Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[GaryPassamonte]

Albumen stereoviews first showed up in the mid-late 1850s, I believe. Frederick Langenheim of Philadelphia made the first stereoviews on glass circa 1854.
Shortly thereafter, he began making albumen stereoviews. I have a few non-baseball Langenheim 1850s albumen stereoviews with the curved top photograph style. Their date is confirmed by their reverse "American Steroscopic Company Langnheim and LLoyd" identifier. Langenheim and Lloyd were partners in the American Stereoscopic company from circa 1857 until 1859, thus the positive late 1850s dating. Although in the photography business for years, the Anthony brothers didn't start making stereoviews until 1859. This means the "Knickerbockers" stereoview can be as early as 1859 per my Langenhein Lloyd stereoviews of a similar style. I can not speak to the identification of the men in the stereoview, but the stereoview can be circa 1860. Seeing the reverse of the stereoview might also help with determining its age.
I will also add that if the stereoview in question is a larger "imperial" size stereoview, it would almost certainly be post 1870.

[SteveS]

Thank you so much for that info, Gary! I have no idea whether this is an Anthony photograph, as it's unmarked. And while they didn't open their stereoview business until 1859, it's possible that this could have been done before that for their personal use. Also possible that some other photographer took it. But I appreciate that you were able to confirm that this type of photograph did exist during that period.

[Snowman]

This is a fascinating discussion. I'll start out by saying I know nothing at all about Civil War era photography or stereoviews. But I do have two comments to add that I think supports both arguments.

1. Male pattern baldness comes in several different forms, but the form in which an individual experiences it is determined by their genetics. One can't switch between types of male pattern baldness, they can only continue to lose hair that is consistent with their type. The man with the eyebags (I believe you identified him as Duncan Curry?) appears to have two different types of male pattern baldness in the two photos. Perhaps the younger photo is a combover of sorts? Perhaps they're not the same person? I don't know.

2. Probability theory informs us that the probability of the group photo being the Knickerbockers based on the individual probabilities associated with facial recognition algorithms of each individual is proportional to the product sum of those probabilities. In other words, if the probability of each person being a "match" is 90%, then the probability of the group being the Knickerbockers is equivalent to the 1 - (0.1^6) = 0.999999 or 99.9999% chance that this is the Knickerbockers. However, this is based on the assumption that a "90% match" actually means the individuals in two photos are 90% likely to be the same person. I don't know if this assumption holds true, and wouldn't be surprised at all if it didn't. I don't know enough about facial recognition software to make that claim. But I do know enough about probability theory to know that if all 6 are high matches then the group as a whole is a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher likelihood of being a match as well.

[Directly]

If the photo was examined by 100 experts, 25 would say without a doubt its right--25 would say no way, 25 would be inconclusive, 25 would say it may be, it may not.-- the burden of proof is up to the owner to convince all 100 experts its right---good luck in your quest.

[SteveS]

Snowman, I did notice Curry's hair. When I blow up his photo from the stereoview, there's a smudge/blur that goes across his forehead that obscures a bit of the hairline; the outdoor lighting also contributes to that. But he has those very prominent eye bags, as well as a distinctive nose and open mouth which have me convinced.
Directly, you summed up where I stand pretty perfectly.

[jpop43]

In the immortal words of Agent Fox Mulder of TV’s ‘the X-Files’, “I want to believe”. The discovery of a legitimate, thoroughly researched, peer reviewed image of 6 members of the Knickerbocker BBC would be beyond historically significant. Not to mention how valuable and desirable it would be to the collecting community.

My opinion is by no means as expert as those who’ve already weighed in on the history of photography/stereoviews, but I did want to add some context to this discussion by simply pointing out the birthdates and ages of those allegedly reflected on the image.

This would just be another tool to help assess what we are looking at and whether these men are likely to be Knickerbockers.

Here are the birth years of those allegedly pictured…

Walter Avery, b. Jan. 1814
D.L. Adams b. Nov. 1814
Duncan Curry b. Nov. 1812
Charles DeBost b. Aug. 1826
Fraley Niebuhr b. Nov. 1820
Charles Birney b. approx. 1811

Based upon discussion thus far, lets…for arguments sake…use the date of 1857 for the stereoview image. If it was taken in 1857…verifiably early (but apparently possible) for such an image type…here’s how old those men would have been at the time the photo was taken…

Avery, 43 years of age
Adams, 43 years of age
Curry, 45 years of age
DeBost, 31 years of age
Niebuhr, 37 years of age
Birney, 46 years of age

To me, several of the subjects appear much younger than this, while others seem older…just not the ones you’d think.

