Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[SteveS]

Hi everyone! Several months ago, I posted images from my stereoview photograph that I believe depicts members of the Knickerbocker baseball team. I acquired it on eBay; it was listed as just "Six Learned Gents," but I noticed certain resemblances immediately. I wanted to give you a quick update. I've studed it further and took into account the various opinions I've received. I finally realized that the image is reversed. Also, as it's a stereoview and there are two identical pictures on the card, I discovered that the picture I didn't use is clearer than the one I did. I also figured out how to use the photo editing tool on my phone to sharpen the pictures so they're much clearer and easier to compare. After doing all that, I found that I was wrong on three of the six original identifications. I'm pretty much 100% convinced that all of these IDs are now correct (Walter Avery, Doc Adams, Duncan Curry, Charles De Bost, Fraley Niebuhr, Charles Birney). To me, it seems irrefutable that this photo depicts the Knickerbockers. In any event, I hope you're all doing well, and I would appreciate any opinions or help you can provide. Thanks!

[mrreality68]

Very interesting picture and fantastic research

Thanks for sharing

[vthobby]

Amazing detective work. I'll now have to update my future Ebay searches with "Learned Gents" lol

Awesome Really!

Thanks for sharing!

Mike

[oldjudge]

Sterioviews basically began in 1860. That makes the image from 1860 or later. The person at top left looks young in the picture taken in 1860 or later. How could he have played for the Knickerbockers? I’m not drinking the Kool-Aid.

[SteveS]

mrreality68 and vtgmsc, thank you! oldjudge, from my research I found that stereoviews began to take hold around 1857. The earliest ones were white or cream-colored with squared corners, which fits the description of this one. Also, Henry Anthony, who played for the Knickerbockers, owned with his brother Edward one of the most prominent photo businesses in the country, and they were way ahead of the curve when it came to the latest photographic developments. It's also possible that a previously-taken photo was made into the stereoview by taking a picture of that picture or using the negative process of that era.

[prewarsports]

I couple of things I will point out. I have been doing photography for a very long time and could write paragraphs about stereoview photography and it's evolution but suffice it to say you have a c. 1870 stereoview on your hands with it actually in my opinion most likely dating to about 1872-75. The other thing that is not really supportive of the evidence is the age range of the men in the image, while individually some of the identifications look pretty good, some are a bit off from a cursory look. The fact that some of the men in the photo appear to be quite young (maybe 30 years old) while others appear to be much older (perhaps in their 60's) combined with the vintage of the photo would be problematic for your assessment as a Knickerbocker image when coupled with the early 1870's date. Just my two cents.

[SteveS]

prewarsports, thank you for your opinions, which are appreciated and definitely worth more than two cents. It's my understanding that stereoviews from the 1860s-1870s are on colored cards with rounded corners, and usually have the photographer's/distributor's information on them. The earlier ones are white or cream-colored with squared corners and no info. As for the ages of the men, after sharpening the image and looking at each one very closely in comparison with the known photos, every facial feature is a very close match. At first I thought that the man I identify as De Bost was much older and someone else wearing glasses. But a close look shows that he is not wearing glasses and appears to be older because his eyes are mostly shut and the blur of the stereoview makes it appear that he has bags under his eyes. For what it's worth, I ran them all through two different facial-match programs and all the results showed very high positive match rates of 84%-97%. As I say, I am not sure whether the photo is an earlier one that was used to make a stereoview. In any event, thanks again, and happy collecting!

[vthobby]

Steve,

I have no idea if your item is what you say it is but kudos for you man.

Love your passion and your rebuttals. No ill will amongst anyone but way to keep it clean and to do your research. Stick to your guns!

Love your research and quick responses! Logical and from something that is approx 150 years old. Who knows?

Thanks for sharing this. Really neat to research and think about!

Peace, Mike

[prewarsports]

There is no set colors for years on stereoviews. Many of the earliest ones are on larger cabinet backs and have orange and yellow mounts, these are generally from the 1870's. The earlier ones are actually smaller and have rectangular photo portions, you can find those with valuable Civil War scenes etc. In reality, the Civil War is what really made these popular as they were a novelty until war-scenes became the cool thing to have around the house to show your friends. In general, stereoviews were not widely distributed or used until the 1870's and are rare before then with exception of mass-produced civil war images etc.

[SteveS]

Mike, thank you very much! I appreciate views both pro and con, and that's the reason I posted it here, as you guys are the best and most knowledgeable.
prewarsports, I think the wild card here is the Anthony Brothers. They began their stereoview business in 1857, and had deep ties to the Knickerbockers. I can totally see Edward Anthony, who had traveled to England in 1847 and learned photography from one of its inventors, making a photograph of this team as one of his first stereoviews. Also, I have seen numerous stereoviews that were verified to be from the 1850s and have a style identical to this one (including the photo shape). What I need to do eventually is have the original photo inspected by photo and facial-match experts. Even after that, I assume there will be people who agree or disagree. For me, after spending a lot of time trying to convince myself otherwise, I don't see any way that there can be six guys who look so incredibly like the comparison photos and not be them.

[prewarsports]

Best of luck in your endeaver

Look at the known 1862 photograph of the Knickerbockers, which I am very familiar with, the men are all relatively consistent in age and are all middle-aged men about 45-60 years old at the time.

It is going to be tough to explain why some of the Knickerbockers in your photo have people who look like they started shaving the previous week and some of them look like they could be the other one's grandfather.

