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.
|