Now, as the OP points out, there is a possibility that the image was made from an earlier one. If that was the case, the original image would have been a daguerreotype (pre-1857 in this case as that's the approx date of the stereoview). Again, for the sake of discussion, let’s try and see this angle thru…

If an original image of this group was, in fact, used as the basis of the stereoview, we would simply subtract years off of each of the individuals back to the round-about date of that original photo, thus dating it.

I suppose we have to ask ourselves how early this image could possibly have been taken given the appearances of the subjects. Some appear to be quite young in the stereoview…lets say in their 30’s (i.e. the alleged Avery, Adams, Birney, and Niebuhr subjects). If that’s the case, the image would have to have been taken around 1845-1850 (based on their known birthdates).

Two of the subjects…those said to be Curry and DeBost…appear quite a bit older than the other subjects depicted on the stereoview. Yet, both men would have been right around the same age or younger than the other subjects if they were indeed the KBBC. In fact, DeBost would be the youngest of the group by 6 years…its curious that the subject id’d as DeBost looks to be the most senior (WAY older looking than the boyish subject id’d as Niebuhr who would have been 6 years his elder).

Last observation…and I’m not a photography expert…but I’m not sure if such an image (very crisp, multiple subjects, posed outdoors) was possible in the 1840s-1850s given the exceedingly long exposure times. If the stereoview was made from an earlier image and re-printed in 1857-1859, how much earlier could that image have dated? And, how would it jive with the known ages/appearances of the alleged subjects at various points in time.

Like I said to start my post, I am so very much hoping that this image somehow turns out to be members of the KBBC…it would be great for the history and the hobby. Again, I am no expert…on anything really…but I did want to just add some of this info with the hope that it informs the dialogue as it moves forward.

Crossing my fingers for SteveS and the potential for something special.

Best,
Jonathan
www.dugouttreasures.com

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This is a fascinating discussion. I'll start out by saying I know nothing at all about Civil War era photography or stereoviews. But I do have two comments to add that I think supports both arguments.

1. Male pattern baldness comes in several different forms, but the form in which an individual experiences it is determined by their genetics. One can't switch between types of male pattern baldness, they can only continue to lose hair that is consistent with their type. The man with the eyebags (I believe you identified him as Duncan Curry?) appears to have two different types of male pattern baldness in the two photos. Perhaps the younger photo is a combover of sorts? Perhaps they're not the same person? I don't know.

2. Probability theory informs us that the probability of the group photo being the Knickerbockers based on the individual probabilities associated with facial recognition algorithms of each individual is proportional to the product sum of those probabilities. In other words, if the probability of each person being a "match" is 90%, then the probability of the group being the Knickerbockers is equivalent to the 1 - (0.1^6) = 0.999999 or 99.9999% chance that this is the Knickerbockers. However, this is based on the assumption that a "90% match" actually means the individuals in two photos are 90% likely to be the same person. I don't know if this assumption holds true, and wouldn't be surprised at all if it didn't. I don't know enough about facial recognition software to make that claim. But I do know enough about probability theory to know that if all 6 are high matches then the group as a whole is a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher likelihood of being a match as well.

Snowman,

Not sure what you are saying. But to be clear, if each individual has a 90% chance of being a Knickerbocker, the probability of all six individuals being Knickerbockers is 0.9^6 which equates to 53%. The probability of only one of the members being a Knickerbocker is 1 - (0.1^6) which equates to the 99.9999% you cite. For it to be a Knickerbocker group photo, the relevant probability would be the 53%, not the 99.9999%.

[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%.

[benjulmag]

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%.

Steve,

For the odds to be greater than 50% by probability theory analysis, the facial recognition analysis you cite must be accurate. I am not familiar with the method you used, and in any event have no experience with that technique. But inasmuch as facial features change over time, unless you used as your comps images of each subject taken at substantially the same point in their lives, which I don't know how one could confidently do that here, I would be very skeptical of the reliability of facial recognition analysis in this instance.

[SteveS]

Corey, as you know, it's difficult to make comparisons when there aren't a whole lot of comparison photos of these guys out there. Another aspect that makes it tough is the 1862 photo, which has the only known pictures of several of the Knicks. You are no doubt far more familiar with that photo than I am, but it's my understanding that it's a composite, and it's unknown how many of them took their picture in that studio or sent in their own picture for the photographer to include. So maybe one or more sent in an older photo. As for the facial-match programs, while the results for all of them are indeed very high using two different programs, I have come to rely less on them and more on my eyes. And there are some unique features that match up extremely well with all of them.

[jpop43]

Steve,

As I don't believe I read it (and forgive me if I missed it), when do you believe the actual image was captured/taken? Do you feel it is contemporary to stereoview technology and the particular mount/design we see here (estimated to maybe 1857 at earliest), OR do you feel it was captured earlier and copied to the stereoview later on? If its the latter, how early does your research date it to?

Thanks,
Jon

[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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I would suggest reaching out to the HOF and the SABR photo group.

