Incredible Baseball Tintype Auction Yesterday

[benjulmag]

For purposes of full disclosure, I am the person who purchased the Anson tintype.

In regard to how one knows it is Anson, I too asked the same questions. I did not take into account at all that Ken Burns identified it as such, as I have no information how he came to that determination.

The basis for my ID is the extraordinary resemblance of the person identified as Anson in the tintype compared to two closely-dated images of him – the c. 1868 Marshalltown team shot and the 1874 Studdards & Fennmore cabinet. Yes, I am aware how easy it is for different people to resemble each other, but I simply could not get over the resemblances in this instance. Anson’s hair and the way he parts it is distinct, and they match very well. His eyes are a distinct blue, which when one has the tintype in hand show perfectly. In sum, I (and all others I showed it too, most of whom never heard of Anson) thought the images matched. Other corroborating aspects are his central position in the photo (middle of the front row), exactly where one would expect to see the team’s most important player, and the strong familial resemblance of the person in the middle of the back row to Anson, something I regarded as noteworthy as Anson's brother was on the team.

As to whether other players match up to players in the c. 1868 Marshalltown, that is a difficult comparison to make because in that image the other players are not wearing caps, which they are in the tintype (though Anson is not, thankfully). Also, because Anson played on Marshalltown for several years, the images could be from different years when the team composition could have changed.

At the end of the day each of us makes collecting decisions based on his/her subjective comfort level, and with this image I felt really good it was Anson.

To be totally transparent, SABR’s pictorial committee newsletter several years ago concluded the image does not depict Anson, something I was well aware of when I reached the opposite conclusion. The flaw with the newsletter’s analysis is that it does not take into account the tintype is a reverse image, so all the comparisons it makes to the corresponding features on the comparison images were based on the opposite-side’s feature. The human face is not symmetrical, thereby IMO rendering the analysis flawed. I also strongly believe that even if done properly, between the fact that certain facial features change over time (e.g., ears) coupled with the difficulty in taking exact measurements due to resolution and distortion effects, the comparison is simply not precise enough to rule out Anson.

[aquarius31]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

At the end of the day each of us makes collecting decisions based on his/her subjective comfort level, and with this image I felt really good it was Anson.

Hi Corey, that's the most important part. What are your thoughts on the dating of the tintype?

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by aquarius31

Hi Corey, that's the most important part. What are your thoughts on the dating of the tintype?

c. 1870

[aelefson]

Congratulations Corey! The facial matching process is beyond my knowledge. I am glad you did your own research and am sure you are excited to add it to your collection.

Alan

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by aelefson

Congratulations Corey! The facial matching process is beyond my knowledge. I am glad you did your own research and am sure you are excited to add it to your collection.

Alan

Thank you Alan. In all my years in the hobby, I have never seen an auction with the quantity and quality of baseball tintypes as in this auction. And too there were other items, some absolutely spectacular.

[Jamie_h]

Congrats on the pick up. amazing!

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

For purposes of full disclosure, I am the person who purchased the Anson tintype...To be totally transparent, SABR’s pictorial committee newsletter several years ago concluded the image does not depict Anson, something I was well aware of when I reached the opposite conclusion. The flaw with the newsletter’s analysis is that it does not take into account the tintype is a reverse image, so all the comparisons it makes to the corresponding features on the comparison images were based on the opposite-side’s feature. The human face is not symmetrical, thereby IMO rendering the analysis flawed. I also strongly believe that even if done properly, between the fact that certain facial features change over time (e.g., ears) coupled with the difficulty in taking exact measurements due to resolution and distortion effects, the comparison is simply not precise enough to rule out Anson.

Corey is quite right in pointing out that when I wrote the article in 2016, I did not know the image in question was a tintype. I saw it in a John Thorn article - indeed I had it flipped the wrong way . However with the image in question oriented correctly, each and every argument I made still applies. The tintype does not depict Anson. I will post a revision here.

>> certain facial features change over time (e.g., ears)...

They don't change in such a gross manner as would be required to support this guy being Anson. Ear changes in men of baseball playing age are extremely hard to see in photos.

>> difficulty in taking exact measurements due to resolution and distortion effects...

The differences are gross - sub-millimeter resolution is not needed and I would not attempt it. Exactly what has caused the claimed very large distortion?