The kid looking down, not sure who that is in your ID list, is clearly very young, perhaps 25 years old at the latest. Yet in the 1862 photograph which you use as a comparison (which is older than yours), he looks like he is 60 years old. That would eliminate him as a potential Knickerbocker immediately.

Your photo is 100% more recent than the 1862 known Knickerbocker photograph. The clothing and facial hair combined with photography method and presentation place this to c. 1870-1875, everyone in the 1862 photograph would be ten years older at least, but some have miraculously become 25-30 years old again.

A few of the other men in that photo are clearly very old, perhaps 60-70 years old. Comparing their birthdays and relative ages to one another and then seeing that those relative ages do not match well in this particular photo is an obstacle that will likely be impossible to explain without time travel.

I wish you no ill will and will gladly rescind everything I have said if it is proven incorrect, but I think with some objective thinking about the ages of the men in their totality and not individual facial analysis without context to the age of the image and the ages the men are supposed to be in that image, will be tough to explain.

Again, cool photo and interesting discussion and I wish you all the best in your continued research.

[SteveS]

prewarsports, while I disagree respectfully with your date on the stereoview, I totally understand your questions about the ages. I am also very familiar with the 1862 photo, which has been used for most of the comparisons here. Initially it frustrated me, as I couldn't reconcile my IDs with some of the men's sizes. However, I then discovered that the 1862 photo is an artist-enhanced composite. It's unclear if any of them were even in the same room together, but the photographer took separate pictures and assembled them using a cut-and-paste method, and then used a marking device to fill in the details that became obscured during that process and the enlargement. This is most evident in Charles De Bost. He looks like The Hulk in the 1862 photo, and makes Doc Adams look like a tiny ant. But in the 1859 picture, he is standing next to Doc and Doc is actually a bit taller. The man looking down, whom I ID as Fraley Niebuhr, was also a bit frustrating. My initial inclination was that he is Harry Wright, who joined the Knicks in 1857 at age 22. He was about 30 years younger than the other men, which would fit pretty well. He also does resemble Harry at that age, and I can't rule it out. But when I do the face-to-face comparisons, he matches up extremely well with Niebuhr (who was younger than the others by about seven years). Finally, regardless of the age of the stereoview, I suspect that the photo was taken earlier and the stereoview was made by taking a picture of it or using its negative. But once again, thank you for your contributions, which I definitely take into account, and I will continue to research it.

[Leon]

Here is one and I suspect the date is correct. I will try to get a few earlier ones out in the next day or so. I believe I have some from the 1860s....

[SteveS]

Very cool pic, Leon. Also, see what I was saying about the orange color and rounded corners being from a later date? Here are a few of mine from the 1860s.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Very cool pic, Leon. Also, see what I was saying about the orange color and rounded corners being from a later date? Here are a few of mine from the 1860s.

Yeap... I have some others like this also...

[prewarsports]

I want to walk away from this debate very badly. Once passion enters an objective assessment, you can no longer have a rational discussion. You are passionate about wanting this to be a Knickerbocker photo badly, which I get, but it is clouding your rational assessment of the history of photography which is pretty easy considering how fast the genre changed between the 1850's-1870's. It really is not that hard to date the "approximate" age of photographs as a result.

I have handled perhaps as much as half a million stereoview cards since I started collecting photography and am not a novice. Online research is one thing, handling these things consistently over years and years (more than 30 years), you start to learn things that hold true over time. I've also handled as many or more 1860's-1880's albumen prints on CDV cards etc. Here are some useful facts for you.

Fact 1: The stereoview "viewer" was not really invented until 1859. Before that date, these things were mostly daguerreotypes and ambrotypes that had to be developed and then another one shot and redeveloped at a slightly different angle and then viewed through cumbersome devices hand made one at a time. These were done as novelties and nobody owned them aside from businesses and the ultra wealthy. Paper stereoview cards may have been "invented" in 1859 as well (nobody knows for sure) but that literally means nothing. CDV and albumen technology was in its absolute infancy by the start of the Civil War. You essentially do not find albumen prints before 1862 and yours is 100% albumen. Your photo was done after the famous 1862 salt print, well after actually.

Fact 2: The oval top cut on your stereoview was not in vogue until the late 1860's and 1870's. Do a quick Google search for Civil War dated stereoviews or other images concretely dated to have been MADE in the early-mid 1860's. All have square cuts. The ones that do not were done after the Civil War as commemorative issues which were popular throughout the 19th century. I have never seen a pre-Civil War era stereoview with the larger oval cut at the top, if you find one, it was almost certainly made in the late 1860's at the earliest using an older image. This was a "style" of photography and it did not become popular until after the Civil War.

Fact 3: Absent Civil War scenes where photographers like Matthew Brady and a few others operated completely out of wagons with all their equipment including darkrooms available to them, outdoor photography was almost impossible in the 1860's and basically did not exist in the 1850's. It was an expensive and cumbersome process until the 1870's. There are almost no known outdoor albumen photographs because the lighting was tricky, the camera weighed a ton, the exposure time was ridiculous and things like clouds and wind could not be controlled and would destroy portrait shots. It was many, many times easier to produce an image in a studio so you find 99.9%+++ of all portraits and groups taken inside, until the technology got better in the 1870's.

I would bet money that if you took the "Knickerbocker" angle away and just approached 100 antique photography experts about the approximate age of your image based on style, dress, outdoor setting, oval top stereoview style etc., you will get all 100 answering that the image is c. 1870-1876. I can not imagine a scenario where a single one would estimate Civil War era and you would be laughed out of the room if you suggested 1850's because it is impossible.

