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.
|