Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[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.

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by slightlyrounded

c'mon man

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

[SteveS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by drcy

To answer snowman's question, yes there is a resemblance with some of the people. That the "Fraley Niebuhr," where, yes there is a resemblance, couldn't possibly be Fraley Nieburh, demonstrates why "some resemblance" isn't proof. Even SteveS admitted it wasn't Nieburh and suggested a different identity. This is why "some resemblance" means little with random 100 years old photos.

If you go through high school yearbooks you are going to find nobodies who resemble someone famous. That's the way looking at old anonymous photos work. My dad resembled Bob Newhart, and I can promise you that my dad wasn't Bob Newhart.

This also is why the photo itself, including its age, along with provenance, are important. It doesn't matter that the person resembles Babe Ruth if it's an 1880 cabinet card. Can't be Babe Ruth.

Thank you for being honest about there at least being a resemblance. This is primarily what has been driving me insane about this thread. I also completely agree with everything else you've said above. Resemblance alone simply isn't enough to warrant "authentication" of a photo as being of a certain person or group. As you state, this is one of the reasons why provenance matters. This is also where the guidance of experts is quite helpful. An expert can eliminate a match without even looking at the face of the subject in the photo simply because of other elements about the photo itself not lining up with the timeline of the person in question. They can also increase the likelihood of a match by providing details that correspond well to the subject in question.

[molenick]

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.

[SteveS]

Michael, believe me the glasses issue drove me nuts. Which is why I thought originally that he was William R. Wheaton. But after sharpening it and blowing it up, it definitely isn't glasses. I do agree that the stereoview should be older than the salt print (unless it's somehow shown that the stereoview is from an earlier negative or the date written on the back of the salt print turns out to be incorrect). But in no way would it make it one of the oldest stereoviews. I've posted some early ones here, and there is no shortage of available images on the Net. Using your five-year period, stereoviews were already being sold in New York by 1857. One final note: The Curry comparison is made with a photo of him later than the 1862 salt print, while the De Bost comparison is made using the 1859 team photo. I posted earlier De Bost's 1859 and 1862 pictures, and he looks nothing alike, and in fact, looks older in 1859 than in 1862.

Snowman, I believe I've presented WAY more than enough evidence that this stereoview can be from the 1850s. But here's what I find interesting. I don't want anyone to interpret this as my backing away from my identifications, as I most emphatically am not. But there were definitely IDs that were more difficult for me to make than others, where I had to blow up the pictures to determine what was a shadow and what was a wrinkle. I understand completely those who say that some of the comparisons look stronger than others. So let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you think Doc Adams is a very good match. OK, maybe it's Doc Adams and his Knickerbocker teammates. Or maybe it's a reunion of Doc Adams and his medical school buddies. But then let's say that you also think Duncan Curry is a very good match. As the mathematicians pointed out here earlier, that would increase the odds of this photograph containing Knickerbockers. Again, this is not a reflection of my opinion, but you don't have to see all six to say that there is a chance for this to be a Knickerbocker stereoview.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

Finally, one poster asks the skeptics to put their money where their mouth is. This is a reasonable request. I am willing to wager the suggested amount for the George Wright photograph [edited to make clear that I am wagering against a match] based on the following criteria: that we jointly share the cost of retaining Mark F. and have his report published here. Mark uses preponderance of the evidence.

I mentioned before that I don't want to derail this thread into a side discussion about prop bets, and I'd like to adhere to that, so this will be my last comment regarding any wagers people might like to place with me.

To be clear, I am not a mark. I do not place sucker bets. You aren't going to get me to agree to some 50/50 even money wager where I put up $10k and you put up $10k and I win only if expert X gives this photo a certificate of authenticity so that it can be sold at auction, but I lose if he does not. That would be a sucker's bet. I am completely ignorant about 19th-century photography and about how authentication of such things would even work. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the default position for an expert to take on something like this would be that of agnosticism with regard to the subject in question. It is one thing for even an expert to say, "wow, that sure looks like it might be George Wright and I believe it probably is him", but it's something else entirely for them to say, "yes, that is George Wright. Here is your certificate of authenticity." However, there are any number of ways that an expert could clearly demonstrate that the photo is in fact NOT George Wright (e.g., the dating of the photo is off by 30+ years, the eyes are a different color, the person in question has already been positively identified as a member of Congress, the photo was taken in Botswana while Wright lived in Boston, etc.). If you wish to place a wager with me where the only way I can win is if Steve gets handed a certificate of authenticity but you win in all other outcomes, then you're going to have to lay some serious odds in order for me to accept your bet or change the terms. Perhaps that means we won't be able to come to an agreement on the terms of a wager, perhaps we will. I just know that I firmly believe this photograph to be of George Wright and most people here do not. If you'd like to place a bet with me, send me a PM and we can discuss the terms, but let's keep it out of this thread going forward, please. But I assure you, I don't place sucker's bets, so if you're just looking to "catch" me throwing away free money, you're probably wasting your time.