Others can debate the facial accuracy, I am just going off photography style here since you said you "disagree" with my dating which I will stand behind with extensive experience.

Now I think I can walk away and wish you the best of luck on your research project. If you still question the dating, you will be fighting a VERY uphill battle but I wish you well. Take care.

[SteveS]

Leon, awesome! I would look forward to seeing them if you have the chance.

prewarsports, please don't be frustrated. I would never question your expertise. All I'm saying is that my research has led me to other directions. I am posting a pic showing a stereoview from the 1850s with the same characteristics as mine, and also info about the availability of outdoor stereoviews in the 1850s. But again, the date of the stereoview isn't necessarily the most crucial thing. It could have been taken from an earlier image and made into a stereoview at a later time (which, as you point out, was known to have been done). That is why a photograph expert would need to see it in person rather than just scans.

Finally, I wanted to post something I mentioned above. In both of these known pictures of the Knickerbockers, Charles De Bost is to the left of Doc Adams (from our view). In the 1859 pic (standing), Adams appears to be slightly taller than De Bost. But in the 1862 pic (sitting), De Bost towers over Adams to a ridiculous degree. A close look shows the cutting and pasting that was done. My point is just that I don't think the facial matches of six people can be ignored. If it was just one or two and I was saying, "Well, just ignore the other four," that would be one thing. But all six that close seems to be a stretch to say it's not them.

[GaryPassamonte]

Albumen stereoviews first showed up in the mid-late 1850s, I believe. Frederick Langenheim of Philadelphia made the first stereoviews on glass circa 1854.
Shortly thereafter, he began making albumen stereoviews. I have a few non-baseball Langenheim 1850s albumen stereoviews with the curved top photograph style. Their date is confirmed by their reverse "American Steroscopic Company Langnheim and LLoyd" identifier. Langenheim and Lloyd were partners in the American Stereoscopic company from circa 1857 until 1859, thus the positive late 1850s dating. Although in the photography business for years, the Anthony brothers didn't start making stereoviews until 1859. This means the "Knickerbockers" stereoview can be as early as 1859 per my Langenhein Lloyd stereoviews of a similar style. I can not speak to the identification of the men in the stereoview, but the stereoview can be circa 1860. Seeing the reverse of the stereoview might also help with determining its age.
I will also add that if the stereoview in question is a larger "imperial" size stereoview, it would almost certainly be post 1870.

[SteveS]

Thank you so much for that info, Gary! I have no idea whether this is an Anthony photograph, as it's unmarked. And while they didn't open their stereoview business until 1859, it's possible that this could have been done before that for their personal use. Also possible that some other photographer took it. But I appreciate that you were able to confirm that this type of photograph did exist during that period.

[Snowman]

This is a fascinating discussion. I'll start out by saying I know nothing at all about Civil War era photography or stereoviews. But I do have two comments to add that I think supports both arguments.

1. Male pattern baldness comes in several different forms, but the form in which an individual experiences it is determined by their genetics. One can't switch between types of male pattern baldness, they can only continue to lose hair that is consistent with their type. The man with the eyebags (I believe you identified him as Duncan Curry?) appears to have two different types of male pattern baldness in the two photos. Perhaps the younger photo is a combover of sorts? Perhaps they're not the same person? I don't know.

2. Probability theory informs us that the probability of the group photo being the Knickerbockers based on the individual probabilities associated with facial recognition algorithms of each individual is proportional to the product sum of those probabilities. In other words, if the probability of each person being a "match" is 90%, then the probability of the group being the Knickerbockers is equivalent to the 1 - (0.1^6) = 0.999999 or 99.9999% chance that this is the Knickerbockers. However, this is based on the assumption that a "90% match" actually means the individuals in two photos are 90% likely to be the same person. I don't know if this assumption holds true, and wouldn't be surprised at all if it didn't. I don't know enough about facial recognition software to make that claim. But I do know enough about probability theory to know that if all 6 are high matches then the group as a whole is a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher likelihood of being a match as well.

[Directly]

If the photo was examined by 100 experts, 25 would say without a doubt its right--25 would say no way, 25 would be inconclusive, 25 would say it may be, it may not.-- the burden of proof is up to the owner to convince all 100 experts its right---good luck in your quest.

[SteveS]

Snowman, I did notice Curry's hair. When I blow up his photo from the stereoview, there's a smudge/blur that goes across his forehead that obscures a bit of the hairline; the outdoor lighting also contributes to that. But he has those very prominent eye bags, as well as a distinctive nose and open mouth which have me convinced.
Directly, you summed up where I stand pretty perfectly.

[jpop43]

In the immortal words of Agent Fox Mulder of TV’s ‘the X-Files’, “I want to believe”. The discovery of a legitimate, thoroughly researched, peer reviewed image of 6 members of the Knickerbocker BBC would be beyond historically significant. Not to mention how valuable and desirable it would be to the collecting community.

My opinion is by no means as expert as those who’ve already weighed in on the history of photography/stereoviews, but I did want to add some context to this discussion by simply pointing out the birthdates and ages of those allegedly reflected on the image.

This would just be another tool to help assess what we are looking at and whether these men are likely to be Knickerbockers.