[bmarlowe1]

revised:

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

revised:

Mark,

I have no dog in this fight. It makes no matter to me if it is Anson or not. You seem to have developed a very good method for analyzing facial features. As a long time photographer (40+ years) and photo collector (35 years) sometimes it is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Looking at the photo that is/is not Anson the one feature that jumps out to me even more than the ears is the eyebrows and forehead. That is clearly not discussed. However, from how I view it I don't see how a person who is known to be Anson could go from very arched eyebrows and bulging forehead over the bridge of the nose to very straight eyebrows and a less pronounced, almost flat forehead. I doubt he was tweezing or had a facelift. Just an observation. I could NOT care less one way or the other as it would not fit in my photography collection.

[benjulmag]

Mark,

This appears to be an instance where we are going to agree to disagree.

To respond briefly to your revised analysis:

1. Comparison of ears from images 30 years apart means little. Ears change. An analogy would be analyzing handwriting; exemplars made years apart from the sample at issue have little value and are not used.

2. Your analysis of ear location is dependent on identical angles of the comparison faces, something that can be easily demonstrated when looking at yourself in the mirror and then noticing the changes in the separation between the eye and the ear as you change the tilt of your face. The face in your comparison image has a different tilt angle.

3. The distinctiveness of a shadow below the lower lip would depend in large measure on the light source used and its location, something we have no information about in any of these images.

I dated the Marshalltown tintype as c. 1870, because in it Anson seems more developed than in the albumen image dated c. 1868. The question rises, even if the images are from different years, whether there are any overlap of players, as one would reasonably expect at least a few. Logic would suggest starting one's search by focusing on the players sitting to Anson's right and left, as by their prominent positions in the front of the photo adjacent to Anson they would seem to be good candidates to be team veterans. The person on the front right in the tintype bears a strong resemblance to the person standing in the middle of the albumen image. Among its consistencies are a comparable tilting of the lips when the reverse image of the tintype is factored in.

I have long surmised that the bearded person in the c. 1868 image next to Anson is his father, who was known to be on the team. That person resembles the person at the top left in the tintype (next to "Anson's brother"). Because in one image he is bearded and in the other clean shaven, comparison is fraught with error. But the person does look older than the other players, and in each instance is standing next to a person who very well might be his son, as one would expect when father and son position for a group photo.

As I said in my earlier post, collecting is subjective, including one's comfort level. Based on all I know and have seen, my view as to whether Anson is depicted in the tintype is unchanged. That others may differ I totally respect.

[bmarlowe1]

Hi Corey,

1) It is well known that ears change little from young teens (or some say even younger) until old age (some say age 60, some say aged 70 at which point lobe droop may accelerate for some). Ears are not autographs.

2) I am comparing horizontal ear location, not vertical ear location to which your argument does apply.

3) I am not arguing about the distinctiveness of the shallow below the lower lip but it's location which is considered to be a key identifying factor.

There are quite a few known images of Anson, all of which as far as I know do not have these problems.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Hi Corey,

1) It is well known that ears change little from young teens (or some say even younger) until old age (some say age 60, some say aged 70 at which point lobe droop may accelerate for some). Ears are not autographs.

2) I am comparing horizontal ear location, not vertical ear location to which your argument does apply.

3) I am not arguing about the distinctiveness of the shallow below the lower lip but it's location which is considered to be a key identifying factor.

There are quite a few known images of Anson, all of which as far as I know do not have these problems.

Mark,

As I said we are going to agree to disagree. I disagree with your view how ears can change over time. And I do not believe you fully understand how light and photographic process can impact facial comparisons. I respect that you see differences; rarely does one not when comparing two images. But I vigorously disagree that scientifically the tintype can be proven not to depict Anson, as you claim. That type of conclusion is very much the exception when one does comparisons of faces that resemble each other. My view, and my view only, is that you present but one factor of many, and when one weighs it against the plethora of others consistent with it being Anson, I am comfortable it is.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Mark,

As I said we are going to agree to disagree. I disagree with your view how ears can change over time. And I do not believe you fully understand how light and photographic process can impact facial comparisons. I respect that you see differences; rarely does one not when comparing two images. But I vigorously disagree that scientifically the tintype can be proven not to depict Anson, as you claim. That type of conclusion is very much the exception when one does comparisons of faces that resemble each other. My view, and my view only, is that you present but one factor of many, and when one weighs it against the plethora of others consistent with it being Anson, I am comfortable it is.

Hope all is well with you. My view as to how little ears change is based on the scientific literature on the subject and experience comparing at least few thousand photos over the years and seeing results that are consistent with that literature.