Circa 1846 Daguerreotype – Alexander Joy Cartwright debate

[bmarlowe1]

>>> 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?)

[oldjudge]

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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.

But that is exactly what we are dealing with here.

[bmarlowe1]

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.

[oldjudge]

"But that is exactly what we are dealing with here"--right. The odds are realllllllllllllllllly long that it is AC in the half plate and very high that it is not.

[bmarlowe1]

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

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.

The 20th century Cartwright family members who knew young Alfred so well?

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

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.

Mark,

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Here is another thought on provenance.

The heavily over-painted photo, below right, originating with the Cartwright family, ......
.....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?

This resemblance is sort of hard to ignore. Perhaps you've found the photo they used to paint up fireman #2.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>>> 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?)

I don't think the B images mean much in this analysis. Certainly Mr. Richards doesn't believe so. I would hope the basis for saying the A subjects are AJC go beyond an opinion they correlate to the B images.

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).