Here are the birth years of those allegedly pictured…

Walter Avery, b. Jan. 1814
D.L. Adams b. Nov. 1814
Duncan Curry b. Nov. 1812
Charles DeBost b. Aug. 1826
Fraley Niebuhr b. Nov. 1820
Charles Birney b. approx. 1811

Based upon discussion thus far, lets…for arguments sake…use the date of 1857 for the stereoview image. If it was taken in 1857…verifiably early (but apparently possible) for such an image type…here’s how old those men would have been at the time the photo was taken…

Avery, 43 years of age
Adams, 43 years of age
Curry, 45 years of age
DeBost, 31 years of age
Niebuhr, 37 years of age
Birney, 46 years of age

To me, several of the subjects appear much younger than this, while others seem older…just not the ones you’d think.

Now, as the OP points out, there is a possibility that the image was made from an earlier one. If that was the case, the original image would have been a daguerreotype (pre-1857 in this case as that's the approx date of the stereoview). Again, for the sake of discussion, let’s try and see this angle thru…

If an original image of this group was, in fact, used as the basis of the stereoview, we would simply subtract years off of each of the individuals back to the round-about date of that original photo, thus dating it.

I suppose we have to ask ourselves how early this image could possibly have been taken given the appearances of the subjects. Some appear to be quite young in the stereoview…lets say in their 30’s (i.e. the alleged Avery, Adams, Birney, and Niebuhr subjects). If that’s the case, the image would have to have been taken around 1845-1850 (based on their known birthdates).

Two of the subjects…those said to be Curry and DeBost…appear quite a bit older than the other subjects depicted on the stereoview. Yet, both men would have been right around the same age or younger than the other subjects if they were indeed the KBBC. In fact, DeBost would be the youngest of the group by 6 years…its curious that the subject id’d as DeBost looks to be the most senior (WAY older looking than the boyish subject id’d as Niebuhr who would have been 6 years his elder).

Last observation…and I’m not a photography expert…but I’m not sure if such an image (very crisp, multiple subjects, posed outdoors) was possible in the 1840s-1850s given the exceedingly long exposure times. If the stereoview was made from an earlier image and re-printed in 1857-1859, how much earlier could that image have dated? And, how would it jive with the known ages/appearances of the alleged subjects at various points in time.

Like I said to start my post, I am so very much hoping that this image somehow turns out to be members of the KBBC…it would be great for the history and the hobby. Again, I am no expert…on anything really…but I did want to just add some of this info with the hope that it informs the dialogue as it moves forward.

Crossing my fingers for SteveS and the potential for something special.

Best,
Jonathan
www.dugouttreasures.com

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This is a fascinating discussion. I'll start out by saying I know nothing at all about Civil War era photography or stereoviews. But I do have two comments to add that I think supports both arguments.

1. Male pattern baldness comes in several different forms, but the form in which an individual experiences it is determined by their genetics. One can't switch between types of male pattern baldness, they can only continue to lose hair that is consistent with their type. The man with the eyebags (I believe you identified him as Duncan Curry?) appears to have two different types of male pattern baldness in the two photos. Perhaps the younger photo is a combover of sorts? Perhaps they're not the same person? I don't know.

2. Probability theory informs us that the probability of the group photo being the Knickerbockers based on the individual probabilities associated with facial recognition algorithms of each individual is proportional to the product sum of those probabilities. In other words, if the probability of each person being a "match" is 90%, then the probability of the group being the Knickerbockers is equivalent to the 1 - (0.1^6) = 0.999999 or 99.9999% chance that this is the Knickerbockers. However, this is based on the assumption that a "90% match" actually means the individuals in two photos are 90% likely to be the same person. I don't know if this assumption holds true, and wouldn't be surprised at all if it didn't. I don't know enough about facial recognition software to make that claim. But I do know enough about probability theory to know that if all 6 are high matches then the group as a whole is a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher likelihood of being a match as well.

Snowman,

Not sure what you are saying. But to be clear, if each individual has a 90% chance of being a Knickerbocker, the probability of all six individuals being Knickerbockers is 0.9^6 which equates to 53%. The probability of only one of the members being a Knickerbocker is 1 - (0.1^6) which equates to the 99.9999% you cite. For it to be a Knickerbocker group photo, the relevant probability would be the 53%, not the 99.9999%.

[SteveS]

Jonathan, thank you very much for those important contributions and well wishes. De Bost gave me a lot of problems, as at first I thought he was wearing glasses. But after sharpening it up and looking very closely, he's not wearing glasses. His eyes are mostly shut. As with some of the other gentlemen, the blurring of the stereoview and outdoor lighting/shadows make it appear that they have wrinkles where there aren't any. Niebuhr was also very difficult, as he does look younger than the rest. As I said above, I thought at one point that it could be Harry Wright. I can still be convinced of that, but his features match up very well with Niebuhr. In fact, I believe that each of them line up very well when facial features are compared. Here's a side-by-side with an older Doc Adams, which I think is even more convincing.

Corey, I'm glad you were able to see this again after I've researched it further and made it easier to see and get more accurate comparisons. Math is not my forte, but at least the odds are above 50%.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I would suggest reaching out to the HOF and the SABR photo group.

