Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[drcy]

It does not appear to be the Knickerbockers.

[prewarsports]

Originally Posted by drcy

It does not appear to be the Knickerbockers.

David, you might want to clarify which "knickerbockers" you are referring too as this photo has about as much chance of being the 1991 New York Knickerbockers basketball team as it has to being an 1850's shot of New York Knickerbockers baseball team.

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Jonathan, thank you very much for those important contributions and well wishes. De Bost gave me a lot of problems, as at first I thought he was wearing glasses. But after sharpening it up and looking very closely, he's not wearing glasses. His eyes are mostly shut. As with some of the other gentlemen, the blurring of the stereoview and outdoor lighting/shadows make it appear that they have wrinkles where there aren't any. Niebuhr was also very difficult, as he does look younger than the rest. As I said above, I thought at one point that it could be Harry Wright. I can still be convinced of that, but his features match up very well with Niebuhr. In fact, I believe that each of them line up very well when facial features are compared. Here's a side-by-side with an older Doc Adams, which I think is even more convincing.

Corey, I'm glad you were able to see this again after I've researched it further and made it easier to see and get more accurate comparisons. Math is not my forte, but at least the odds are above 50%.

Guy on the right looks a little like Fidel Castro. Lol

[SteveS]

Snowman, we can't see Avery from behind, so we can't tell how full his hair is. On the front, it definitely looks as though there's some degree of loss and a comb-over going on.
David, perhaps you can point to some specific features that you don't think match up.
Joe, well, Castro was a baseball player in his younger days. But check out the comparison with the older Adams that I posted in this thread.

[Snowman]

Out of curiosity, can you run the facial match software using subjects from your photo against each of the subjects from the 1862 photo? I'm curious to see what match percentages it gives you for the people who are clearly not matches.

[SteveS]

Snowman, ask and ye shall receive. As you can see, Adams comes back at 93% and from the same person. But when compared with Avery he's at 39% and from different persons, and with Niebuhr he gets 35% and from different persons.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

David, you might want to clarify which "knickerbockers" you are referring too as this photo has about as much chance of being the 1991 New York Knickerbockers basketball team as it has to being an 1850's shot of New York Knickerbockers baseball team.

I'll grant that it has a better chance of being the 1848 Knickerbockers than the 1991 Knickerbockers.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I guess I come back to a simpler problem. Why would there be a picture of 6 random Knickerbockers in street clothes?

[SteveS]

David, still can't come up with any specific features that are glaring non-matches, huh?

Scott, the 1862 pic is ten random Knickerbockers in street clothes. If I had to make a guess on mine, all six were elected team officers/directors, serving in various roles throughout the years. Perhaps this is a photograph of the officers/directors from whatever year it was taken. I can't find a record of the elections for every year.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by SteveS

David, still can't come up with any specific features that are glaring non-matches, huh?

Scott, the 1862 pic is ten random Knickerbockers in street clothes. If I had to make a guess on mine, all six were elected team officers/directors, serving in various roles throughout the years. Perhaps this is a photograph of the officers/directors from whatever year it was taken. I can't find a record of the elections for every year.

10 is a team though. 6 isn't. It doesn't prove anything, just seems weird.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Snowman, ask and ye shall receive. As you can see, Adams comes back at 93% and from the same person. But when compared with Avery he's at 39% and from different persons, and with Niebuhr he gets 35% and from different persons.

Technology is amazing what it can do and from a picture over 150 years old

Wow

[SteveS]

Scott, in the 1862 pic, many of them weren't even on the team anymore. Nobody knows for sure why that particular photo was assembled. I can't say for sure why it would be those six in mine, but I don't think my speculation is unreasonable, as that number is about right for the executives and directors.

Jeff, it sure is!

[drcy]

There are glaring non-matches, and lack of glaring non-matches does not an identification make.

You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It's a nice original antique photo of unknown people, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[SteveS]

Perhaps you can be more specific about what you see as non-matches. And while it definitely does not make it conclusive, a lack of non-matches among six people certainly pushes the argument closer to being matches.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by drcy

There are glaring non-matches, and lack of glaring non-matches does not an identification make.

