To be or Not to be the Wright Bros. Photo

[Directly]

Thread has changed direction sorry--I didn't another member did!

[bgar3]

I am sorry in advance, as I try to avoid the back and forth controversial threads, but I legitimately can’t tell if you are kidding or not. That does not depict Harry and George Wright. Aside from not looking like them, that is not the uniform of the 1869-70 Red Stockings and those are the only years George played for them.

[Leon]

The one on the right is Joe Jackson's dad.

.

[bobbyw8469]

Why is the logo right side up on one guy and upside down on the other?

[Directly]

Hey, believe me no feeling hurt -- -The Cincinnati Reds are, of course, America’s oldest professional baseball team. While baseball was being played as far back as the late 1850s, it was the Cincinnati Red Stockings, FOUNDED in 1866, that were the first team to pay every player on their roster beginning in 1869.

Great information concerning George, so did the Red Stocking use the same emblem in 1866 or even have a logo emblem up to and including 1869?

[Directly]

The tintype, also known as a melainotype or ferrotype, is a photograph made by creating a direct positive on a thin sheet of metal coated with a dark lacquer or enamel and used as the support for the photographic emulsion. Tintypes enjoyed their widest use during the 1860s and 1870s, but lesser use of the medium persisted into the early 20th century and it has been revived as a novelty and fine art form in the 21st.

Tintype portraits were at first usually made in a formal photographic studio, like daguerreotypes and other early types of photographs, but later they were most commonly made by photographers working in booths or the open air at fairs and carnivals, as well as by itinerant sidewalk photographers. Because the lacquered iron support (there is no actual tin used) was resilient and did not need drying, a tintype could be developed and fixed and handed to the customer only a few minutes after the picture had been taken.

The tintype photograph saw more uses and captured a wider variety of settings and subjects than any other photographic type. It was introduced while the daguerreotype was still popular, though its primary competition would have been the ambrotype.

The tintype saw the Civil War come and go, documenting the individual soldier and horrific battle scenes. It captured scenes from the Wild West, as it was easy to produce by itinerant photographers working out of covered wagons.

It began losing artistic and commercial ground to higher quality albumen prints on paper in the mid-1860s, yet survived for well over another 40 years, living mostly as a carnival novelty. [1]

The tintype's immediate predecessor, the ambrotype, was done by the same process of using a sheet of glass as the support. The glass was either of a dark color or provided with a black backing so that, as with a tintype, the underexposed negative image in the emulsion appeared as a positive. Tintypes were sturdy and did not require mounting in a protective hard case like ambrotypes and daguerreotypes.

[bgar3]

Tom, the emblem in your tintype does resemble the Red Stocking one, I will try to match it up more accurately. I will check my copy of Ellard to see about other years, but off the top of my head I don’t remember any socks like that. Harry was on the team before George, but I do not see him in the tintype. I am also curious about the reverse logo on one, but not the other.

[jpop43]

The mystery of the reversed lettering stems from the fact that the player simply affixed the detachable bib panel upside down when he put his shirt on.

[bgar3]

Thanks Jon.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by jpop43

The mystery of the reversed lettering stems from the fact that the player simply affixed the detachable bib panel upside down when he put his shirt on.

Must have been one helluva party.

Brian

[bgar3]

Tom,
I have checked Ellard and can find no similar uniform matches for 1868, or 69 as expected. I attached photos which include the cover image with a good illustration of the logo for you to compare. The team disbanded in 1870.
I think it is unlikely to be a team associated with the Red Stockings, but it could very well be a team that adopted the same or similar logo based upon their success and the surrounding publicity.

[SteveS]

Hi Directly. I would first point out to you the very prescient comment you posted in my Knickerbocker thread. Your percentages are spot-on. I have taken some time to review your photo, and in my opinion (which this board doesn't value much), I don't think they are matches. Some specific things I see that stand out are that your Harry has a prominent fold in his ear, which is not present in any known photos of Harry. Also, your Harry's mouth is wider than the known Harry. For George his nose is noticeably shorter than your George, and his chin is less rounded. I am posting side-by-side comparisons from your photo along with examples from a well-known picture of the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings. I chose this one because the players are wearing caps, as in your photo. I reversed the image of yours as tintypes are mirror images. I also sharpened all the images to make them easier to see and compare. Finally, I ran them through facial-match software. Harry gets a score of 33% and "from different persons," and George gets 30% and also "from different persons." As always, none of this is conclusive and I hope you are eventually able to prove the IDs, whether it's the Wrights or others. Regardless, it's an extremely cool pic!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by bgar3

I am sorry in advance, as I try to avoid the back and forth controversial threads, but I legitimately can’t tell if you are kidding or not.

