Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

SteveS · #1 09-08-2021, 12:45 PM

slightlyrounded, you have raised an excellent point regarding the kerchief, and I appreciate it greatly, as I believe it points out a major error that I made, but also makes my identifications stronger. I thought I had read somewhere awhile back that stereoviews are reversed, like tintypes and dags. After your post, I researched that info and found out that I was incorrect. So the original orientation of my stereoview is proper. I have posted below the comparison photos with that orientation. To my eye, not only do the resemblances now look stronger, but the unique matches I pointed out earlier have not changed. But more importantly, slightlyrounded noticed something that I did not. Of the six men who are depicted in both my stereoview and the 1862 salt print, only one is wearing a kerchief in both pictures. And it's the same man -- Niebuhr. Now of course that is not going to make everybody here drop their jaw and concede the IDs. But the math experts can figure out the odds of that.

As for the Anthony connection, in no way would I ever rely on that nor say that he or his brother or someone in his company took this photograph, as there is no attribution. I am pointing out that the technology to take this type of photograph definitely existed in the 1850s and definitely in the area where the Knickerbockers were located.

drcy, Thank you for recognizing that there are resemblances. While I know that doesn't change your ultimate conclusion, at least you can see that much.

sphere and ash, I respect very much your experience in photography, and I wish you the best in your house sale and many glorious years in your new home. I regret that bets are being discussed with regard to my photographs, as I know that, especially when bet money is on the table, either side can find someone to justify their conclusion, and of course, the other side will not accept it. I worked for a time in a law office, and we had two stacks of solicitations from experts literally up to my knee. One stack was from people who were inclined more favorably to defendants, the other to plaintiffs. I'd like to think that they were testifying honestly, and not just leaning towards who paid them. I also remember seeing a documentary about a photo alleged to be of Amelia Earnhart after her disappearance. They had a parade of experts, including facial-match professionals and former FBI agants, all bragging about their experience in the field and swearing on their reputation that the person pictured was Earnhart. Shortly after the show aired, someone discovered a copy of the exact same picture in a travel pamphlet published before her disappearance and in a place that was confirmed she wasn't present at the time. So as 100% certain as these experts were with their impeccable resumes, they were dead wrong.

I also point to the earlier thread on this forum regarding the 1847 daguerreotype. I respect greatly Mark F.'s knowledge of baseball history and have learned a lot reading things he's written. In that thread, he turned to a professional facial-recognition expert, and the dag owner (C.S.) did as well. Both of these experts, whose credentials were not questioned by anyone, came up with diametrically opposed opinions on the identifications in that photo. Do you think that if there had been side bets anyone would have been satisfied with the result to have paid?

I also point to the experts here who claimed that there's no way on the face of this Earth that the stereoview can be from before the 1870s. One thing about which I'm very confident is that I've proven that it could most definitely have been done in the 1850s. Even you said that the technology existed in 1851. I think someone needs to see it and hold it in person to get a better grasp of its color, thickness, etc. But while I don't wish to question the knowledge or skill of anyone on this board, I tend to discount a conclusion that is based on being so incorrect on a basic thing.

I posted on this board with the full expectation that I would face a ton of skepticism and criticism. I certainly don't mean that in a bad way. My reputation is important to me too, and I don't want to look like a jackass going around saying a photo is something it's not. I am not ignoring a single thing that's been written, and in fact listened to the kerchief clue and found it enormously helpful in providing further proof of my IDs (although I know that wasn't the poster's intention). I am quite certain that I will never convince everybody, just as I am certain that both sides can find experts who will come to opposite conclusions. So if you want to give me specific reasons why you think the stereoview can't be from the 1850s, or you want to post comparisons of specific unique features that are glaring non-matches, I welcome you to do so. I don't think, "I've been doing this for 20 years and it just doesn't look right to me," is convincing. But as I have demonstrated, my mind is open....

SteveS · #2 09-08-2021, 12:55 PM

sphere and ash, I didn't notice your comment about the 1862 salt print until after I posted. I actually got that info from Mark F. I post below a snippet from the report made regarding the 1847 daguerreotype. As you can see, it points out that it's a composite, and apparently another composite was contemplated at some point as Alexander Cartwright wanted to send in a CDV to be included. One interesting thing is that I'm not sure that the date of the salt print has ever been confirmed. I know that it says "December, 1862" on the back, but I don't know whether that date is verified or written by Avery at some later time.

slightlyrounded · #3 09-08-2021, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveS

slightlyrounded, you have raised an excellent point regarding the kerchief, and I appreciate it greatly, as I believe it points out a major error that I made, but also makes my identifications stronger. I thought I had read somewhere awhile back that stereoviews are reversed, like tintypes and dags. After your post, I researched that info and found out that I was incorrect. So the original orientation of my stereoview is proper. I have posted below the comparison photos with that orientation. To my eye, not only do the resemblances now look stronger, but the unique matches I pointed out earlier have not changed. But more importantly, slightlyrounded noticed something that I did not. Of the six men who are depicted in both my stereoview and the 1862 salt print, only one is wearing a kerchief in both pictures. And it's the same man -- Niebuhr. Now of course that is not going to make everybody here drop their jaw and concede the IDs. But the math experts can figure out the odds of that.

c'mon man

drcy · #4 09-08-2021, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slightlyrounded

c'mon man

One's a salt print and the other photo shows men who all used salt.

