Incredible Baseball Tintype Auction Yesterday

[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.

[benjulmag]

Mark,

We have a difference of opinion on this issue. My statements are based directly on what Jerry Richards, the expert I hired to do the Knickerbocker analysis and with whom you spoke at its conclusion, told me. Mr. Richards hasn't seen a few thousand photographs over the years; he has seen tens of thousands, and is as respected an expert in facial ID based on photographic analysis as exists. This was his profession for close to half a century. His conclusions about how ears can and often do change differ from yours, something he told me after he spoke with you. He also stressed to me ad nauseum the margin of error in doing photo ID based on images taken years apart under different photographic processes and under unknown lighting conditions, and that much more often than not the results are inconclusive.

So there is no misunderstanding as to what I am saying, I do not believe your analysis, taking into account how certain facial features can change over time, coupled with the margin of measurement error caused by photographic process, resolution, lighting, changes in appearance during different photographic poses, proves the person in the tintype is not Anson. And that unless it can, other factors can and should be legitimately considered, which when I do make me comfortable Anson is depicted in the tintype.

[bmarlowe1]

The very same Jerry Richards appeared on an episode of a memorabilia show on the history channel and quickly concluded that a photo of an old man could not depict Jesse James because the ear did not match that in a photo of a young Jesse James.

Forensic professionals can be hired to either tell you what they think or to take a side (like a lawyer). The arguments you made, in my view, are kind of boiler plate when the photo details aren't supportive of your point of view. Also they presume that I have no aptitude for visualizing how the appearance of complex 3-D objects are affected by lighting and shadow. As to aptitude, I think I have proven otherwise. My first career choice was commercial art and I did take lessons.

>>taking into account how certain facial features can change over time, coupled with the margin of measurement error caused by photographic process, resolution, lighting, changes in appearance during different photographic poses,...

So, if pose, shadow and unspecified distortion can so easily fool the eye, couldn't that make someone who is not Anson look like Anson?