Yes, he's kidding. This is a jab at the other thread.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes, he's kidding. This is a jab at the other thread.

I do not think that he is kidding.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163481

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=307547

[brianp-beme]

I know I am not kidding when I say kidding is nothing to kid about.

Brian

[Directly]

Steve thanks for your very good facial comparisons I appreciate your taking time I totally agree with your assessment.

A few years ago I was thrown under the bus when I posted a cabinet baseball photo for authentication. It took a lot of time, with trial and error to prevail. Its frustrating but I dismissed all the negative feedback as good leading me to different paths to research.
Yup, not being disrespectable the experts can make mistakes.

With my Tintype the emblem being very similar to the Red Stocking sparked my curiosity.--No harm intended.--thanks

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Directly

The tintype, also known as a melainotype or ferrotype, is a photograph made by creating a direct positive on a thin sheet of metal coated with a dark lacquer or enamel and used as the support for the photographic emulsion. Tintypes enjoyed their widest use during the 1860s and 1870s, but lesser use of the medium persisted into the early 20th century and it has been revived as a novelty and fine art form in the 21st.

Tintype portraits were at first usually made in a formal photographic studio, like daguerreotypes and other early types of photographs, but later they were most commonly made by photographers working in booths or the open air at fairs and carnivals, as well as by itinerant sidewalk photographers. Because the lacquered iron support (there is no actual tin used) was resilient and did not need drying, a tintype could be developed and fixed and handed to the customer only a few minutes after the picture had been taken.

The tintype photograph saw more uses and captured a wider variety of settings and subjects than any other photographic type. It was introduced while the daguerreotype was still popular, though its primary competition would have been the ambrotype.

The tintype saw the Civil War come and go, documenting the individual soldier and horrific battle scenes. It captured scenes from the Wild West, as it was easy to produce by itinerant photographers working out of covered wagons.

It began losing artistic and commercial ground to higher quality albumen prints on paper in the mid-1860s, yet survived for well over another 40 years, living mostly as a carnival novelty. [1]

The tintype's immediate predecessor, the ambrotype, was done by the same process of using a sheet of glass as the support. The glass was either of a dark color or provided with a black backing so that, as with a tintype, the underexposed negative image in the emulsion appeared as a positive. Tintypes were sturdy and did not require mounting in a protective hard case like ambrotypes and daguerreotypes.

History and Technology Overload

Love it keep it coming

[Directly]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I do not think that he is kidding.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163481

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=307547

You brought it up, I wasn't going to-just another good example how you and your expert made a documented bad judgement error. your expert screwed the pooch--please get him on here --

[robertsmithnocure]

I am not following. I thought that you said that your photo was the 1879 team with Comiskey and Radbourn?

[DaveW]

I guess i’m the only one that saw the title and thought it was Orville and Wilbur?
Maybe that’s a D on the uniform for Dayton?

[Directly]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I am not following. I thought that you said that your photo was the 1879 team with Comiskey and Radbourn?

Ever heard of research - although obscure a date was discovered on the photo "81"--Radbourn was gone in 1881 Joe Quinn joined the team---

Tell you expert it was you who bought this up not me--its on your shoulders not mine--

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Must have been one helluva party.

Brian

They were partying like it was 1899.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

They were partying like it was 1899.

[Directly]

I'm laughing too -- at all the so called photo experts--what a disastrous error he made with my Dubuque photo-if he and some of you would have just tried to help me instead of against me the outcome could have ended up as gentlemen.---get him on here!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Directly

I'm laughing too -- at all the so called photo experts--what a disastrous error he made with my Dubuque photo-if he and some of you would have just tried to help me instead of against me the outcome could have ended up as gentlemen.---get him on here!

What happened with the Dubuque photo? I read the thread, but didn't see any finality of outcome or determination on that photo.

As far as this thread goes, I don't see a resemblance between the subjects in the photos. But they're also not particularly clear images either.

[2dueces]

Hard to find good humor today. Everyone is afraid of being canceled. This thread added a bit of humor to a very nice September morning.