[SteveS]

Scott, thank you very much for those suggestions! I've actually done both of those things. The HOF replied that they weren't allowed to authenticate photos, and provided a list of authentication services. I sent it to SABR people awhile back before I sharpened the pictures and had firmer IDs. One person thought it could be them, and one didn't. Perhaps I'll submit it again with the more recent info.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Jonathan, thank you very much for those important contributions and well wishes. De Bost gave me a lot of problems, as at first I thought he was wearing glasses. But after sharpening it up and looking very closely, he's not wearing glasses. His eyes are mostly shut. As with some of the other gentlemen, the blurring of the stereoview and outdoor lighting/shadows make it appear that they have wrinkles where there aren't any. Niebuhr was also very difficult, as he does look younger than the rest. As I said above, I thought at one point that it could be Harry Wright. I can still be convinced of that, but his features match up very well with Niebuhr. In fact, I believe that each of them line up very well when facial features are compared. Here's a side-by-side with an older Doc Adams, which I think is even more convincing.

Corey, I'm glad you were able to see this again after I've researched it further and made it easier to see and get more accurate comparisons. Math is not my forte, but at least the odds are above 50%.

Steve,

For the odds to be greater than 50% by probability theory analysis, the facial recognition analysis you cite must be accurate. I am not familiar with the method you used, and in any event have no experience with that technique. But inasmuch as facial features change over time, unless you used as your comps images of each subject taken at substantially the same point in their lives, which I don't know how one could confidently do that here, I would be very skeptical of the reliability of facial recognition analysis in this instance.

[SteveS]

Corey, as you know, it's difficult to make comparisons when there aren't a whole lot of comparison photos of these guys out there. Another aspect that makes it tough is the 1862 photo, which has the only known pictures of several of the Knicks. You are no doubt far more familiar with that photo than I am, but it's my understanding that it's a composite, and it's unknown how many of them took their picture in that studio or sent in their own picture for the photographer to include. So maybe one or more sent in an older photo. As for the facial-match programs, while the results for all of them are indeed very high using two different programs, I have come to rely less on them and more on my eyes. And there are some unique features that match up extremely well with all of them.

[jpop43]

Steve,

As I don't believe I read it (and forgive me if I missed it), when do you believe the actual image was captured/taken? Do you feel it is contemporary to stereoview technology and the particular mount/design we see here (estimated to maybe 1857 at earliest), OR do you feel it was captured earlier and copied to the stereoview later on? If its the latter, how early does your research date it to?

Thanks,
Jon

[SteveS]

Hi Jon. I can't give a definitive answer to that, but I can provide an educated guess based on my research. Albumen photography started becoming more widespread about 1855. Also in 1855, Walter Avery, who had moved to California, realized that he wasn't going to strike it rich in the Gold Rush and moved back to New York and rejoined the Knickerbockers. So somewhere around there would be a reasonable guess, and would not eliminate the possibility that it went directly to a stereoview, especially if Anthony took it. But I also know that even older pictures were made into stereoviews years (or decades) after they were taken. I suppose I should do some reading up on anatomy to see how long it would take Avery and Birney to go bald based on their degree of hair loss and attempts at a comb-over.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Snowman,

Not sure what you are saying. But to be clear, if each individual has a 90% chance of being a Knickerbocker, the probability of all six individuals being Knickerbockers is 0.9^6 which equates to 53%. The probability of only one of the members being a Knickerbocker is 1 - (0.1^6) which equates to the 99.9999% you cite. For it to be a Knickerbocker group photo, the relevant probability would be the 53%, not the 99.9999%.

We're not quite saying the same thing. Your math is correct if the question is phrased as "what is the probability that all 6 men are indeed a match for the 6 people Steve thinks they are?"

But that's not quite the same question I was answering above. If this is indeed a Knickerbockers photo, then the subjects in the photo are not independent of one another (independent in the statistical sense). In other words, if one of them is indeed a Knickerbocker, then that increases the likelihood that a second person is also a Knickerbocker. And if 2 are known to be Knickerbockers, then again, it increases the likelihood that a 3rd is, etc. Knickerbockers are likely to be photographed together. So my framing of the question "what are the odds that this is a Knickerbockers photo?" approaches it with that dependence structure in mind. It basically calculates what the odds are of all of his 90% Knickerbocker matches to be wrong rather than what the odds are for each one to be correct independently. My approach allows for, say, 5 of his 6 matches to be correct but him mistaking the identity of the 6th one, thus still making the photo a "Knickerbockers" photo.

[Snowman]

While I definitely can't claim that I'm 100% convinced, I will say that the resemblances in numerous facial features across the group is pretty remarkable. I'm definitely leaning toward yes, this is a photo of the Knickerbockers based on the resemblances alone. The 1862 photo is completely hacked together though. Legs are drawn on, torsos cut and pasted, shadows on different angles of the faces, etc. The subjects in that photo could have been taken across a pretty broad timeline, I would argue. There are at least 4 of the 6 that to me look almost like dead ringers.

That said, I'm also intrigued by the historical aspect of the photography used during that time and respect the knowledge of those who have studied it, as well as the history of the attire and where that might place this photo timeline-wise.

[SteveS]

Thank you so much, Snowman! After driving myself nuts with facial-match programs and 19th-century men's fashions, etc , I boiled it down to exactly what you said. The bare basics. It seems awfully unlikely that this many matches of unique features among this many people would happen by accident.

[rhettyeakley]

Nice stereoview of “six learned gents”

Almost 0% chance this image is what you are saying it is. The facial recognition you are attempting is not scientific in the least. Not trying to be mean, I just have no idea where you are even coming from with this entire claim. I am not seeing the similarities in the faces that you or any of the others in this thread that have agreed with you are seeing. I am not a novice with facial identifications.

There must be some other context that you haven’t shared with the rest of us because I have no idea how you are making the assumptions that you are. Did this piece originate from the area of the country where these people were at the time the photo was supposed to have been taken? Did it come from the estate of someone related to one of the original Knickerbockers? Do we know the setting of the photo?

