 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#101
10-18-2011, 09:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Her response was that it was not common for men to wear earrings in 1840s/50s. Probably a bit more common for Sailors/Laborers. She joked that maybe earrings were more acceptable in the Wild West back then and said the Dag is probably 1850s. Thought this could help the debate. J 
|
|
#102
10-18-2011, 09:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Barry- Didn't you have an ambrotype with a player wearing an earring many moons ago in one of your auctions?
|
|
#103
10-18-2011, 09:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I did indeed. That's the first thing I thought of when Mark posted that. Perhaps it was a sign of virility, or a bohemian style of a sorts.
|
|
#104
10-18-2011, 09:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
"Among sailors, a pierced earlobe was a symbol that the wearer had sailed around the world or had crossed the equator. In addition, it is commonly held[citation needed] that a gold earring was worn by sailors in payment for a proper burial in the event that they might drown at sea. Should their bodies have been washed up on shore, it was hoped that the earring would serve as payment for "a proper Christian burial". Regardless of this expression, the practice predates Christianity and can be traced back as far as ancient Greece where the gold paid the ferryman, Charon, to provide passage across the river Acheron to Hades."---------interesting information from Wikipedia
|
|
#108
10-18-2011, 07:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't know
Some think it is, some think it isn't, some hope it is, but no one knows that it is.
|
|
#110
10-18-2011, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I sure don't know. But, the retouched photo at the bottom of page 7 of the report is curious, as it looks to me to picture a sort of hybrid between photos C and A1, sharing characteristics of both. If the retouched photo is Cartwright, that lends support in my mind that photo C could be Cartwright as well.
|
|
#111
10-19-2011, 05:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Jay,
Since serious questions have been raised about the image, I don't believe anyone could be 100% sure Cartwright is pictured. On the other hand, I can't be 100% sure it isn't him, given the provenance. As others have said, we will probably never know for sure. But one thing is certain. Once doubts become associated with a piece, it is never held in the esteem it was formerly. I applaud Mark for his earnest efforts and I applaud Corey for his willingness to take the risk of having a piece in his personal collection deemed to be misidentified and thus, much less valuable.
|
|
#112
10-19-2011, 07:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Please keep in mind that there are many of us who saw this photograph many years ago, along with some of the other Cartwright examples. This is not a new discussion - just a much more detailed analysis. I very much enjoyed the paper and the discussions.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|
|
#113
10-19-2011, 08:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Scott-You are exactly right. As I have indicated previously, I do not believe that it is AC. I'm sure many others feel either that way or are unsure. However, I am still looking for someone, anyone, other than Corey, who is convinced that it is AC.
As to value, that is not the discussion here. The number is immaterial since Corey wouldn't sell it. Ultimately, if it ever comes to market, the market will determine its worth.
|
|
#114
10-19-2011, 08:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com
|
|
#115
10-19-2011, 08:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
1) The image you refer to was not used in the analysis by either expert because it was heavily altered and over-painted by an artist. 2) From p. 31 - The only specific similarities between the A's and C pointed out by [Corey's expert,] Mr. Richards, are similar vertical alignment and approximate iris size. Both are commonly shared by different people, and the latter claim requires a liberal interpretation of "approximate." Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-19-2011 at 08:36 AM.
|
|
#116
10-19-2011, 08:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Very facinating stuff, I think it is him based on a gut instinct with no merit or qualifications to say so but that's what I think.
|
|
#117
10-19-2011, 09:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It seems there are those who feel 100% for and against. I stand corrected. Nonetheless, I'm certain the vast majority are somewhere in the realm of unsure.
As to esteem and value, though not part of the original point at hand. You would be hard pressed to find a card or piece of baseball memorabilia not damaged by doubts cast upon it, with the possible exception of the "Gretzky" Wagner to some degree. Last edited by GaryPassamonte; 10-19-2011 at 09:03 AM.
|
|
#118
10-19-2011, 12:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#122
10-19-2011, 01:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I am a long-time lurker who has never posted on Net54, and I am not an expert, but as the moderator of a baseball photo forum I have spent a great deal of time collecting, cataloging and identifying baseball photos. Having read the entire supplement and all of the messages in this thread, I finally feel compelled to speak up.