[Directly]

Mr Snowman- the photo was discovered in St Louis around 1991. to start Charles Comiskey Played baseball in Dubuque Iowa between 1878-1881--then going on the St Louis to play for the Browns in 1882---Years ago I had a few pleasant conversations with a very professional TV show baseball expert who studied the photo and confirmed my hunch and offered me some money to sell. I was also asked by a collector to bring the photo to Chicago. Years later I posted the photo on Ebay and somehow it came up on Net54. That's when I was thrown under the bus and dragged threw the mud by a few Net54 experts--this dragged on until recently a professional photographer found and pointed out the photo was dated--(81) I found a SABR article/Bio of Joe Quinn. Bingo! Joe Quinn was asked to join Comiskeys team in 1881--this connected the dots--Comiskey was Joe's mentor in 1881 per the article----Quinn had a business and is lay to rest in St Louis--I believe this photo once belonged to Joe Quinn and became lost after his sons passed.

( In 1881 Quinn would be 19 and Comiskey 22 )--if you go thru the link, I was told to hurry up and sell --looking back on this statement I think he was worried he made a error and indeed he had !

I was planning to take the original photo to the national Chicago but the Covid-19 concerned me so I cancelled.--

[drcy]

None of your photos show any famous baseball players. 99% of high school and tintype photos don't show anyone famous. The team photo appears to show a high school team and is not of the correct era to depict Comiskey and Quinn at those ages.

The tintype actually is a really nice baseball tintype, and stands on its own as a nice tintype without there being a famous player.

[robertsmithnocure]

I thought that you had already identified most of the players? So, now Gleason is Quinn?

[Directly]

Originally Posted by drcy

None of your photos show any famous baseball players. 99% of high school and tintype photos don't show anyone famous. The team photo appears to show a high school team and is not of the correct era to depict Comiskey and Quinn at those ages.

The tintype actually is a really nice baseball tintype, and stands on its own as a nice tintype without there being a famous player.

Your definitely NO expert, I wouldn't listen anything anything you have say--get your expert on here--not you --you really don't know what your talking about!!

[Directly]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I thought that you had already identified most of the players? So, now Gleason is Quinn?

There nothing for your expert to be ashamed of just because he made a terrible assessment , he didn't know the photo was dated neither did I-get him on here-

-

[Directly]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I thought that you had already identified most of the players? So, now Gleason is Quinn?

A Joe Quinn collector gave me a thumbs up-- see it an weep--your credibility with me with to XXXX

[Directly]

Lets start a new thread tonight-okay

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Directly

Your definitely NO expert, I wouldn't listen anything anything you have say--get your expert on here--not you --you really don't know what your talking about!!

And neither are you! Everything you are saying and accusing others of applies just as much, if not more, to you than it ever did to any of them. And what makes your "experts" that supposedly back your opinion on that being the Wrights or Comiskey in the photos any more accurate and believable than everyone else's "experts", the simple fact that you say they are? So what makes you an expert on "experts" that anyone should believe a single thing you say or claim? You also are calling out these people to "get your expert on here", yet I don't believe in any of your threads that you ever once got even one of your "experts" to respond in it to back up your claims and allegations. You are the one making a claim, so the burden of proof falls on you. Get your "experts" to post in this thread then, along with providing their proof of knowledge and expertise, that is only fair since that is what you want everyone else to do, right?

You haven't provided a single, provable and 100% verifiable piece of evidence to demonstrate that is the Wrights or Comiskey in the photos, other than your claim of resemblance, nor have any incontrovertible colloborative provenance to go along with your claims, other than just basically repeating over and over again that you are right and everyone else is wrong. That is exactly what you did in that other thread you started about the alleged Comiskey photo, ignored everyone's valid questions and provided no 100% verifiable evidence or provenance. And yet somehow you declared you were right and they were wrong, and that some "expert" had "screwed the pooch" in your opinion! Exactly how did they do that, since you never did provide that incontrovertible evidence and/or provenance to prove them wrong in that thread, nor this one?

Quite frankly, I almost went to look at a calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1 when you first posted this thread, or the earlier one regarding Comiskey. At least that would provide some reasoning for your posts then, and the seemingly illogical ramblings you make regarding the veracity of your claims, and the unwarranted and disrespectful comments back to people who responded to them.

I do not know the reason for your timing in the posting of this thread. Was it because of the recent post by SteveS regarding his alleged Knickerbocker players photos and all the attention that thread seems to have gotten? Were you jealous and looking for some attention for yourself then? If so, in that thread Steve was nothing but respectful, open minded, and responsive to everyone's questions and knowing he faced an almost impossible task in getting hobbywide acceptance of his claim. He even contacted multiple known "authorities" in regards to baseball history and photography to review his claims, and even went so far as to utilize some facial recognition software to support his position. That same software he so graciously used to examine your claim that those were the Wright brothers in your photo that this thread is supposed to be all about. And what were the results of that examination, that those were most likely not the Wright brothers, correct?