[SteveS]

Scott, thank you very much for those suggestions! I've actually done both of those things. The HOF replied that they weren't allowed to authenticate photos, and provided a list of authentication services. I sent it to SABR people awhile back before I sharpened the pictures and had firmer IDs. One person thought it could be them, and one didn't. Perhaps I'll submit it again with the more recent info.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Scott, thank you very much for those suggestions! I've actually done both of those things. The HOF replied that they weren't allowed to authenticate photos, and provided a list of authentication services. I sent it to SABR people awhile back before I sharpened the pictures and had firmer IDs. One person thought it could be them, and one didn't. Perhaps I'll submit it again with the more recent info.

The HOF misunderstood what you were asking then. You weren't asking for authentication but help with identification. They have helped me in the past.

Oh, and this was my 5000th post!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Snowman,

Not sure what you are saying. But to be clear, if each individual has a 90% chance of being a Knickerbocker, the probability of all six individuals being Knickerbockers is 0.9^6 which equates to 53%. The probability of only one of the members being a Knickerbocker is 1 - (0.1^6) which equates to the 99.9999% you cite. For it to be a Knickerbocker group photo, the relevant probability would be the 53%, not the 99.9999%.

We're not quite saying the same thing. Your math is correct if the question is phrased as "what is the probability that all 6 men are indeed a match for the 6 people Steve thinks they are?"

But that's not quite the same question I was answering above. If this is indeed a Knickerbockers photo, then the subjects in the photo are not independent of one another (independent in the statistical sense). In other words, if one of them is indeed a Knickerbocker, then that increases the likelihood that a second person is also a Knickerbocker. And if 2 are known to be Knickerbockers, then again, it increases the likelihood that a 3rd is, etc. Knickerbockers are likely to be photographed together. So my framing of the question "what are the odds that this is a Knickerbockers photo?" approaches it with that dependence structure in mind. It basically calculates what the odds are of all of his 90% Knickerbocker matches to be wrong rather than what the odds are for each one to be correct independently. My approach allows for, say, 5 of his 6 matches to be correct but him mistaking the identity of the 6th one, thus still making the photo a "Knickerbockers" photo.

[Snowman]

While I definitely can't claim that I'm 100% convinced, I will say that the resemblances in numerous facial features across the group is pretty remarkable. I'm definitely leaning toward yes, this is a photo of the Knickerbockers based on the resemblances alone. The 1862 photo is completely hacked together though. Legs are drawn on, torsos cut and pasted, shadows on different angles of the faces, etc. The subjects in that photo could have been taken across a pretty broad timeline, I would argue. There are at least 4 of the 6 that to me look almost like dead ringers.

That said, I'm also intrigued by the historical aspect of the photography used during that time and respect the knowledge of those who have studied it, as well as the history of the attire and where that might place this photo timeline-wise.

[SteveS]

Thank you so much, Snowman! After driving myself nuts with facial-match programs and 19th-century men's fashions, etc , I boiled it down to exactly what you said. The bare basics. It seems awfully unlikely that this many matches of unique features among this many people would happen by accident.

[Snowman]

Earlier, I made a statement regarding the facial match results and how those might affect the likelihood of the group as a whole being the Knickerbockers (namely that if each subject has a high match, then it greatly increases the likelihood of the group as a whole). While I asserted it as an "If A then B" statement, it was received as me promoting the idea that this meant there was a 99.9999% probability of this being a Knickerbockers photo by many here (despite my careful phrasing intended to avoid that conclusion).

Anyhow, I think this is worth revisiting now that I've had a chance to play around with their software a bit more. What I wrote earlier is quoted below for reference. Note my qualifier statements highlighted in bold.

Originally Posted by Snowman

...if the probability of each person being a "match" is 90%, then the probability of the group being the Knickerbockers is equivalent to the 1 - (0.1^6) = 0.999999 or 99.9999% chance that this is the Knickerbockers. However, this is based on the assumption that a "90% match" actually means the individuals in two photos are 90% likely to be the same person. I don't know if this assumption holds true, and wouldn't be surprised at all if it didn't. I don't know enough about facial recognition software to make that claim...

Perhaps it's obvious to everyone by now, but I think it's worth noting that the output from the facial match recognition software definitely does not indicate the probability of two people being the same person. This much is clear from the results you get when simply uploading random subjects or when uploading two images of the same person. There are any number of ways that someone could create algorithms for facial matches and the scoring output from those models can be set up almost arbitrarily. That's not to say that the output of such a model is meaningless though, as the higher match % two images get, the more likely they are to truly be a match. That said, it should be noted that one cannot make probabilistic estimates based on these values as I proposed above since the % match values don't actually represent probabilistic estimates. They're more of an arbitrary scoring system.