[jpop43]

I’ve been following this thread since it began, and even posted a couple of times along the way…not opinions as to authenticity of the image or the alleged identifications of the subjects…but to add some dates and context in furtherance of the discussion. Context being the issue for me when things like a photo authentication are in question. The who’s, what’s, where’s, when’s, and why’s of the image have to be painstakingly examined when there is so much disagreement over the identities of the subjects. If the supporting elements of the image back up the primary subject matter, a stronger case could be made for such images (and, I’m speaking generally about all disputed imagery).

As this is the angle that I’ve been thinking of and focused on, I was moved to review the backgrounds on two tintype photos of 'Billy the Kid' that made BIG news some years back. I was interested to see how they were evaluated, investigated, researched, and ultimately accepted as authentic images of that legendary figure.

In going thru a number of articles pertaining to these images, it was clear that complete consensus was not going to be reached (and, for the record, it still hasn’t been). However, the owners of these images felt so strongly about them that they spent years pursuing the opinions of numerous expert researchers. They had geographic analysis done on the scenes and settings of the images, and had scientific/forensic facial recognition tests conducted by licensed professionals in that field. These evaluative procedures ultimately led those that mattered…auction houses…to accept them as authentic.

The definition I’m using for “authentic” in the case of these ‘Billy the Kid’ images is that they could be written up in an auction catalog with descriptions that cited expert analysis, AND the fact that they sold for millions of dollars. Those individuals that needed to be satisfied by the research obviously were and, lets be honest, that’s exactly who any of us with such an image would want to satisfy.

This ‘expertly researched/auction angle’ was raised in a previous post, and I think…in many ways unfortunately so…is the best and most legitimate gauge for authenticity and acceptance of the purported KBBC image (or any such disputed/debated sports image). If the owners, presidents, pickers, and buyers for the innumerable sports auction houses leaned towards this image as being authentic (and we ALL know they’re aware of it), we’d know about it by now. The OP would likely be shouting it out loudly (as I would be, too) in validation of his assertions, OR it would quietly go away only to be formally and professionally researched like the ‘Billy the Kid’ images prior to being auctioned for a boatload of money.

I don’t know that at this point the questions being asked about the image are even the most important or most obvious ones. My suspicion at this point is that the image may be radioactive and there would have to be a HUGE, laborious, and lengthily process to try and hit re-set in making the case for authenticity. That said, if the OP feels the same way about his image as the owners of those ‘Billy the Kid’ images felt about theirs, it seems to me there is a way to pursue validation. And, if it were my image, I would try and do just that. In my humble opinion, an authentic image of the 6 Knicks alleged to be in the photo would be the baseball equivalent of those ‘Billy the Kid’ images to historians and collectors of the West.

In reading those articles on the ‘Kid’ tintypes it seems as though this sort of pursuit could be very long and costly and may still not yield the desired answers when all is said and done. However, if one is convinced and serious about such an image, I cannot see why they wouldn’t pursue every scholarly avenue available.

Remember, at the end of the day its those registered bidders you need to satisfy. IF NOT, then we should find contentment with what we have and enjoy it for what it is or what we believe it to be.

That’s just my 2 (well, maybe 4) cents. And, as I posted early on, I am one who would want an image like the alleged KBBC example to be legit. As someone who is always searching for that hidden treasure it would be motivation to keep on looking.

Regards and happy hunting to all,

Jonathan
www.dugouttreasures.com

[SteveS]

Snowman, while I want to stay out of any wagers here, I just see it as extremely difficult to nearly impossible to find an end point where both sides of the bet will be satisfied with the findings.

Jonathan, I appreciate your following the thread. I mentioned the Amelia Earhart photo/documentary above, but I also watched the one on the alleged Billy the Kid tintype. The experts the show had did not convince me. I can't say for sure that the croquet tintype depicts Billy or any of the other people purported to be in it, mainly because the people are so tiny and rather blurry when blown up. To me, the person claimed to be Billy looks more like Alfalfa from "The Little Rascals." It's my understanding that most Old West historians haven't bought into it, and it hasn't been sold at any auction.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

I have spent over 25 years collecting photographs, learning in the darkroom, and training in nineteenth century photographic processes. None of that, as the original poster correctly points out, gives me any advantage in facial recognition. But—it does give me some me some perspective. Finding a photograph that resembles another person is a commonplace. Take, for example, the two albumen photographs shown below. Couldn’t almost all of us agree on their identification?

