[SteveS]

You guys were posting fast and furious while I was writing my last post. To smokelessjoe, whatever they told me I related here. No specifics about the clothing or the mount (although I did discuss several times in here what I found in my research).

drcy, there are no markings to say where it's from. That's part of the mystery.

To everyone with the facial matches, I was VERY clear many times that I don't put much faith in them. I mentioned it as an aside, and posted results only when someone asked. I don't know how it affects things using whatever resolution they upload into here, and using the comparison photos rather than the originals. I posted the one I did quickly with Avery. But let me stress again what I've said many times and what you all seem to agree. The facial-match programs are fun, but don't prove anything either way.

I sat here while several of the "experts" on this board came very close to calling me an idiot and insisted in the most snooty way possible that there is no way in this universe that the stereoview can be from the 1870s. You may not agree with the experts I asked (probably because they disagree with you), but I found them in a completely neutral way and trust that they are indeed experts about stereoviews specifically. And so far, they have been unanimous in their opinion that my stereoview is from the 1850s. It's perfectly understandable that reasonable people can disagree as to the resemblance of faces. But I have put them side by side and pointed to specific features that are unique and can be seen in both examples (no matter which way they're facing). So you tell me how Doc Adams' open mouth and droopy eyes aren't compelling. Or Duncan Curry's severely baggy eyes and open mouth. Etc. Or tell me specific things that don't match. Because trying to say that putting a hand on a shoulder makes someone a father, I need to go on Maury Povich's show for a battery of paternity tests.