 My personal opinion is that the subject in the Dag is not Cartwright. To the issue of provenance, I would add that, IMHO, given the task to supply an artist with an image that will be used to memorialize my grandfather's legacy with a bronze plaque, I would try to select the most iconic photo I had. The other images I have seen of AJC are decidedly less-iconic than the image in question. In a ca. 1855 two-person image he looks respectable but not legendary, in a ca. 1860 three-person image he looks tired, and in the others I have he is a much older man. The strong-chinned, steely-eyed subject in the Dag certainly looks more legendary than any AJC image I have, and in the 1930s (as history proves out), who would question Bruce C. when he states that the image is his long-deceased grandfather? I can also see how, as mentioned earlier in this thread, Bruce C. could have mistaken his grandfather for the other man. There is some resemblance, but as has been stated, family members (and, for that matter, even persons not related) may *appear* similar, but are not the same person. Another case in point--my grandfather and his two brothers were virtually indistinguishable separately. I knew my grandpa for the last 26 years of his life, but given the task of definitively identifying a man generally resembling my grandpa at a much younger age in a photograph showing a group of men I did not know, it would be impossible for me to categorically state whether the photo showed my grandpa, when it could easily have been one of his brothers. T. Scott Brandon (tsb)
|
|
#123
10-19-2011, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott- welcome to the board, and I must say your first post was a well thought out one. If you go back to post #44, I said exactly the same thing about my grandfather. Since I never met him, I had trouble distinguishing him from his brother in one of the only photographs I have of him (he died so young even my mother did not remember her own father!).
|
|
#124
10-20-2011, 08:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've known Scott B. for 20 years
And for the trivia fans on the board, please email him, he (and his partner in Horsehide Trivia) sends out a daily trivia question to more than 600 receipients. Those questiions get more difficult during the week.
Slight plug as I'm one of the "moderators" for those questions Rich
|
|
#126
10-20-2011, 10:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some final thoughts
I want to thank everyone who read the newsletter supplement for taking the time to do so. I also want to thank everyone who followed this thread, as well as those who posted, for their interest in this question. I think threads such as this represent this board at its best.
To address briefly some of the points made: 1. First off, I totally understand the concern a number of people are having with the identification. I too had the same concerns 20 years ago when offered the opportunity to acquire the half plate. It was not until after I expended considerable time and resources researching the question that I became comfortable enough to purchase it. 2. At the time I purchased it, I did so without any belief Adams was depicted within the half plate inasmuch as at the time I had never seen any image of Adams. As to Mark's analysis of why the person identifed as Adams cannot be him, I will refrain from commenting until I have heard Mr. Richard's views. He is unavailable until next week. As to Curry, I did feel then, and continue to feel now, Curry is depicted. Based on superficial review done some months ago, Mr. Richards told me he liked the resemblance, though admitedly because he did not undertake a detailed comparison his views on this question are very preliminary. As to Henry Anthony, Jimmy in post 98 shows a later image of him. That is the first time I have seen that image. Based on resemblance alone, it looks to closely resemble the person seated to the right in the half plate. I have done no individual facial feature comparison of those two images so therefore I recognize that it is possible that person is not Anthony. I should point out that at the time the Knickerbockers organized in 1845, they had 28 original members. The significance is not which specific Knickerbockers are in the half plate, but whether these individuals are Knickerbockers. 3. I agree with Mark Evans in post 110 as to the strong resemblance of that image to the half plate image. That other image was acquired directly from the Cartwright family, and I believe it dates to the 1870's-1880's. It is a repro of what I believe to be an 1840's dag of AJC. Because I believe it to be the most contemporaenous comparison image to the half plate, I am not surprised as to the strong resemblance. As Mark (Fimoff) points out, because of the significant inpainting both experts agreed that that image was not a suitable comparison image for analyzing individual facial features. However, I still believe the image is important because it shows a strong overall resemblance. 