You also don't help your case in the way you can't even even use proper grammar or English when you post. Look at the very first word in your quoted post above, "Your". In that instance the correct English grammar and usage is "You are" or the contraction "You're". It is most certainly not "Your", which implies possession of something. So you are either ignorant of the proper usage of the term, or too lazy to have spelled it properly. Which is it, there are no other options? And I won't even comment about the rest of your grammar in that quoted line, other than to ask that if this is indicative of your knowledge and attention to detail, what might that also say about your ability to properly research and positively identify people in photos from over 100 years ago that one would think requires at least a certain level of those aforementioned attributes to be able to adequately perform?

[BobC]

By the way Directly, did you ever go by the moniker Toppsaholic, or the Real Toppsaholic? I seem to detect some surprising similarities in the way you post and respond to people.

[oldjudge]

Yes, the one on the right is Orville and the one on the left is Wilbur.

[JustinD]

You tried to pass off your Radbourn theory almost 15 years ago on Lemke, who was a fantastic man but not a photo analyst-

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/a...-cabinet-cards

Now Radbourn is someone else and this (as you told Bob you bought this in 1988) 33 year obsession with making maybe a few hundred bucks on an unprovable photo that a buyer would need to take great risk of believing continues on.

If you would have made even close to same effort over the last 33 years at any other task as you have made on trying to prove this photo you would have quintupled the value of this if it was real. It’s somewhat saddening.

[chalupacollects]

In my expert opinion “or not” this is a quite confusing thread!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

I don't understand this one. You say that the photo is dated 1881. Do you know that date is 100% accurate? If so, how? Assuming it is though, you mention that "Comiskey" would have been 22 and "Quinn" would have been 19. But the boys in that photo are no where near those ages. The boy identified as "Quinn" is extremely young. He's probably between 10-12 years old here. The boy identified as "Comiskey" is a few years older, but still probably only 13-15 years old. A 22 year old is a young man, fully grown. The subjects in this photo are boys, not young men. They are young teenagers at most. Either your date is wrong or the identities are wrong.

[slightlyrounded]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

In my expert opinion “or not” this is a quite confusing thread!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After much research and squinting, I believe this meme might be historically significant

[Directly]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I don't understand this one. You say that the photo is dated 1881. Do you know that date is 100% accurate? If so, how? Assuming it is though, you mention that "Comiskey" would have been 22 and "Quinn" would have been 19. But the boys in that photo are no where near those ages. The boy identified as "Quinn" is extremely young. He's probably between 10-12 years old here. The boy identified as "Comiskey" is a few years older, but still probably only 13-15 years old. A 22 year old is a young man, fully grown. The subjects in this photo are boys, not young men. They are young teenagers at most. Either your date is wrong or the identities are wrong.

First let me say I'm the expert on this photo--not you or anyone else---years ago a very qualified expert studied this photo and confirmed Comiskey, he has more knowledge in his finger tip than several experts on here put together--so you were there is 1881 to see what Quinn or Comiskey looked like--no offense but you really don't know what your talking about --honestly after reading some of your opinion on another links where you really believe someone is someone without a ounce of documentation and doesn't even remotely look then --then you come on here and try to tell me something like he is too young or some other type of crap- --so you studied the my photo for what one hour, 3 days, one month, a year, five years --I have been studying and researching this photo for 30 years and only recently discovered its dated so PLEASE don't come on here an try to tell me anything--I have a note book full of research including correspondence with Comiskys descendance-- so best stick with the other thread and rant--thanks for your opinion because it doesn't really mean a hill of beans to me and no offense it never will-------you can go to the highest mountain top and tell everyone I said this, including Mr. King Expert--you know why --I really don't give XXXX

[Directly]

Originally Posted by JustinD

You tried to pass off your Radbourn theory almost 15 years ago on Lemke, who was a fantastic man but not a photo analyst-

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/a...-cabinet-cards

Now Radbourn is someone else and this (as you told Bob you bought this in 1988) 33 year obsession with making maybe a few hundred bucks on an unprovable photo that a buyer would need to take great risk of believing continues on.

If you would have made even close to same effort over the last 33 years at any other task as you have made on trying to prove this photo you would have quintupled the value of this if it was real. It’s somewhat saddening.

