Quote:
Originally Posted by drcy
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.
|
Thank you for being honest about there at least being a resemblance. This is primarily what has been driving me insane about this thread. I also completely agree with everything else you've said above. Resemblance alone simply isn't enough to warrant "authentication" of a photo as being of a certain person or group. As you state, this is one of the reasons why provenance matters. This is also where the guidance of experts is quite helpful. An expert can eliminate a match without even looking at the face of the subject in the photo simply because of other elements about the photo itself not lining up with the timeline of the person in question. They can also increase the likelihood of a match by providing details that correspond well to the subject in question.