4. Given the great rarity of half plate dags in mid-1840's, I continue to feel that the 6 people depicted within the half plate are individuals who share an important common bond. I also feel a Cartwright is one of the 6 subjects; much more likely than not this dag would have been in the possession of one of the depicted subjects. AJC's brother Alfred was a member of the Knickerbockers. Assuming what has been said is correct and he is not the person identified as AJC, IMO that reinforces the AJC identification. As to whether the person might be the other brother Benjamin, I have never seen an image of Benjamin so I can't prove that it is not. However, assuming the half plate to be a Knickerbocker image, which I believe it to be, I can't imagine why he would be in it inasmuch as he was never a member of the club. 5.(a). For those who opine there is no resemblance between the person identified as AJC in the half plate compared to the other A comparison subjects (views cited by both Mark and Mr. Mancusi as partial support for their conclusions), it makes no sense to me why resemblance amongst sibblings would fool the Cartwright family in the 1930's into believing AJC is depicted in the half plate. If there is no resemblance, what existed to fool them? Accordingly, that would suggest the family made the identification based on external information (e.g., it being long known within the family, originating with AJC himself, that the half plate was a Knickerbockers image depicting AJC). (b). For those who say there is enough of a resemblance amongst the comparison images to mislead the family, then it would seem to me that that resemblance, in conjuction with the absence of exclusionary differences and the strength of the provenance, should at minumum make it more likely than not that the AJC identification is correct. 6. If it is true that the Cartwright family could have misidentified an ancestor one or two generations removed, why then could the misidentification not be of the person in the quarter plate, sixth plate or ambro? Why can't that same argument be used to support the identification by saying the comparison images are not AJC? 7. If two comparison subjects are not the same individual, then much more likely than not exclusionary differences would be found to exist. Therefore the absence of exlusionary differences here is quite significant. Last edited by benjulmag; 10-20-2011 at 10:58 AM.
|
|
#127
10-20-2011, 11:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
>>> If two comparison subjects are not the same individual, then much more likely than not exclusionary differences would be found to exist. Therefore the absence of exlusionary differences here is quite significant.
There is no basis for that assertion. In fact it is not uncommon for photos of two different persons to not exhibit exclusionary differences, especially when the ears are not visible. >>> I agree with Mark Evans in post 110 as to the strong resemblance of that image to the half plate image. That other image was acquired directly from the Cartwright family, and I believe it dates to the 1870's-1880's. It is a repro of what I believe to be an 1840's dag of AJC. There is nothing that I know of to support the other image being an 1840’s image. The wrinkles at the corner of his right eye (viewer’s left) are probative of an older man. As to Corey’s opinion on resemblance, he is certainly entitled to it, but IMO it lacks strong probative value. >>> If it is true that the Cartwright family could have misidentified an ancestor one or two generations removed, why then could the misidentification not be of the person in the quarter plate, sixth plate or ambro? Why can't that same argument be used to support the identification by saying the comparison images are not AJC? That is becaause Mr. Mancusi’s analysis pointed out a number specific significant similarities among the A images and the old-man Cartwright images (B images), similarities not shared by subject C. One B image appeared in Cartwright’s 1892 newspaper obit - so we know the B's are Cartwtight. >>> For those who say there is enough of a resemblance amongst the comparison images to mislead the family,… It should be evident from this case and other, that resemblance is not needed for people to be mislead as to photo ID. In any case, what is most troubling about the provenance is the complete lack of mention of what would be a highly valued and significant Cartwright baseball heirloom in any relevant correspondence until it suddenly appears in 1935. >>> As to Henry Anthony, Jimmy in post 98 shows a later image of him. That is the first time I have seen that image. Based on resemblance alone, it looks to closely resemble the person seated to the right in the half plate. The quality of that image as we now have it is not so good, and I also found it on wiki – which is not always a reliable source for early images - so at the moment is is unconfirmed. It seems to be a poor match to Henry Anthony in the 1862 Knick reunion salt print, and the nose does not seem to compare well to the guy in the front row right in Corey’s dag (and would Henry Anthony wear an earring?) Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-20-2011 at 11:15 AM.
