Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[SteveS]

Wow, a lot of great discussion while I was asleep! Let me see if I can address everything. First of all, I want to say a little bit about my background in the hobby. I got my first Topps pack in 1967 when I was two years old. I went to my first card show in 1975 when I was ten (it was at the Marriott or Hilton next to LAX). In 1979, when I was 14, I was listed in "The Sports Collectors Bible" as one of "The World's Leading Hobbyists." This was in the days before there was a uniform price guide (I think Beckett's first book came out later that year), so I had people calling me from that listing asking if I could appraise their cards. They were shocked to see a young kid come over. Now, in no way would I say that I have ever been a big-wig in the business. That's because I have never treated it as a business. It has always been a hobby for me, one that has become much less enjoyable over the years with the introduction of fraud, even by the grading companies that are supposed to keep it out.

As for the Knickerbocker stereoview, as I have said, I saw it on eBay and first noticed the strong resemblance to Doc Adams. I was more familiar with him than the other early members of the team, as he had been in the news more recently with the discovery of "The Rules of Baseball." I don't remember how I stumbled on the stereoview, as it didn't have much of a description. It was a week-long auction, and two days before ending someone placed a bid. As you know, when clicking on bidders one can't glean too much, but it was very interesting to me that this bidder's history showed interest in only sports cards and memorabilia. Not old photos or anything like that, and seeing as how the stereoview was not listed with any connection to sports, I figured I was onto something. Luckily there were no other bids, and I got it with the second bid.

When it arrived, I started my endeavor in trying to figure out who was depicted. I began with my initial ID of Adams, who to me seems like a lock. So obviously the next step was to compare the other gentlemen to his teammates. Some of the resemblances were apparent immediately. At that point I was not as informed about photographic history and facial recognition as I am now. I made mistakes in my initial identifications. But I did not dismiss people's critiques and suggestions. I learned from them. As well as studying up very hard on photography and facial-matching. At this point, I am very confident in the identifications I have made. I have pointed out specific unique features in the Knickerbocker photo that are matches. I have not been shy in inviting any naysayer to point out anything glaring in the facial features that do not match. It's very interesting to me that the person who purports to be a photography expert claimed that a white/cream-colored stereoview with squared corners and arched photos could not possibly be from the 1850s, yet there are several photographic history websites that say just that, and numerous examples of such date-verified photos in museums and collections. I've already posted one, and another member in this thread verified what I said from his own collection.

Believe me, I did not choose this board randomly. I know that you all are the very top of the collecting mountain. Not only did I expect a grilling, I wanted it. And I believe that I've withstood it pretty well. I have not backed down or shied away from any answers, and my answers have addressed each question and concern individually. As I go through this thread, I once again point out that while I see opinions saying, "I don't think it's them," I don't see any specific glaring differences mentioned. I truly believe that when you look at each comparison individually, following the shape of each facial feature one at a time, you will see how close they are. I have seen and read about people who have taken photos who kinda/sorta resemble someone and then forge identifying information on the back with period ink. Some of these people are so successful at it that they fooled top experts in the auction and collecting fields and their fraud was not uncovered until years later. I am presenting to you what I purchased on eBay, exactly as I received it and without embellishing any background. Eventually I would like to auction it at some point, but it would not benefit me unless there's enough evidence to say that it's the Knickerbockers. I believe that I have presented such evidence. I don't feel that the opposing evidence has been sufficient other than, "I've been doing this for a long time and I just don't think it's them." I would love to hear specifics, such as, "I see a clear scar on Subject A that isn't on Subject B." I have spent many an hour trying to convince myself that this isn't what I think it is. But I am very confident in my IDs and prepared to respond to anyone who wishes to call out any specific differences that they see.

If you've read through this thread and this long diatribe, I thank you so much and appreciate it greatly. If you've contributed a comment, please know that I am grateful and take it seriously, regardless of where you stand. And Snowman, thanks for having my back! I think your money and balls are safe.