Again, not trying to be mean. I just have no idea why/how this is getting any support at all. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim but all I see is wishful thinking and non-scientific facial “identifications”

[bgar3]

For me, I have no problem with you believing the identification is “irrefutable “, and keeping it in your collection . I would have a problem with you attempting to do something with it . I would be very surprised if the market place agreed with you without an astonishing amount of additional information that supports your view, which I do not believe is highly probable.

[sphere and ash]

There are statements made above that the probability of a match is so high that one may be “100% convinced,” or that the match shown for all six subjects may be as high as “99.9999%” or even “84-97%.” All of these estimates reflect a misunderstanding of probability, which I will attempt to explain below. But let me declare my bias from the outset: I am not convinced the stereoview depicts “six learned gents,” let alone the Knickerbocker Club.

All probabilities have a margin of error. Most people are aware of this when they see political polling: when one candidate leads in the polls 51-49, but the polling organization discloses a 3% margin of error, it is understood that the race is a statistical tie.

What we need to know is the margin of error for the facial recognition software used. The problem is that the software maker determines a margin of error using the same photographic process and type (say, a mug shot or passport photograph), similar lighting, contemporaneous images, etc. And what we have here are different photographic processes (salt, albumen, and, I believe, a silver gelatin copy photograph), with very different lighting (outdoor versus studio), taken many years apart, with limited visual information (these are group photographs taken from a distance where the ears are not visible, etc.), and where the original poster has altered the shadows in the photographs using another software program prior to analysis.

To give you some idea of how high the margin of error may be in this case, consider that a Google search shows estimates for facial recognition for African-American women may be higher than 35%. And that is with all the commonalities and without the difficulties cited above. I would be stunned if the margin of error here were not much higher. One can’t speak of meaningful probabilities in the presence of such a high margin of error. You’re asking the software to do something for which it was not designed and not tested.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

There are statements made above that the probability of a match is so high that one may be “100% convinced,” or that the match shown for all six subjects may be as high as “99.9999%” or even “84-97%.” All of these estimates reflect a misunderstanding of probability, which I will attempt to explain below. But let me declare my bias from the outset: I am not convinced the stereoview depicts “six learned gents,” let alone the Knickerbocker Club.

All probabilities have a margin of error. Most people are aware of this when they see political polling: when one candidate leads in the polls 51-49, but the polling organization discloses a 3% margin of error, it is understood that the race is a statistical tie.

What we need to know is the margin of error for the facial recognition software used. The problem is that the software maker determines a margin of error using the same photographic process and type (say, a mug shot or passport photograph), similar lighting, contemporaneous images, etc. And what we have here are different photographic processes (salt, albumen, and, I believe, a silver gelatin copy photograph), with very different lighting (outdoor versus studio), taken many years apart, with limited visual information (these are group photographs taken from a distance where the ears are not visible, etc.), and where the original poster has altered the shadows in the photographs using another software program prior to analysis.

To give you some idea of how high the margin of error may be in this case, consider that a Google search shows estimates for facial recognition for African-American women may be higher than 35%. And that is with all the commonalities and without the difficulties cited above. I would be stunned if the margin of error here were not much higher. One can’t speak of meaningful probabilities in the presence of such a high margin of error. You’re asking the software to do something for which it was not designed and not tested.

Paul- I didn't even consider this stereoview being a silver gelatin print. It may well be. I can't tell from the posted images. That would push it into the late 1870s, at the earliest?

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Paul- I didn't even consider this stereoview being a silver gelatin print. It may well be. I can't tell from the posted images. That would push it into the late 1870s, at the earliest?

Sorry for the confusion, Gary—I wasn’t clear. I believe the stereoview is albumen. The final image above, depicting a man who appears to have just removed his cap, is—I believe—a later silver gelatin copy photograph of an 1859 print. I may be mistaken; doing this from memory, which gets increasingly unreliable.

Edited to add: the person I am referring to has been identified by some sources to be Charles Schuyler De Bost, but I think even that identification is tentative. The image of De Bost was taken from a “photostat copy” in the collection of the New York Public Library after the original was either lost or stolen. Suffice it to say that working from a photostat copy of an original albumen photograph introduces error.

[robertsmithnocure]

SteveS, you might want to try contacting Mark Fimoff from SABR for his opinion. He is a facial recognition expert.

[SteveS]

Thank you all for your opinions. I find it really interesting that some people can look at it and see the resemblances immediately, while others don't see anything. As for provenance, while it would be great to know more about this photo's history, I have learned from this forum that provenance is not everything. There is a fascinating thread from several years back regarding the 1847 daguerreotype purported to depict the Knickerbockers. It was given to the Hall of Fame by Alexander Cartwright's grandson. They used it to design his plaque. It's been pictured in books and TV shows, including by some of baseball's most noted historians. Rock-solid provenance. But one of SABR's experts had questions, and wrote a lengthy analysis about how the photograph does not depict the people suggested, despite the fact that it was kept within Cartwright's family. The owner wrote a very passionate defense. Both were supported by facial-recognition experts who had diametrically-opposed opinions. In the end, it's up to the viewer to decide.

As for facial-recognition software, I merely pointed out the results that I got (and I need to correct that it was 82%-97%). I do not put full credence in that, and would never claim that it proves anything conclusively one way or the other.

