the previous longer one devolved into a series of smart-aleck comments. I saw no need to bury the color and half-and-half comparisons at the end of that thread and revive it. I have provided the comparisons here. If you don't think it's them, go ahead and say why. Specific features that you think don't match. Can you do that for all six people? Can you say definitively that this is 100% not a photo of Knickerbockers? Smart-aleck comments may be funny, but don't go anywhere in proving a point. I appreciate those who may have a positive opinion about the photo, but don't feel the need to jump into a fray with smart-alecks.

Ok, so now I'm supposed to prove that they aren't the same people, and by not doing so, I justify you thinking they are the same people?

I don't even understand where you got the two different photos from that you are comparing for each person, you don't mention that detail in this thread, and I haven't bothered reading the entirety of the other two threads.

I'm not being a 'smart aleck', I'm attempting to have a logical conversation, but you are so fixated on your item being what you want it to be that you aren't willing to have that logical conversation.

Fine, contrary to the other 'smart alecks', I will let you have your Knickerbockers stereoview, enjoy it, show it to your friends, frame it, hang it on your wall, post pictures of it on the interwebs, and when you decide that you want to sell it, well, that's when the opinions of the 'smart alecks' will again enter into the equation.

I suggest that you stop trying to convince us by starting new threads hoping that all the 'smart alecks' who posted in the original threads will conveniently not notice.

Doug

PS - they would not be 'buried at the end of the thread' to anybody logged it to the site the most recent post is the post you see first.

Here is a picture of Harry Wright (with his dad) from 1863. Now which of these is Harry Wright?

You did not make a smart alecky comment. You asked a legitimate question, and I answered it. While adding photos to the older post would bring it back to the top, the post had a lot of comments, and, as you mention, it would be cumbersome for people to scroll through everything to find them. It is unfair to say that I am trying to hide something, when in fact I am doing just the opposite. I am trying to bring it into the open, not bury it. Also, it would be idiotic of me to think that anyone would have forgotten the previous post, which again, had a ton of views and comments.

You also ask a legitimate question about the comparison photos I used. I am posting them here. I more than welcome legitimate comments, opinions, and even skeptism. That is exactly why I posted it here. Quips about "Pawn Stars" and Smith Brothers may be funny, but add nothing to the discussion.

I also resent deeply the insinuation that I am trying to pass off something that isn't what I propose it to be. I really do legitimately, truly, and honestly believe that this stereoview depicts the Knickerbockers. While I may be relatively new to this board, I am not new to the hobby. I have been collecting for more than 50 years. When I was 14, I was the youngest person listed in the 1979 edition of "The Sports Collector's Bible" as one of the "World's Leading Hobbyists." I have done a lot of research and listened to the concerns raised in the previous thread, and done my best to address them, including getting confirmation of the photo's age from an extremely reliable source. I have been very open about the fact that the stereoview has an unknown provenance, and have not stated anything about it that isn't true. So without rock-solid provenance, the best I can do is present the pictures in the best way possible to show the resemblances (and as has been shown many times in this forum, even items with supposed rock-solid provenance have been debunked). When I look at them on my phone and laptop, they are clear. But I understand that they may not be that way on others' devices. But again, I absolutely believe that there is enough there to show remarkable resemblances among six men in 160 year-old photos. Whether that's enough to prove with 100% certainty that it is those men is up to the viewer. If someone believes with 100% certainty that it is not them, then it would be incumbent upon that person to say why. Let's say that I do decide to sell it. Besides the lack of provenance, what exactly would you tell potential buyers to convince them not to make the purchase? That's the kind of constructive criticism for which I'm looking. As with most things in this hobby, there will most likely never be a 100% agreement either way.

These are the photos I used for Harry. From the 1859 Knickerbockers vs. Excelsiors photo, and the 1863 Byron Cricket Club photo. He was a member of the Knickerbockers from 1857-1862, from age 22-27.

I have edited this post to add the comparison picture of the one you posted of Harry to the one from my stereoview. I would ask you to look at the hair of each of them. Pretty much identical.

Leon, are we able to merge threads here? This is getting a bit ridiculous.

If you think it's ridiculous, go to another thread. If people want to view or comment on this one, they can. When they don't, it will drop off.
.

I’m sorry, these threads seem perfect for any professor looking to fill a one hour lecture on confirmation bias.

A very general observation seems to note such faint commonalities that they could also be the local DeMoine Bridge club. I do give you credit for the belief and the amount of effort it seems you have placed in this adventure. This is not demeaning you in any way, I just personally think this can never surpass “belief” and move to “fact” with the evidence provided.

I do appreciate the reasoning behind displaying it as what you believe to enjoy it. However if this is a economic effort to prove worth, I will wait to see the auction results to judge your success in making your case.

Just to make sure that you and I are talking about the same thing, are you saying that these two heads of hair look 'pretty much identical'?

There is zero chance that that is Harry Wright, not .1% chance—zero, unless he had major plastic surgery.

I am talking about the hairline. Follow that from ear to ear. The coloring will vary as the program relies on the lighting and type of the original photo. Here is the result of a program that overlays one image over another. It's a perfect fit. Also look at the half-and-half comparisons of Harry and the others above. That is a great way to see how well the features match.