I’m not trying to poke fun in any way—I’m just trying to impart some very hard-won learning. Within the last two weeks, the subject of a very valuable photograph that I own was shown to be someone else entirely—and this was a baseball photograph of the team founded by the subject in question.

Before I forget: for those wishing a good reference book on dating stereoviews, I recommend the work of William C. Darrah. I would consult my own copy now, but everything I own is in storage pending a house sale.

Also: someone above made the point that nearly all discussion participants agreed that the ‘Knickerbocker stereoview’ attribution was questionable. Although my own skepticism was correctly included on that list, I do not believe popularity is a good measure of the truth of an idea.

And: I was wrong to say in my first post that probabilities have margins of error. I should have said ‘Estimates have margins of error.’

Please tell me those are supposed to resemble Nick Cage and Matthew McConaughey. If not I REALLY need to stay out of photo ID threads lol.

[jpop43]

...yes, to your point, I believe a sale was privately brokered for 5 million...clearly someone(s) was more than convinced of its authenticity per the exhaustive, professional research process. Another image, that underwent the same sort of process/scrutiny, did auction for 2.3 million in 2011. But, as you said, you yourself were not convinced by the years worth of research and evidence laid out for the former image.

My point is that there is a process by which an individual...any individual who believes in what they have...can have said item assessed and evaluated in ways that others can more or less understand and accept. Otherwise, one just ends up with a contentious photo that I hope they themselves can enjoy.

Again, I hope that someday, somehow you get the answers you want on your image. When you do, I'm hoping you will let us know.

[drcy]

The obvious start would to have the photograph itself dated.

[SteveS]

Unless someone can recognize a 160+ year-old building from the few bricks that can be seen, or Doc Adams comes down from Heaven to advocate for his Hall of Fame candidacy, I doubt I will be able to provide rock-solid provenance. I definitely agree that dating it is important, which is why I've sent the images to places with notable stereoview collections, and as I said above, the first response came back "mid-nineteenth century." When I look that up the consensus seems to be that "mid-nineteenth century" means 1830-1860, but as we're talking about a stereoview most likely 1850s. But yes, I will keep pursuing all avenues and keep everyone posted.

[drcy]

I meant the physical photograph, not sending in images of it.

[SteveS]

drcy, agreed about having someone see it in person! And now, I'd like to take a moment to say something about you, if I may. Before I even had this stereoview, I would go to various photography websites to help date other photos that I have. When I got the stereoview, I went to those same sites, and they were all in 100% consensus regarding the oldest stereoviews' colors and corners. So when you and others said that it had to be from the 1870s, I went back to those sites to make sure that I hadn't misread anything. To my great surprise, I found out that one of those sites was yours (which I posted above)! I guess the other times I had visited the site I never noticed the name. But I want you and everyone else to know that I absolutely respect your knowledge of photographic history, and anybody looking to date an old photo should definitely visit the Cycleback website.

[drcy]

Please post the dimensions of the stereoview

[SteveS]

drcy, I don't have it with me where I can measure it right now, but as I recall it's approximately 3.5" x 7".

[Snowman]

Have any experts dated the purported George Wright cabinet photo yet? When I was looking for comparable cabinets, it looked to me like it was most likely made in the 1890s, just going by other similar photos/mounts with known dates. But I have no idea. Is it an albumen print? Anyone have any insights on its age?

Also, could you post an image of the back of the purported George Wright cabinet?

[drcy]

Your dating of the cabinet card is accurate. Black with gold letters/edges come from a particular time.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Please tell me those are supposed to resemble Nick Cage and Matthew McConaughey. If not I REALLY need to stay out of photo ID threads lol.

LOL

Scott, You may need new glasses. You got Nicholas Cage right, as someone had already posted a photo of Cage next to that 19th century photo on the left in that earlier post. I thought the other photo is a dead ringer for Noah Wylie though. I also remember seeing a 19th century, or extremely early 20th century, photo that was a dead ringer for Eddie Murphy at one time as well. There are doppelgangers out there throughout history for quite a few people it seems. And if I'm wrong about Wylie, then I need new glasses.

[RCMcKenzie]

Here's an anonymous cabinet that looks like it was dated 'Nov. 19 of 89' or maybe '1890'? and a Beaneaters Cabinet of General Stafford that would date to 1898-99.