You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It's a nice original antique photo of unknown people, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I understand all of the criticisms surrounding when the photo was likely taken based on the arches, technology used at the time, when certain types of photography were used, dating of the attire, etc. But you can't honestly look at those photos and compare the facial features of the subjects and pretend like there aren't at least some remarkable similarities between them. Look at the noses and their bridges. Look at shapes and angles of the brows. Look at the eyes. Look at the shapes of the mouths and the angles of the lines from the nose to the mouth. Look at the prominent cheek bones and jaw lines. Look at the hair lines. Not everyone is a dead ringer, and the photos are obviously not as clear as modern photography, but there are certainly numerous remarkable similarities across the group. You don't need facial match software to see it. But there's a reason the algorithms yield ~30% matches for random people with no similarities and ~90% matches for those which Steve and I both agree look similar. He's not just throwing darts at a dartboard here. Several of these people definitely at least have several similar facial features. That's not nothing. I'm not saying it's definitely the Knickerbockers, but I am a bit baffled by those of you who seem to want to pretend that there's no similarities at all between the subjects. That's just being outright dishonest.

[OldOriole]

This is where I'm at....

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Nice stereoview of “six learned gents”

Almost 0% chance this image is what you are saying it is. The facial recognition you are attempting is not scientific in the least. Not trying to be mean, I just have no idea where you are even coming from with this entire claim. I am not seeing the similarities in the faces that you or any of the others in this thread that have agreed with you are seeing. I am not a novice with facial identifications.

There must be some other context that you haven’t shared with the rest of us because I have no idea how you are making the assumptions that you are. Did this piece originate from the area of the country where these people were at the time the photo was supposed to have been taken? Did it come from the estate of someone related to one of the original Knickerbockers? Do we know the setting of the photo?

Again, not trying to be mean. I just have no idea why/how this is getting any support at all. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim but all I see is wishful thinking and non-scientific facial “identifications”

[SteveS]

Snowman, thank you so much! You helped remind me that I'm not nuts (well, maybe I am a little bit, but not with this).

OldOriole, thank you for your opinion. Please refer to my reply to Rhett with regard to that. And sorry about your team this year.

[slightlyrounded]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I understand all of the criticisms surrounding when the photo was likely taken based on the arches, technology used at the time, when certain types of photography were used, dating of the attire, etc. But you can't honestly look at those photos and compare the facial features of the subjects and pretend like there aren't at least some remarkable similarities between them. Look at the noses and their bridges. Look at shapes and angles of the brows. Look at the eyes. Look at the shapes of the mouths and the angles of the lines from the nose to the mouth. Look at the prominent cheek bones and jaw lines. Look at the hair lines. Not everyone is a dead ringer, and the photos are obviously not as clear as modern photography, but there are certainly numerous remarkable similarities across the group. You don't need facial match software to see it. But there's a reason the algorithms yield ~30% matches for random people with no similarities and ~90% matches for those which Steve and I both agree look similar. He's not just throwing darts at a dartboard here. Several of these people definitely at least have several similar facial features. That's not nothing. I'm not saying it's definitely the Knickerbockers, but I am a bit baffled by those of you who seem to want to pretend that there's no similarities at all between the subjects. That's just being outright dishonest.

I “honestly” looked at those facial comparisons and thought each was individually a reach.

I’ve no horse in this race, but I think absent any other proof, this is a complete stretch.

[drcy]

I've learned about Net54 that, even when shown a map, someone in a thread will continue to argue that Austin might be the capital of Michigan.

This thread jumped the shark when people, who freely admitted they know little to nothing about photography, started posting mathematical equations.

[SteveS]

Thank you for your honest opinion, slightlyrounded! I think what frustrates me the most is that I have put forth several areas that are clear matches (and Snowman did an excellent job of that above). But of the people who disagree, none have been able to point out anything that clearly differs between the comparisons that would obviously exclude them as being matches.
drcy, no, you haven't shown any map. You gave your opinion, which is fine, but cited nothing to back it up.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Nice stereoview of “six learned gents”

Almost 0% chance this image is what you are saying it is. The facial recognition you are attempting is not scientific in the least. Not trying to be mean, I just have no idea where you are even coming from with this entire claim. I am not seeing the similarities in the faces that you or any of the others in this thread that have agreed with you are seeing. I am not a novice with facial identifications.

There must be some other context that you haven’t shared with the rest of us because I have no idea how you are making the assumptions that you are. Did this piece originate from the area of the country where these people were at the time the photo was supposed to have been taken? Did it come from the estate of someone related to one of the original Knickerbockers? Do we know the setting of the photo?