As for the similarities I see, I will try to summarize some of them here. For Avery, the slanted jawline. For Adams, the eyelids/droopy eye and open mouth (all of which can be seen in both of the comparisons I posted of him). For Curry, the severely bagged eyes and open mouth. For De Bost, the hairline and face shape. For Niebuhr, the hairstyle, including the parts combed forward. For Birney, the face shape and ear placement. Please note that this is just a very cursory summary of just a few of the unique features that stand out. For each of them, the eyes, noses, mouths, and ears all line up in terms of size, shape, and placement.

And to Gary, this stereoview is an albumen. I believe that Sphere was referring to the photo taken in 1859, which is a copy (I am not sure whether the original still exists).

Finally, I am not sure whether this photo will ever be proven to be Knickerbockers with 100% certainty to everyone's satisfaction. As I pointed out above, rock-solid provenance is not what it's cracked up to be. I remember being at a card show at the Pomona Fairgrounds back in the '90s right after Bruce McNall bought the Wagner and PSA made it its first slab. It was displayed by the front door with a huge security guard standing next to it. I took one look, and within half a second knew that it was trimmed. If you've never seen it in person, it's blatantly obvious. I told anyone who would listen, and from that moment forward have never trusted the grading companies (who continue to have issues slabbing iffy cards). Yet that Wagner has been sold and resold since then. For record amounts, despite the full knowledge now that it is indeed altered and not in the condition claimed. My point is that knowledgeable and well-meaning people can look at the same thing and see it differently. I believe that this photo depicts Knickerbockers, and others on and off this forum agree with me. Others on and off this forum disagree with me. If I decide to keep it, that's up to me. If I decide to sell it or donate it, it would be up to the other person or entity to decide whether it's worth that investment. In any event, I will continue to do research to try and find more convincing evidence, and maybe find a trusted expert who can determine with certainty the age of the photo and whether it has been made into a stereoview from an earlier image. But I know that no matter how convinced I and others are, there will always be people who disagree. That's human nature for you.

[SteveS]

Sphere, thank you for your clarification! You posted it while I was writing my lengthy post above, and I didn't notice until after I posted it.

Rob, Mark has seen the images. Unfortunately, they were the earlier ones which were much less clear and my identifications were not correct. I am hesitant to send them to him again with the clearer images and much more confident IDs, as I know that he's a very busy man and I don't want to be a bother.

[bnorth]

I know nothing about the subject but sure am enjoying this thread.

For the next to nothing it is worth the photos don't look like the same people to me.

[SteveS]

Thank you, bnorth! It's always fun to discuss baseball and its history and memorabilia.

Gary, I did not notice above that you asked to see the back of the stereoview. Here it is (and it's not the larger Imperial size).

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Scott, thank you very much for those suggestions! I've actually done both of those things. The HOF replied that they weren't allowed to authenticate photos, and provided a list of authentication services. I sent it to SABR people awhile back before I sharpened the pictures and had firmer IDs. One person thought it could be them, and one didn't. Perhaps I'll submit it again with the more recent info.

The HOF misunderstood what you were asking then. You weren't asking for authentication but help with identification. They have helped me in the past.

Oh, and this was my 5000th post!

[SteveS]

Scott, I am truly honored that your 5,000th post came within my thread, and I will try again with the HOF and make it clearer this time.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by Snowman

We're not quite saying the same thing. Your math is correct if the question is phrased as "what is the probability that all 6 men are indeed a match for the 6 people Steve thinks they are?"

But that's not quite the same question I was answering above. If this is indeed a Knickerbockers photo, then the subjects in the photo are not independent of one another (independent in the statistical sense). In other words, if one of them is indeed a Knickerbocker, then that increases the likelihood that a second person is also a Knickerbocker. And if 2 are known to be Knickerbockers, then again, it increases the likelihood that a 3rd is, etc. Knickerbockers are likely to be photographed together. So my framing of the question "what are the odds that this is a Knickerbockers photo?" approaches it with that dependence structure in mind. It basically calculates what the odds are of all of his 90% Knickerbocker matches to be wrong rather than what the odds are for each one to be correct independently. My approach allows for, say, 5 of his 6 matches to be correct but him mistaking the identity of the 6th one, thus still making the photo a "Knickerbockers" photo.

I spoke to my son who is better at math than I am and he started talking about Bayesian probability and I kind of lost him halfway through.

But I think his point was that knowing one person was 100% a Knickerbocker does indeed affect the probability that the others are Knickerbockers…the problem is we don’t know how it affects the probability. For example, if we knew for a fact that this one person only had his photo taken with other Knickerbockers (and never had a photo taken with family members, business associates, friends, or anyone else, ever) that would affect it in a very positive way…the other people would all have to be Knickerbockers. But if we knew this person was estranged from the other members and refused to be photographed with them, that would affect it in a negative way...the other people could not be Knickerbockers. We would essentially need to know the universe of all the photos this person was in and what percentage of these photos contained only Knickerbockers. Seeing as how we don't know how often/rarely they got photographed together, the odds are still based on these being independent occurrences at 90% per person.

However, if one person was 100% a Knickerbocker, it does help in the fact that the odds have increased from 0.9^6 = 53% to 0.9^5 or 59% that all of them are Knickerbockers.

For the purposes of the above, I am assuming the 90% number to be accurate and that I am correctly conveying what I understood from what my son was telling me.