Ok.

This is my last post on this thread.

I will not be reading any comments after I post this one.

Best regards,
Doug

Thank you, Doug! Even though we disagree, I appreciate that you looked and gave your input. For those who are still reading these posts, I am including a side-by-side comparison of Harry in my stereoview with a known photo of him from circa 1872 (approximately 15 years after mine). This will help compare the stance and body features. Again, the coloring is at the whim of the program and affected by factors in the black and white original. This can be seen in the two pictures I posted above of Edward Anthony. In one, his hair is a light-brown. In the other, it's almost jet black. Yet both are verified photos of him and in museums.

At the risk of opening a whole new can of worms, I also wanted to share this tintype which I believe depicts Doc Adams and Charles S. DeBost. I feel that it also helps to confirm those IDs in the stereoview. Here are side-by-side and half-and-half comparisons to the known photos of each man, as well as comparisons to the stereoview. Again, the coloring is at the whim of the program, and I understand that the images may not appear with the same clarity depending on the device. As always, you be the judge -- no person is more qualified than anyone else to render an opinion as to whether two people look alike. One other very interesting thing: The last picture shows the back of the tintype. It is part of a page from an old periodical of the time called "Anthony's Photographic Bulletin." It was published by Edward Anthony. The very same Edward Anthony who was a Knickerbocker and whom I believe is pictured in the stereoview above.

I'll have whatever he's smoking.

Thanks for making my eyes hurt and giving me a headache.

Steve I went through your pictures and I see many more differences than similarities. The side by side points out clear differences in eye and nose shapes. And unfortunately the differences I believe prove the negative. That this is not a stereoview if the Knickerbockers.

Edward Anthony was not, to my knowledge, a member of the Knickerbocker Club. Two of his brothers played in 1846.

Jonathan, thank you for looking and providing your opinion! Paul, from what I've read, Edward was affiliated with the Knickerbockers, but there is some question as to whether he played in any games where there are box scores. As you mention, his brothers Henry and David were listed in box scores, and Henry was a long-time member of the team. He was also a partner with Edward in one of the founding and largest photography businesses in America. They started in stereoviews right around the period when this one was taken.

Feel free to disregard my opinion, as I have zero experience in the field of facial comparison. But the only similarities I see in the side-by-side photos are that they are skinny white guys from 1800s with semi-similar hairstyles. Noses, ears, chin, cheekbones, eye & surrounding orbital features all appear different to me in every photo to the point that I can't convince myself there is a realistic chance that ANY are of the same person.

I'm open to being wrong, but at this stage I don't see enough evidence to become a believer.

I have never seen anything that mentioned Edward affiliating with the club. If you can share the source, it would be helpful. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Edward was a member, it does raise the question of why this isn’t on an E&HT Anthony mount.

I'm just reading through this thread for the first time, but I agree with Jonathan. I just don't see the similarities, other than them being bearded white guys from the mid-19th century.

Paul, here is one reference I found after a quick look.
Also, I too wondered about the Anthony label. This is pure speculation, but perhaps it was meant to be a personal memento rather than a commercial enterprise. It doesn't have any evidence of ever having any label at all, so that leads me to think that regardless of who produced it it was not made to be reproduced widely.

Tiger and trd, thank you for looking!

“May also have been involved” is a stretch—both for your argument and the evidence. I’ve read the Knick club books and never found any mention of Edward. I don’t know Peter personally, but I would think that his reference of Edward is along the lines of, “he had two brothers in the club, so maybe.”

I just can’t imagine the Anthonys stocking branded mounts for commercial use and plain mounts for personal use. Your dating of the mount places it at the peak of Henry Anthony’s powers as a stereoscopic photographer.

When he mentions the father, he says specifically that there is no evidence to back up the claim of a Knickerbocker affiliation. He did not do the same with Edward, so there must have been something that backs up a "may" claim. I wish he would have stated more, but "may" is not an exclusion.

The Anthonys started the stereoview part of their business in 1857. Harry Wright was a Knick from 1857-1862. If I am correct on the Harry ID, perhaps this was a pic to commemorate the new kid's joining the team, and also used as an early attempt by the Anthonys to perfect their stereoview technique and/or train their staff how to do it. Again, that is pure speculation. I wish there were markings on the card or something distinguishing in the background to say exactly where and by whom this was taken. However, as noted above, the tintype I posted depicts men with strong resemblances (at least in my opinion) to the known photos of Adams and Debost, as well as to the corresponding men in my stereoview. That tintype does indeed have a backing from "Anthony's Photographic Bulletin."

I just erased my reply, having misread yours. The identification of Edward as a Knick just doesn’t seem supportable to me. You might try contacting Peter.

No, I didn't identify him as Henry. I mentioned Harry Wright, referring to the gentleman in the upper left of my stereoview. As for the mount, with just a very quick search i found a couple of stereoviews that are unlabeled, but attributed to Anthony.

By the way, as a Knickerbocker aficionado, if you haven't read the book I posted above I think you'd really find it interesting