|
|
#128
10-20-2011, 11:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I agree with Corey that most likely a member of the Cartwright family (or a close family friend) is in the six person dag, and that all six people shared a common bond. I also agree that to a group of family members in the 1930s, none of whom saw Alexander as a young man, none of the dag images looked that dissimilar. However, using analysis which was unknown to them, Mark has demonstrated that the fellow in the six person dag is not Alexander Cartwright. Who it is remains an open question. The bond that the six gentlemen in the dag share is also unclear. Most conjecture as to them being specific Knickerbockers has been refuted. While the earing in particularly interesting to some; I don't find it useful. What I would find useful is a full front and back scan of the dag (without matting) to determine with certainty if there is a hallmark on the dag. Finally, Mark's expert's analysis compared subject C to a universe of seven other purported Alexander Cartwright images. These seven other images were analyzed and found to be very likely the same fellow. Could they all be someone else and the man in the middle of the six person dag be Alexander? This is theoretically possible I guess, but only at winning-the-lottery type odds.
|
|
#129
10-20-2011, 11:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As to perceived differences in wrinkles at the corner of the eye, that is precisely the sort of thing touch up and/or placement of lighting would conceal in the half plate. In addition, IMO the fullness of the face in this other image seems more consistent with his pre-Hawaii images. Finally, even if the image is later, I still feel there is a significant resemblance to the half plate image, and this resemblance lends support to the identification. As to your opinion that the nose on the two "Anthony" images differ over 16 years, well you know my opinion of nose difference over such a time difference. As to the earring, I have no idea what it means. I don't think anyone does. The half plate doesn't come across as being an image of sailors. Maybe Anthony in his earlier days was a sailor. I honestly don't feel at this point the earrring is significant either way. As to the lack of documentation that refers to the half plate prior to the 1930's, I believe that to be a classic example of a negative test -- its existence would support the identification, but its absence means nothing. In addition, we have no way of knowing the extent to which the surviving documentation compares to what once existed. Also, as with almost all issues that come up, there are always arguments on both sides. I don't say you raise irrelevant points. But IMO the implications of saying the identification is incorrect raises significantly more questions than saying it is correct. EDITED TO ADD that it makes no sense to me that the family, assuming they believed the half plate image bore no resemblance to the other images, would still say AJC was depicted within it unless they had dispositive external information indicating such. This bears on Mark's point that families still misidentify ancestors based on their assumption their ancestor must be in the image regardless if they recognize his image. While that may be true in some cases, it would seem highly unlikely in this instance where (1) the family members believed they were staring at other images of their ancestor that bore no resemblance to the image in question, (2) they were making the most important ID of the family's existence, thus presumably making certain they were correct (as opposed to assuming they were correct). Last edited by benjulmag; 10-20-2011 at 02:00 PM.
|
|
#130
10-20-2011, 11:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|
|
#131
10-20-2011, 12:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Corey - I do appreciate your skillfully raised sincere arguments and the challenge they bring to me in answering them.
>>> As to perceived differences in wrinkles at the corner of the eye, that is precisely the sort of thing touch up and/or placement of lighting would conceal in the half plate. Your are partly misinterpreting me on this one. Even if that is AJC in the half-plate - he would be likely too young to have such wrinkles. What I am saying is that the AJC depicted in your dag repro (see botom p. 7, or ill. 4 p. 39) is not likely an 1840's image as you claimed because we can see wrinkles at the outer corner of his right eye (in spite of all the touch-up) - I believe that this is most probably at least a middle-aged or a bit older AJC.
|
|
#133
10-20-2011, 06:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here is another thought on provenance.
The heavily over-painted photo, below right, originating with the Cartwright family, was used by Corey in his response to me in the newsletter. For some reason that completely escapes me, Corey feels that this person resembles subject C in his dag. Except for a slightly similar hat shape, I really don't know what it is he sees. But, what is most interesting is that some members of the Cartwright family say that this colored image depicts Alexander Cartwright, while others disagree. How could that happen? subject C:   Note the two photos below, with the one on the right being subject E from Corey's dag. These two photos below that obviously depict two different human beings have been claimed by (different?) Cartwright family members to depict brother Alfred Cartwright. Is that surprising? I think not. In fact such things are very common.  
Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-20-2011 at 06:14 PM.
|
|
#134
10-20-2011, 06:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|
|
#135
10-20-2011, 07:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that in the 1930's there was a split decision among Cartwright family members as to who was who? Or are you referring to family members 4 or 5 generations removed? If the latter, I feel that has little relevance to this discussion to the extent they are at variance with what descendants 3 generations removed from them were saying. Finally, do you refer at all to identifications made by Anne Cartwright, deceased widow of AJC's great grandson William? I had spoken to Mrs. Cartwright a number of times, thought her to be a fine woman, and am aware of many of the statements she made (which covered a great many things). If you want more information about Mrs. Cartwright and what she said, I would be happy to discuss this with you off line. I also think something I said earlier bears repeating. One can always come up with a hypothetical to make a point. Very little if anything in the world is black and white, and there will always be counter arguments. But I believe it is the far more likely scenario that the Cartwright family knew precisely what it was doing in the 1930's when, for this family-defining moment they had labored many years to arrive at, they identified AJC in the half plate. Could they have erred? Yes. But I believe that possibility to be the far less plausible possibility. EDITED TO ADD that regardless of one's view of the probative value of what modern Cartwright family members are saying about AJC's sibbling(s), to the best of my knowledge there is no record of any Cartwright family member, now or in the past, ever challenging the half plate identification. Last edited by benjulmag; 10-21-2011 at 06:22 PM.
|
|
#136
10-20-2011, 07:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|
|
#137
10-20-2011, 07:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
My information on the family disagreement with respect to the colored image came from you. I was told by another source that Anne Cartwright ID'd the man with the beard as Alfred (if that is wrong I stand corrected). I was also informed that author Jay Martin ID'd subject E as Alfred based on modern family information. And, I intend no disrespect towards Anne Cartwright or any Cartwright family member whom I can only presume said what they thought to be true.
>>>the Cartwright family knew precisely what it was doing in the 1930's.... As far as what happened in the 1930's, I can only find a record of Bruce Jr. claiming subject C was Cartwright. There is no record of this being a "family decision." (If there is please inform me). I don't know of any other family member who was theoretically in a better position to know and I can't imagine any family member publicly disputing it regardless of what they may have thought. Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-20-2011 at 07:46 PM.
|
|
#138
10-21-2011, 06:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Anthony & Co
I am sure all of these have been seen... But I thought I would post them for whatever it is worth... Wilcox was a Vice President of the company.
Last edited by smokelessjoe; 10-21-2011 at 06:48 AM.
|
|
#139
11-18-2011, 10:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
FYI - there is a mis-ID in the photo of the 3 older gentlemen just above. They are L to R, Edward Anthony, V. M. Wilcox, Henry T. Anthony. Hence, the man in the Civil War uniform is Wilcox, not Anthony.
I've received some interesting commentary about all of this. This link was emailed to me today: http://whitebetsy.wordpress.com/
|
|
#140
11-21-2011, 07:14 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Mark,
You are correct, I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up the misidentifications of Anthony & Wilcox.... It seems it was even noticed back in 1881. Please see the attached article from the Philadelphia Photographer January 1881!
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 1928 Fro Joy Babe Ruth - Authentic? | Clutch-Hitter | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 27 | 07-05-2011 10:30 PM |
| - SOLD - Alexander Cartwright Letter | aaroncc | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 2 | 04-27-2010 07:41 AM |
| FS: 1923 V100 Willard Chocolate Grover Cleveland Alexander PSA 3 (mk) but clean | packs | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 04-04-2010 12:31 AM |
| PRICE REDUCED - 1944-45 Albertype HOF Postcard - Alexander Cartwright (SGC 80) | bcbgcbrcb | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 10-07-2009 08:59 AM |
| Cartwright Documents: Signature Question | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 2 | 11-14-2008 12:08 PM |
Linear Mode