Again, not trying to be mean. I just have no idea why/how this is getting any support at all. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim but all I see is wishful thinking and non-scientific facial “identifications”

Pretty much where I'm at.

I WANT it to be true. I REALLY want this to be a cool new find.

But I'm sorry, I don't see any of the comparisons very convincingly matching up, let alone 6 of them.

That said, maybe the 1862 photo is entirely mis-identified and the "6 learned gents" are the real Knickerbockers. I wouldn't know one guy from the next if I'm being completely honest.

[SteveS]

Dave, thank you for your opinion! The quality of the 1862 photo has been discussed above. But I'll give you a specific example. If you look at Doc Adams (the upper-right comparison here), in the 1862 picture there is a shadow or photographer's enhancement at the top-right of his head which obscures his true hairline. If you blow up that picture you will see it much more clearly and find that the hairlines are a match.

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Snowman, we can't see Avery from behind, so we can't tell how full his hair is. On the front, it definitely looks as though there's some degree of loss and a comb-over going on.
David, perhaps you can point to some specific features that you don't think match up.
Joe, well, Castro was a baseball player in his younger days. But check out the comparison with the older Adams that I posted in this thread.

I googled Doc Adams photo, there are similarities to the photos I joked about Castro. That’s all I can contribute. Joe

[egri]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The thing I find most troubling with respect to just looking at the photos and comparing facial features is the hair loss of Avery and Curry. If Avery eventually goes completely bald on top as in his 1862 photo, then he wouldn't have had a full head of hair at the age of 43 (assuming the photo was taken in 1857). Someone with that level of hair loss is going to begin losing their hair in their 20s and will show signs of severe hair loss by their mid-30s. Either the timelines here are way off, or it's simply not the same person. But nobody has a full head of hair at the age of 43 and then goes on to lose it all on top years later.

That said, I do think the eyes, brow, nose, bridge, mouth and angles of the face look quite similar for Avery in both photos. But the hairlines do not line up with expectations unless the photo was taken much much earlier than 1857 (would have to be at least a decade earlier I would argue, and probably more like 15 years earlier).

I don't have a horse in this race, but is it possible Avery was wearing a hairpiece?

[SteveS]

Joe, thank you for taking the time to look that up and posting what you found!

Scott, I'm not sure if hairpieces existed then. To me, it looks like a guy with thinning hair who's doing the best with what he has.

[egri]

Originally Posted by SteveS

...a guy with thinning hair who's doing the best with what he has.

I resemble that remark!

[SteveS]

Well, Scott, at least you have something in common with a baseball pioneer. And it happens to the best of us.

[molenick]

I cannot comment on the reliability of facial recognition but one thing I think is not meaningful (in either direction) is that there are six people in the photo.

The "pro" side has to come up with something about it being a reasonable number for executives and directors. The Knickerbockers had three officers to start (president, vice president, secretary-treasurer). I am not sure what happened later on but four (splitting secretary and treasurer) would be pretty standard. Six seems arbitrary. Why not five or seven? Sure, it could be a mixture of current and former officers…in which case, there could be any number of people in the photo. While it is possible to make up a story to fit the narrative that these six people were all associated with the Knickerbockers, it is also true that there are many, many other reasons that six people would be in a photo. I don't think six has any significance without some other information coming to light.

The "con" side wants it to be ten (I guess for the starters plus a manager or substitute) but I don't think that is necessary for it to be the Knickerbockers (or any team). Maybe it was a reunion and only six people showed up. An undocumented reunion of the most famous team of early baseball who are essentially now known because they liked to document things.

Here is a photo of what are clearly baseball players on the same team (or at least people dressed as baseball players on the same team) plus the manager or proud father or owner of the photo studio or top hat salesman. Why are there four? I don’t know, but that doesn’t mean they are not baseball players on the same team. It doesn’t mean anything except that four people in baseball uniforms (plus a guy in a suit) posed for a photo 130-140 years ago.

[SteveS]

That's a really cool pic, Michael! I love those bats. And I totally agree that it means nothing either way that there are six people in the photo. I was just throwing out a possible reason. As you say, one of many. But just as an aside, six would not be at all unreasonable if it is indeed the officers. They would have a president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, and a couple or a few directors (the numbers varied over the years).

