Quote:
Originally Posted by doug.goodman
Ok, so now I'm supposed to prove that they aren't the same people, and by not doing so, I justify you thinking they are the same people?
I don't even understand where you got the two different photos from that you are comparing for each person, you don't mention that detail in this thread, and I haven't bothered reading the entirety of the other two threads.
I'm not being a 'smart aleck', I'm attempting to have a logical conversation, but you are so fixated on your item being what you want it to be that you aren't willing to have that logical conversation.
Fine, contrary to the other 'smart alecks', I will let you have your Knickerbockers stereoview, enjoy it, show it to your friends, frame it, hang it on your wall, post pictures of it on the interwebs, and when you decide that you want to sell it, well, that's when the opinions of the 'smart alecks' will again enter into the equation.
I suggest that you stop trying to convince us by starting new threads hoping that all the 'smart alecks' who posted in the original threads will conveniently not notice.
Doug
|
You did not make a smart alecky comment. You asked a legitimate question, and I answered it. While adding photos to the older post would bring it back to the top, the post had a lot of comments, and, as you mention, it would be cumbersome for people to scroll through everything to find them. It is unfair to say that I am trying to hide something, when in fact I am doing just the opposite. I am trying to bring it into the open, not bury it. Also, it would be idiotic of me to think that anyone would have forgotten the previous post, which again, had a ton of views and comments.
You also ask a legitimate question about the comparison photos I used. I am posting them here. I more than welcome legitimate comments, opinions, and even skeptism. That is exactly why I posted it here. Quips about "Pawn Stars" and Smith Brothers may be funny, but add nothing to the discussion.
I also resent deeply the insinuation that I am trying to pass off something that isn't what I propose it to be. I really do legitimately, truly, and honestly believe that this stereoview depicts the Knickerbockers. While I may be relatively new to this board, I am not new to the hobby. I have been collecting for more than 50 years. When I was 14, I was the youngest person listed in the 1979 edition of "The Sports Collector's Bible" as one of the "World's Leading Hobbyists." I have done a lot of research and listened to the concerns raised in the previous thread, and done my best to address them, including getting confirmation of the photo's age from an extremely reliable source. I have been very open about the fact that the stereoview has an unknown provenance, and have not stated anything about it that isn't true. So without rock-solid provenance, the best I can do is present the pictures in the best way possible to show the resemblances (and as has been shown many times in this forum, even items with supposed rock-solid provenance have been debunked). When I look at them on my phone and laptop, they are clear. But I understand that they may not be that way on others' devices. But again, I absolutely believe that there is enough there to show remarkable resemblances among six men in 160 year-old photos. Whether that's enough to prove with 100% certainty that it is those men is up to the viewer. If someone believes with 100% certainty that it is not them, then it would be incumbent upon that person to say why. Let's say that I do decide to sell it. Besides the lack of provenance, what exactly would you tell potential buyers to convince them not to make the purchase? That's the kind of constructive criticism for which I'm looking. As with most things in this hobby, there will most likely never be a 100% agreement either way.