SteveS · #5 09-08-2021, 02:25 PM

This is hysterical! I get criticized by a select few people here saying that I'm stubborn and not listening. Then when I see something constructive and listen to it and take action on it, I'm criticized for that. So unless you have something very specific that you can point out in a side-by-side comparison (as with the kerchief above), I can assure you that "I've been doing this for 20 years and you're wrong" simply doesn't cut it.

molenick · #6 09-08-2021, 02:31 PM

Here are a few specific issues I have. These may have been addressed before so apologies if this is the case.

In the pair on the left, I can honestly say that to my eye these two men do not resemble each other (and it seems to me the person on the left is older than the person on the right).

However, in the three pairs stacked on top of each other, clearly the people on the right are older than the people on the left.

(Sorry about the way the photos loaded, I can't figure out how to make the pair on the left line up with the top of the three other pairs.)

SteveS · #7 09-08-2021, 02:56 PM

Thanks, Michael! I appreciate that you took the time to do that (and on my screen, I see four comparisons that are stacked on top of each other). As for the ages, they are supposed to be older on the right. The comparison photos used are from later in these men's lives. I believe you're referring to the De Bost comparison as the one you don't see the resemblance. Originally I thought that gentleman in my stereoview was wearing glasses. He is not. His eyes are almost completely shut. But if you blow up that comparison shot and look very closely at each feature (including following the hairline), you'll see that it's the same person.

molenick · #8 09-08-2021, 03:21 PM

Okay, I guess I still see glasses and he still looks older to me. But that's just my take.

So, to be clear, the dating of the stereoview is very important because for these people to be younger than the others, it would have to be taken before the composite of 1862. And, not saying this to be negative, it would have to be one of the earliest stereoviews known or else a stereoview made from an earlier photo. Because to me you need at least a five year difference to get from the left to the right for these guys, and they would all have had to age badly (or, to be nice, let's say quickly) for even five years to explain the difference.

Snowman · #9 09-08-2021, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molenick

In the pair on the left, I can honestly say that to my eye these two men do not resemble each other (and it seems to me the person on the left is older than the person on the right).

This is the image I find most troubling of the 6. The subject on the left also appears older to me than the subject on the right. There are however similarities with respect to a few facial features that line up well (shape of nose, where the brow meets the nose, the lines from nose to mouth, the highlight to the left of his nose just above that line, and possibly the oddly shaped receeding hairline). However, the overall dimensions of the skull don't quite line up to me as the subject on the left appears to have a slightly wider and shorter skull whereas his purported match on the right has a somewhat narrower and longer skull. But the level of detail in that 1862 photo is quite poor, particularly with respect to this guy. I don't see a reason to be anything other than agnostic on this particular pairing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by molenick

However, in the three pairs stacked on top of each other, clearly the people on the right are older than the people on the left.

Yes, clearly these men are older, and not by just a few years. If these are indeed the same people, then these photos must have been taken at least 10 years apart, I would argue. If the salt print was definitively taken in 1862 and the stereoview image couldn't possibly have been taken prior to 1857 then this would be very problematic for me. However, there are a lot of 'ifs' in that statement. How solid is the 1862 date? How old could the stereoview possibly be? Is 1857 the floor? Is 1852 the floor? This is where I think the actual experts really add a lot of value to a conversation like this. Knowing the history of how these prints were made and when those techniques were invented and where, when, and how they were used. All of that knowledge is extremely useful here.

Where I roll my eyes though is when someone wants to extend that area of expertise in the history of photography to pretend that they are somehow better than someone else at determining whether or not two noses or ears have the same shape. Also, someone's track record with their claims of expertise matters as well. You can't say "there's no question whatsoever that this couldn't possibly have been made prior to the 1870s because those arches and mounting style. If you ask any expert on earth, every single one of them will say 1872-1875" or some such nonsense, only to have you proven wrong by multiple people posting images of their stereoviews dated a decade before that, and then to have a museum curator assign a date range to it that places it potentially upwards of 2 decades prior to that.

molenick · #10 09-08-2021, 04:45 PM

I think the problem is that we cannot date the stereoview. We can come up with theoretical possibilities but we can't date it.

So we are basically left with a situation where the defense calls expert witnesses that agree with their side and the prosecution calls expert witnesses that agree with their side. That doesn't mean these people are not experts, it means experts can have differences of opinion.

My problem is that even with the earliest possible dating of the stereoview as 1857 (I am disregarding the idea that it is a stereoview of a photo) some men seem to have hardly aged, some seem to have aged 10-20 years, and one looks to me like he got younger...but no one seems to have aged five years.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Knickerbocker Photo	SteveS	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	18	01-22-2021 05:46 PM
O/T: using photo matching to update Marines in famous Iwo Jima flag raising photo	baseball tourist	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	0	07-02-2016 09:08 AM
1864 knickerbocker nine 1939 news photo - Price Reduction	earlybball	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	1	09-23-2014 03:08 PM
Need Help On A Vintage Photo Update	batsballsbases	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	14	01-17-2014 12:56 PM
REA Knickerbocker photo story	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	10-09-2007 11:30 AM