[molenick]

Thank you, Steve. I decided awhile ago that if I was going to collect generic baseball cdvs, cabinets, and tintypes I wasn't going to mess around with street clothes poses...or even uniformed poses without equipment (I didn't want to end up with firemen or acrobats). Of course, there are exceptions if the uniform is obviously baseball or if the street clothes pose is in a known set with positive IDs (like Warren cdvs of the Boston Red Stockings...not that I have any). But for 95% of that part of my collection, I need some baseball equipment to be shown or I am usually not interested (to the point where I prefer street clothes and equipment to uniforms and no equipment).

That being said, good luck with your photo. I lean more on the "I need to see more proof" side but I admire your utilization of modern techniques to try and figure out what you have.

[SteveS]

Thanks, Michael. I continue to look for more ways to prove it. And as you mentioned the Red Stockings and non-uniformed poses, I figure I'll toss in something that I picked up. Again, it was simply listed as just a generic guy from Boston, but I'm pretty sure he's George Wright.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Thanks, Michael. I continue to look for more ways to prove it. And as you mentioned the Red Stockings and non-uniformed poses, I figure I'll toss in something that I picked up. Again, it was simply listed as just a generic guy from Boston, but I'm pretty sure he's George Wright.

Nice find. This one looks like a dead ringer to me. Although I'm sure the expert Mr drcy will tell us all that he looks more like Shaq than George Wright.

[molenick]

Well, no disrespect meant, but (unless you are trying to be funny) the fact that you think that cabinet looks anything like the person below or either of the pictures you posted makes me more doubtful of the Knickerbockers IDs. But that's just me, I guess others could disagree.

[SteveS]

I'm glad I opened a whole new can of worms ("He's a dead-ringer"/"He looks nothing like him"). Snowman, did you notice that drcy edited his comment after I responded to it in order to diss you and others? Yet he still hasn't pointed out any specific glaring differences, despite my numerous invitations to do so.

Michael, that picture of George Wright you posted is from his playing days. He eventually lost all of that tremendous hair. Which is kind of reminiscent of the Walter Avery discussion. Here's another pic of an older George.

[slightlyrounded]

On the back of the card, does it look like it reads "3rd 5th" on the right hand side? Or is that 'Stll'?....hard to tell. If so, maybe that could represent a civil war regiment or battalion and this was some sort of reunion or formal meeting?

Or perhaps something to do with the history of 5th 3rd bank?

Sorry, just spitballing.

[bdk1976]

I think one of the guys might be Shoeless Joe

[SteveS]

slightlyrounded, I appreciate your looking at the back view that I posted. From what I can tell, it's written with a modern pen. I think it has to do with the way the guy from whom I bought it kept track of his inventory. He had a lot of old photographs listed, and others also had similar numbers on the back.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by molenick

Well, no disrespect meant, but (unless you are trying to be funny) the fact that you think that cabinet looks anything like the person below or either of the pictures you posted makes me more doubtful of the Knickerbockers IDs. But that's just me, I guess others could disagree.

Interestingly, this photo of George Wright looks far less like the other photo of George Wright than the one Steve posted above. Steve's photo looks much more like the other photo of him than this one lol. It's amazing how much age can change someone's appearance. But the side-by-side Steve posted above is pretty difficult to argue against in terms of appearance. Those two photos are dead wringers side-by-side. Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous.

[molenick]

All right, I will leave it to others to chime in. It is a very interesting experiment in what people do or don't see while looking at the same thing (and what evidence people use to either support or disprove a theory). Again, no disrespect meant if I sounded a bit snarky.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by SteveS

slightlyrounded, I appreciate your looking at the back view that I posted. From what I can tell, it's written with a modern pen. I think it has to do with the way the guy from whom I bought it kept track of his inventory. He had a lot of old photographs listed, and others also had similar numbers on the back.

Ah, modern pen! Well there you have it! This photo couldn't possibly have been taken prior to 1953 as this is when Bic pens were invented!

[SteveS]

bdk1976, say it ain't so!

Michael, in no way did you sound snarky! All your comments have been thoughtful, honest, and insightful. Another thing about the Wright photo is that it was taken by a Boston photographer who was known for having only the most prestigious customers. By this time, George was known in that town not just as a player, but he had established one of the country's top sporting goods businesses, Wright & Ditson.