[SteveS]

Thank you, Michael, for that very thorough and helpful analysis! I just want to stress again that I am not relying on facial-match programs, no matter how high the results. I don't think they've reached the level of acceptability where what they say is taken by everybody as gold. I am looking at each facial feature with my own eyes and determining where there are matches. And while I know that some people disagree with me, I see enough matches, especially among their unique features, to convince me that they are Knickerbockers. One thing that I find interesting is that of the people who disagree with me, not one has pointed to a feature in any of the men that stands out as a complete and obvious non-match to the comparison. It's just a general, "I don't see the resemblances." What I would like to see is if somebody can say something like, "So-and-So has a giant wart on his nose which is not there in the comparison pic" (or whatever, some other blatantly obvious difference). I can (and have briefly above) point out the numerous similarities. So I don't know what or who, if anything or anybody, will be able to convince those who just don't see it.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

There are statements made above that the probability of a match is so high that one may be “100% convinced,” or that the match shown for all six subjects may be as high as “99.9999%” or even “84-97%.” All of these estimates reflect a misunderstanding of probability, which I will attempt to explain below. But let me declare my bias from the outset: I am not convinced the stereoview depicts “six learned gents,” let alone the Knickerbocker Club.

All probabilities have a margin of error. Most people are aware of this when they see political polling: when one candidate leads in the polls 51-49, but the polling organization discloses a 3% margin of error, it is understood that the race is a statistical tie.

What we need to know is the margin of error for the facial recognition software used. The problem is that the software maker determines a margin of error using the same photographic process and type (say, a mug shot or passport photograph), similar lighting, contemporaneous images, etc. And what we have here are different photographic processes (salt, albumen, and, I believe, a silver gelatin copy photograph), with very different lighting (outdoor versus studio), taken many years apart, with limited visual information (these are group photographs taken from a distance where the ears are not visible, etc.), and where the original poster has altered the shadows in the photographs using another software program prior to analysis.

To give you some idea of how high the margin of error may be in this case, consider that a Google search shows estimates for facial recognition for African-American women may be higher than 35%. And that is with all the commonalities and without the difficulties cited above. I would be stunned if the margin of error here were not much higher. One can’t speak of meaningful probabilities in the presence of such a high margin of error. You’re asking the software to do something for which it was not designed and not tested.

I think you've misunderstood my statement. I am not claiming that there is a 99.9999% chance that this is a photo of the Knickerbockers based on the results of the software matches. If you read my statement carefully, you'll notice there are a couple of key qualifiers in it. Here's what I said:

"if the probability of each person being a "match" is 90% [Note added: this is NOT the same thing as the matching software outputting a "90% match"], then the probability of the group being the Knickerbockers is equivalent to the 1 - (0.1^6) = 0.999999 or 99.9999% chance that this is the Knickerbockers. However, this is based on the assumption that a "90% match" actually means the individuals in two photos are 90% likely to be the same person. I don't know if this assumption holds true, and wouldn't be surprised at all if it didn't."

The last part above highlighted in bold is important. While I don't know how their software is coded, thus I don't know enough about their specific outputs, I do write the same type of algorithms for work, so I have an idea of how I would go about writing my own code for such a task (I'm a data scientist, and facial recognition software is the same field of work). I'm not sure exactly what their "90% match" means in the real world, but I would wager money that it probably does not mean that there is a 90% likelihood of the two people being the same person (which is the mathematical assumption that my above calculation was based upon). I think I chose a poor example to convey my point. My point wasn't that this is a 99.9999% probability of being the Knickerbockers photo. My point was simply to demonstrate that the likelihood of it being a Knickerbockers photo increases as a result of each individual having such high match percentages. This is Bayesian statistics 101 stuff.

As far as having a "misunderstanding of probability" is concerned, I assure you, I do not have a misunderstanding of probability theory. Perhaps I worded my post poorly, but if you read it carefully, paying attention to the qualifiers, you'll find I'm not saying what some people here seem to think I am.

Also, you wrote "all probabilities have a margin of error." This is not true. Probabilities have no such property. The probability of rolling a 2 on a fair die is 1/6. There is no margin of error associated with it. The probability of drawing the Ace of spades from a randomized deck of cards is 1/52. Again, there is no margin of error. Perhaps you meant to say that predictions or estimates have margins of error, not probabilities? That would be true, and if so, I would agree with your point that any actual calculation about the probability of this photo being a Knickerbockers photo would have to be based on the real-world implications of the facial recognition matching model's output. Hence I stated above in my original post that I wouldn't be surprised if a 90% match didn't actually mean a 90% probability of two photos being the same person. Every time I upload a family photo to Facebook, it asks if I would like to tag my wife as her sister. They are not twins. So, I'm guessing the real-world confidence we might have from facial matches is actually quite a bit lower than something like 90%.

[Snowman]

The thing I find most troubling with respect to just looking at the photos and comparing facial features is the hair loss of Avery and Curry. If Avery eventually goes completely bald on top as in his 1862 photo, then he wouldn't have had a full head of hair at the age of 43 (assuming the photo was taken in 1857). Someone with that level of hair loss is going to begin losing their hair in their 20s and will show signs of severe hair loss by their mid-30s. Either the timelines here are way off, or it's simply not the same person. But nobody has a full head of hair at the age of 43 and then goes on to lose it all on top years later.

That said, I do think the eyes, brow, nose, bridge, mouth and angles of the face look quite similar for Avery in both photos. But the hairlines do not line up with expectations unless the photo was taken much much earlier than 1857 (would have to be at least a decade earlier I would argue, and probably more like 15 years earlier).