I really don't care what you think either


If You would sell your Dubuque baseball like mine for 500.00 I will take it --do you take PayPal----if you don't have the original to sell please keep your mouth shut--its really none of your business!

[Directly]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I thought that you had already identified most of the players? So, now Gleason is Quinn?

Yup

[ksfarmboy]

Could you post a closeup of the date? I can’t make it out from the photos shown so far.

[Directly]

Originally Posted by ksfarmboy

Could you post a closeup of the date? I can’t make it out from the photos shown so far.

save the photo and enlarge

[Directly]

Originally Posted by BobC

And neither are you! Everything you are saying and accusing others of applies just as much, if not more, to you than it ever did to any of them. And what makes your "experts" that supposedly back your opinion on that being the Wrights or Comiskey in the photos any more accurate and believable than everyone else's "experts", the simple fact that you say they are? So what makes you an expert on "experts" that anyone should believe a single thing you say or claim? You also are calling out these people to "get your expert on here", yet I don't believe in any of your threads that you ever once got even one of your "experts" to respond in it to back up your claims and allegations. You are the one making a claim, so the burden of proof falls on you. Get your "experts" to post in this thread then, along with providing their proof of knowledge and expertise, that is only fair since that is what you want everyone else to do, right?

You haven't provided a single, provable and 100% verifiable piece of evidence to demonstrate that is the Wrights or Comiskey in the photos, other than your claim of resemblance, nor have any incontrovertible colloborative provenance to go along with your claims, other than just basically repeating over and over again that you are right and everyone else is wrong. That is exactly what you did in that other thread you started about the alleged Comiskey photo, ignored everyone's valid questions and provided no 100% verifiable evidence or provenance. And yet somehow you declared you were right and they were wrong, and that some "expert" had "screwed the pooch" in your opinion! Exactly how did they do that, since you never did provide that incontrovertible evidence and/or provenance to prove them wrong in that thread, nor this one?

Quite frankly, I almost went to look at a calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1 when you first posted this thread, or the earlier one regarding Comiskey. At least that would provide some reasoning for your posts then, and the seemingly illogical ramblings you make regarding the veracity of your claims, and the unwarranted and disrespectful comments back to people who responded to them.

I do not know the reason for your timing in the posting of this thread. Was it because of the recent post by SteveS regarding his alleged Knickerbocker players photos and all the attention that thread seems to have gotten? Were you jealous and looking for some attention for yourself then? If so, in that thread Steve was nothing but respectful, open minded, and responsive to everyone's questions and knowing he faced an almost impossible task in getting hobbywide acceptance of his claim. He even contacted multiple known "authorities" in regards to baseball history and photography to review his claims, and even went so far as to utilize some facial recognition software to support his position. That same software he so graciously used to examine your claim that those were the Wright brothers in your photo that this thread is supposed to be all about. And what were the results of that examination, that those were most likely not the Wright brothers, correct?

You also don't help your case in the way you can't even even use proper grammar or English when you post. Look at the very first word in your quoted post above, "Your". In that instance the correct English grammar and usage is "You are" or the contraction "You're". It is most certainly not "Your", which implies possession of something. So you are either ignorant of the proper usage of the term, or too lazy to have spelled it properly. Which is it, there are no other options? And I won't even comment about the rest of your grammar in that quoted line, other than to ask that if this is indicative of your knowledge and attention to detail, what might that also say about your ability to properly research and positively identify people in photos from over 100 years ago that one would think requires at least a certain level of those aforementioned attributes to be able to adequately perform?

Nuts!--did i spell that to your satisfaction?

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by Directly

First let me say I'm the expert on this photo--not you or anyone else---years ago a very qualified expert studied this photo and confirmed Comiskey, he has more knowledge in his finger tip than several experts on here put together--

Please share with us who this expert is.

[ksfarmboy]

Originally Posted by Directly

save the photo and enlarge

Yeah that doesn’t help. Looks like a bunch of chicken scratches when I enlarge it. That’s why I wanted a better picture of the date. Also I haven’t seen a picture of the back is there a photographer stamp? I’m guessing there is as you said you know the photographer?

[Directly]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

Please share with us who this expert is.

Sorry really none of your business--I am going to respect their privacy--

[Directly]

Originally Posted by ksfarmboy

Yeah that doesn’t help. Looks like a bunch of chicken scratches when I enlarge it. That’s why I wanted a better picture of the date. Also I haven’t seen a picture of the back is there a photographer stamp? I’m guessing there is as you said you know the photographer?

yes I do--and where the Studio was location