Snowman, yeah, getting old sucks. And it's too bad Doc Adams didn't autograph this stereoview with his Bic.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Nice find. This one looks like a dead ringer to me. Although I'm sure the expert Mr drcy will tell us all that he looks more like Shaq than George Wright.

I do not think that is George Wright.

[rhettyeakley]

You all need to stop.

These are NOT close.

Also, for your own sanity stop buying cabinets of "learned gents" or "generic Boston guy" on ebay

[68Hawk]

Re the George Wright and his close-ish cousin images, two things jump out at me pretty quickly that say not the same person.

First is level at which the top of the ears finish.
The authentic Wright images show that top of his ears are fairly low at roughly bottom of the eye ball if you imagine a horizontal plane crossing his face. The other image gentleman has ears that seem up around top of the eyeballs or higher at eyebrow level. Fairly significant difference to me.
Eyebrow shape also look quite different to me between the two gents.
Secondly, Wrights lower lip is fairly full and rounds outwards creating a noticeable 'shadow' effect in both authentic images.
The one you're relating it to has a tight lower lip that doesn't furl at all.
I think there are enough other differences to also suggest not the same person.

With your other comparisons relating to the '6', the issue I have is that more often than not if I see faces of people at a certain age, even if they gain a little weight/lose weight and age somewhat/hair styles change - I usually can quickly feel whether they seem related. It's kind of a quick recognition thing.
While I understand why you are making the case, I just don't get that 'feeling' of recognizing the similarities such that I'd know that person having seen them once, and then re-seeing them some years later.

All the best though with your endeavor, unlike some I don't see any harm in your venture regardless of your motives.
Should it become accepted or agreed upon by enough experts then it will be a good story, and if not it is still a fun adventure you've embarked on.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I do not think that is George Wright.

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

You all need to stop.

These are NOT close.

Also, for your own sanity stop buying cabinets of "learned gents" or "generic Boston guy" on ebay

Originally Posted by molenick

... the fact that you think that cabinet looks anything like...either of the pictures you posted makes me more doubtful of the Knickerbockers IDs.

I feel like I'm in an episode of the Twilight Zone now. Are you guys just trolling now? You can't be serious here, surely.

There's no way someone can look at these two photos and at the very least not say that George Wright clearly has a doppleganger if this isn't him. I just can't take you seriously if you want to sit here and pretend like the subjects in these two photos don't at least look EXTREMELY alike.

[Snowman]

OK, I won't bet on the Knickerbockers photo, but if anyone think I'm nuts and wants to place a wager with me on the George Wright photo, please send me a PM. I will wager money that this photo is of George Wright.

Edited to add: I'll wager up to $10k on it. I will also wager a testicle on it. I am 100% convinced that this photo is of George Wright.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

The problem with all of these threads is that the burden of PROOF is on the person making the claim, not the skeptics. However, with a vested interest the person making the claim often wants to jump from evidence to a closed case.

Members on this board would like nothing better than to be part of a cool discovery. Pretty sure the board was instrumental in discovering the T202 Joe Jackson center panel.

We have some incredibly knowledgeable people on this board, some who have offered their opinions. However it is not their job to convince you why it isn't what you say, it's your job to convince them why it is.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

The problem with all of these threads is that the burden of PROOF is on the person making the claim, not the skeptics. However, with a vested interest the person making the claim often wants to jump from evidence to a closed case.

Members on this board would like nothing better than to be part of a cool discovery. Pretty sure the board was instrumental in discovering the T202 Joe Jackson center panel.

We have some incredibly knowledgeable people on this board, some who have offered their opinions. However it is not their job to convince you why it isn't what you say, it's your job to convince them why it is.

OK, I'll take a stab even though it's not my photo and I have no stake in the matter (unless someone wants to lose a bet against me lol). Here's why I'm so confident. First, let's start with the photographer, Elmer Chickering. According to Wikipedia, "Elmer Chickering (1857-1915) was a photographer specializing in portraits in Boston, Massachusetts, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He kept a studio on West Street, and photographed politicians, actors, athletes, and other public figures such as Kyrle Bellew, John Philip Sousa, Sarah Winnemucca, Edmund Breese, and the Boston Americans."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Chickering

