Michael, believe me the glasses issue drove me nuts. Which is why I thought originally that he was William R. Wheaton. But after sharpening it and blowing it up, it definitely isn't glasses. I do agree that the stereoview should be older than the salt print (unless it's somehow shown that the stereoview is from an earlier negative or the date written on the back of the salt print turns out to be incorrect). But in no way would it make it one of the oldest stereoviews. I've posted some early ones here, and there is no shortage of available images on the Net. Using your five-year period, stereoviews were already being sold in New York by 1857. One final note: The Curry comparison is made with a photo of him later than the 1862 salt print, while the De Bost comparison is made using the 1859 team photo. I posted earlier De Bost's 1859 and 1862 pictures, and he looks nothing alike, and in fact, looks older in 1859 than in 1862.
Snowman, I believe I've presented WAY more than enough evidence that this stereoview can be from the 1850s. But here's what I find interesting. I don't want anyone to interpret this as my backing away from my identifications, as I most emphatically am not. But there were definitely IDs that were more difficult for me to make than others, where I had to blow up the pictures to determine what was a shadow and what was a wrinkle. I understand completely those who say that some of the comparisons look stronger than others. So let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you think Doc Adams is a very good match. OK, maybe it's Doc Adams and his Knickerbocker teammates. Or maybe it's a reunion of Doc Adams and his medical school buddies. But then let's say that you also think Duncan Curry is a very good match. As the mathematicians pointed out here earlier, that would increase the odds of this photograph containing Knickerbockers. Again, this is not a reflection of my opinion, but you don't have to see all six to say that there is a chance for this to be a Knickerbocker stereoview.
|