I was hoping to match the Anon photo that I bought to an Allen and Ginter type subject, but never found anything on it.

I would guess late 80's early 90's on your cabinet.

[SteveS]

Snowman, here's a pic of the back of the Wright photo. An interesting thing is that it measures 2 1/2" x 4 1/8", so it has a cabinet design in a CDV size. I haven't had anybody date it, and no one else has even seen it other than this board. I had no intention of posting it, but I thought it would be neat when Michael mentioned his collecting interests above. It's not black, but a dark brown. Also, it looks like the very outer edges are gold. I had originally thought 1880s, so that's in the range of what others are saying.

RCMcKenzie, cool pix! The front of that Chickering is very similar to mine, but I don't know the size of yours.

[SteveS]

Also, here's the results of the facial-match program. I was able to use Betaface on this one as there are quite a few examples of Wright photos. It comes out blurry here, but it shows a match as the same person ranging from 81%-90%, and that includes pictures of Wright at various ages.

[RCMcKenzie]

The black mount Chickering that I have is about the size of an n173. Here's a cabinet from a different studio from 1888 with a somewhat similar mount. As for the Wright id, I don't know. I agree it sort of looks like him, and Chickering Studio was in Boston, but I am not very good at facial recognition. My experience with trying to id old photos is that a lot of people look alike.

[SteveS]

RCMcKenzie, along those lines and just for fun, I ran your Chickering cabinet through a reverse image search. This is one of the possibilities that popped up. Everyone needs to note that in no way am I saying this is Cap Anson. I'm not going down that rabbit hole, and I have no idea if he had any connection to Boston. But there are noticeable similarities. Again, not at all saying it's him and it came up not through my IDing it but through the reverse search. Just a fun thing to throw out there.

[68Hawk]

Chinese bots have taken over this site, right???

[SteveS]

No. Russian.

[RCMcKenzie]

That's awesome, Steve. The ears match don't they?

[SteveS]

Yes, among other things. To me, the eyes are very close. Looking at this and other pictures of him, notice how his left eye stretches out, and the eyebrow extends well past his nose. You don't see that in a lot of people. The same hairstyle can also be seen in other photos of him. I'm sure you can find some connection to Boston; I'm sure he must have played a game there at some point. Chickering certainly would have been a candidate to take a picture of someone of his status there. But again, I am not going down that rabbit hole and I'm not saying for sure that it's him. That's something you can investigate further if you want. Maybe you can start another thread on here and enjoy the experience that I've had. I'm kidding about that last part. It's actually been fun, because talking about baseball is always fun.

[seablaster]

Cap Anson? Seriously?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

That's awesome, Steve. The ears match don't they?

No, the ears do not match. Nor do the eyebrows. This is definitely not the same person.

[SteveS]

Just gonna say it one more time. In no way did I say that this is Cap Anson. I didn't see a resemblance to anyone when I first looked at it, but the reverse image search spit out this photo of Anson. After looking at this and other pictures of him, I can't say that it's absolutely ridiculous. So I posted it for RCMcKenzie to investigate further if he wants, but again, I am not making any claims. I have enough on my hands with Knickerbockers and Wrights.

[Snowman]

It looks like the purported Wright cabinet photo most likely dates to the early to mid 1890s based on drcy's feedback and the artist's other similar work that I've been able to find online. George Wright was born in 1847, so he would have probably been in his early to mid 40s when this photo was taken. Obviously that doesn't prove that it's him, but if you were to ask me how old I thought the subject in the photo was without any other information, I would have guessed mid 40s.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

That's awesome, Steve. The ears match don't they?

One has detached ear lobes the other one attached.

[SteveS]

Snowman, yes, I would not have bought it without the age being right for the era (or "Wright for the era," If you will) and the strong Boston connection, which I believe provides at least some provenance.

Scott, as I said, I don't make any claims regarding RCMcKenzie's photo, and he can pursue it further if he wants. But when I sharpen it and blow it up and look very closely, it's difficult to tell where the ear ends and the shadow begins. The part I find most interesting that is more evident in other pictures of Anson is the stretched eye and elongated eyebrow. I posted this particular picture of him because that's the one the reverse image finder produced. But again, I am in no way making any claim that it is Anson, and would rather stick to Knickerbockers in this thread.

[drcy]

With the Anson and the Nicholas Cage photos (and the Ty Cobb in the other thread), I think people are catching on that it takes more than a resemblance to prove a photograph identification authentic. If you look through someone's yearbooks, you'll likely find someone who resembles someone famous.

I've never dismissed that there are resemblances, or that the Chickering as a photographer is significant.

