Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveS
I think Snowman said it above, but it echoes my feelings that I can totally understand how someone can say that it's difficult to believe that a Knickerbocker photo could just be purchased on eBay without any provenance or history. But it's quite another, in my opinion, for someone to say that he sees absolutely no resemblances at all and not one of these people looks remotely like the comparison photo. I seriously question their motives.
|
Exactly. I perfectly understand people wanting to see more evidence for the Knickerbockers photo. There's a lot of uncertainty surrounding it and questions regarding the ages of the players in question and when the photo was likely taken. But if someone wants to sit here and pretend like there aren't at least some strong resemblances among the subjects then they're clearly not here for an honest conversation and everything they have to say on the matter should be dismissed entirely.
I also find it interesting that people are still referencing prewarcards' posts and deferring to him as the "expert" here in when this photo was taken despite the fact that he has been proven wrong multiple times already in this very thread.
Note, he stated the following:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by prewarcards
I have been doing photography for a very long time and could write paragraphs about stereoview photography and it's evolution but suffice it to say you have a c. 1870 stereoview on your hands with it actually in my opinion most likely dating to about 1872-75.
...
Your photo is 100% more recent than the 1862 known Knickerbocker photograph. The clothing and facial hair combined with photography method and presentation place this to c. 1870-1875.
...
The oval top cut on your stereoview was not in vogue until the late 1860's and 1870's. Do a quick Google search for Civil War dated stereoviews or other images concretely dated to have been MADE in the early-mid 1860's. All have square cuts. The ones that do not were done after the Civil War as commemorative issues which were popular throughout the 19th century."
|
I have no doubt that he is extremely knowledgeable about the history of photography in general and that he has handled countless photos from the 1800s. He seems to have a lot of knowledge about civil war photos as well. I'm confident that I could learn a lot from him. But his claims above that this photo couldn't possibly have been taken prior to the 1870s, let alone in the late 1850s based on the framing and arches used in the stereoview has been pretty clearly debunked in my opinion. Perhaps it was taken in the 1870s,and that it could still be demonstrated using some of the other characteristics he mentioned like the apparel worn by the subjects or the fact that it was outdoors or the technology used to develop the print. But he claims to have never seen one with arches like these prior to 1870 out of over the half a million that he's handled, yet somehow, 3 people in this very thread have posted images of theirs from the 1850s and 1860s with the very features he claims can't be found on photos from that time period. I'm not trying to throw him under the bus. We all learn something new every day, and I'm no stranger to discovering that something I had previously believed to be true simply wasn't. But I always adjust my views in the light of new evidence. I care deeply about what is and isn't true. I enjoy being proven wrong. It reminds me to always remain open minded and that learning/knowledge is a lifelong pursuit. Perhaps to the point of it being an obsession.
I'd be curious to hear from prewarcards now in how he responds to the evidence posted in this thread that appears to refute his claims about the arched framing of the photos and the corresponding dates assigned to them. Do you stick to your guns, claiming that those dates are all wrong, or do you make adjustments to your previous understanding? I'm not asking him to suddenly arrive at the conclusion that these are the Knickerbockers, but can we at least all agree now that the arches used in the stereoview do not preclude it from having been made prior to the 1870s?