Remember, George Wright wasn't just a HOFer. He was a sports LEGEND in Boston at that time. He also owned and operated a hugely successful sporting goods store "Wright & Ditson" just a few miles away from Chickering's photography studio in Boston. He founded the sporting goods store in 1871, the same year he began playing for the Boston Americans, and ran the store for over 50 years! Part of the business would later become Spalding. He was so successful that in the early 1900s, he expanded to NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco. George Wright wasn't just a baseball player, he was THE baseball player of his era in Boston. And you could go into his store any time to meet him in person. He was a local celebrity. But his store didn't just sell baseball stuff. He also brought golf to the United States, building the first public golf course in the USA in Boston in 1890. He also made the top tennis racquets in the country. Wright & Ditson was a HUGE, HUGE brand in the late 1800s and early 1900s. As noted above, the photographer behind this photo, Elmer Chickering, was known for photographing famous people; important public figures, and the Boston Americans in particular. If there was one athlete in the city of Boston during that time that he would have photographed, it would have been Goerge Wright. He was that famous in the city of Boston.

As far as resemblances go, here are several more photographs of George Wright in his later years that collectively, all but prove that this is in fact a photo of George Wright. First, notice the eyes in the black and white photo of George in his older years that I've zoomed in on, you can see that George Wright has very light-colored eyes in this photo. The subject in Steve's photo also has very light-colored eyes, which a very small percentage of the population has. Next, look at the photo with the all-white background where Wright is wearing a white shirt. Look at his hairline in that photo. Follow the angles of it. It is exactly the same hairline as the subject in Steve's photo. Also, look at the mustaches in pretty much any photo. All of them are the same as the mustache in Steve's photo. Same angles and triangular shape. Next, look at the noses and angle of the bridge in each photo. The same long pointy nose in all of them, exactly like the nose in Steve's photo. This is particularly evident in the photo of him when he's older and looking up to the right. And look at the jaw lines, again, exactly the same. Also look at the chin in the yellowish photo. Pay attention to the highlights of how the light hits his chin in that photo and in Steve's photo. That's the exact same chin and shape with a somewhat rounded proud shape to it. Also, look at his hair, he has the same wavy hair on the sides in each photo. Also, look at the noses photo and notice the angle of the nose in both, as well as the shape of the nostrils. Someone previously said something about his bottom lip being bubbly so it couldn't possibly be him, but that's simply not true. That's just a bad shadow from a poor image. Look at the crystal clear image of him when he's older and looking off to the right. Look at his bottom lip in that photo. You can see it clearly there. It is the exact same thin bottom lip as the one in Steve's photo. Also, look at the photo of him in his older years where he's in his sporting goods store holding the golf club and notice what he wears in his store: the same style sport coat with a white shirt and a bow tie. Same thing he's wearing in Steve's photo.

In my opinion, this is almost certainly a photo of George Wright taken by a local Boston photographer of the same era who was well known for photographing famous people in Boston and the Boston Americans in particular during a time when George Wright was about as big of a name as there was in Boston sports. He was the right age, in the right city, at the right time, and the right type of public figure for Chickering to have taken his portrait. The subject in Steve's photo is an absolute dead ringer for George Wright. And if anyone was going to take a professional-looking photo of him in Boston, Elmer Chickering would have been at the top of the list to do it.

[Tao_Moko]

I see a resemblance in the Wright images. Would not bet a testi on it, but it would be worth digging into further. The KBBC is way off to me. Unless I missed it, there's no provenance provided.

***Update*** After further review, I would not bet on the Wright.

[OldOriole]

OK, I'm trying to be impartial and objective. I've read through the entire thread two more times today to try to take it all in. I just do NOT see it. I think when we want something to be a certain thing so badly, our mind starts to connecting dots and we go from being hopeful to thinking we have proof.

I applaud the level of effort on this and it's been an interesting thread to read (at least for me).Some of the commenters being dismissed by our newly registered optimists (welcome to the board in 2021, BTW) are experts in the field, have written books on photography, early baseball, etc., and are not just being 'disingenuous'. They're giving you their honest , learned opinion that these are both examples of grabbing at straws.

If you want to keep thinking you made the amazing discovery of the Knikerbocker team or George Wright (who wouldn't want either of these to be true?) go right ahead. Please just hear the people who politely disagree. We're fans of this era, of baseball, of it's history, We'd love it to be true, but do not feel that it is. I'm going to fall on the side of Rhett, drcy, and many others on this thread. You don't have to agree with us (you think you have PROOF) just like we don't have to agree with you (we don't think this is PROOF).