This all also demonstrates why the examination of the photograph itself and its age is essential. Doesn't matter how much someone looks like Babe Ruth. A 30 year old Babe Ruth couldn't appear on a 1890 cabinet card.

In cases of some photos of famous people, the photos are known to have come from the estate. In fact, there are Cap Anson photos out there that came from his family, I believe his granddaughter.

And with many antique photos there are mysteries and always will be mysteries. Most tintypes, and most baseball tintypes, are of unknown people, their identities lost in time.

[bgar3]

To illustrate your point David, this really is George Wright, and was once his.

[SteveS]

drcy, I have never disagreed with you about an in-person examination. Trust me. That WILL happen. But by the same token, I don't think that anyone should say with 100% certainty that it can't be from a certain era without seeing it in person, especially when the characteristics of that era can be seen in the scanned images (with the knowledge that they render differently on each person's screen).

As for the estate issue, I point again to the 1847 daguerreotype (as always, I don't make an opinion either way on it, but I am really rooting for its owner to tip the proof scale).

The first new friend that I made in high school was Crispin Glover. Although I never practiced and ended up in a totally different career, I did go to law school with the current Vice President of the United States (I do not say that in any way as a political statement; it's just neat to say). So I have some pretty cool yearbooks.

bgar3, check out the pictures that Snowman posted earlier of Wright at various ages. Lost all that great hair, and someone looking casually would swear that it's not the same person. But certainly with the number of pictures available of him in his playing days along with the fact that the ones you posted came from his own collection, it would be extremely difficult to argue the identification (although I guarantee you there are people on this board who would try -- KIDDING!!).

[SteveS]

HI everyone! I woke up to some good news in my inbox this morning. I heard back from three more stereoview experts: The American Museum of Photography, AmericanPhotographs.com, and Stereoscopy Blog. All are worldwide-recognized photo experts, specifically stereoviews. I sent mine to them with no mention of Knickerbockers or anything else. Just asked if they could date it. All three said mid-late 1850s, with the absolute latest possibility being very early-1860s if it's British or the photographer had an older mounting card lying around. They also feel that it's an original albumen photograph taken with an early stereoview camera, not copied from an earlier picture. The evidence cited for that is a lack of movement of the subjects, and the overlap on the very left of the left picture which is not evident on the right one (I am posting that below). It seems that earlier stereoviews were transposed, meaning that the picture taken with the left camera lens was put on the the right side of the stereoview card, and the right one was placed on the left.

One of them asked if I knew who the subjects were, and I wrote back with my Knickerbocker comparisons and mentioned that a few experts on this board were adament that the stereoview had to be from the 1870s. She said she can see the resemblances, and is absolutely 100% certain that it is much earlier than the 1870s. Of course, you can make your own judgments, but I'm now 4-4 in stereoview experts saying 1850s. But I know that's just the first hurdle. I recognize that I now have to prove the IDs....

[smokelessjoe]

Steve,

I am hoping that you have asked these experts (as you have asked others in this thread) to provide information / facts as to how they came to their conclusions. As you know, simply stating this photo is from the "mid-late 1850s" simply does not carry any merit.

Also, I hope you have taken the time to note the similarities amongst the men themselves in the photo.

Perhaps this is a FATHER / SON photograph.

[slightlyrounded]

Originally Posted by smokelessjoe

Perhaps this is a FATHER / SON photograph.

Great point. The hand on the shoulder struck me as odd without that context.

[SteveS]

smokeless Joe, I believe I mentioned above some of the information they provided to back up the date. The part I found most interesting is the overlapping. A couple also mentioned the clothing and grooming styles.

slightlyrounded, as for father/son, I really don't see a familial resemblance here. If you think the guys with the hand on the shoulder are father and son, you should probably look closer. Besides, it's not uncommon to see a hand on a shoulder. This one is from the 1859 Knickerbocker team photo. And please understand that I know that I need to do more to prove the IDs. But the date was a huge hangup for a few people here, and I think we should move beyond that.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by smokelessjoe

Steve,

I am hoping that you have asked these experts (as you have asked others in this thread) to provide information / facts as to how they came to their conclusions. As you know, simply stating this photo is from the "mid-late 1850s" simply does not carry any merit.

Also, I hope you have taken the time to note the similarities amongst the men themselves in the photo.

Perhaps this is a FATHER / SON photograph.

Great observation. Fathers in front row and sons in the back. To me that looks way more realistic as they do resemble each other and age would also seem correct.

[SteveS]

bnorth, two of the three men in the back row are the ones who people earlier in the thread thought looked the oldest.