Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[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

[SteveS]

Hi Jon. I can't give a definitive answer to that, but I can provide an educated guess based on my research. Albumen photography started becoming more widespread about 1855. Also in 1855, Walter Avery, who had moved to California, realized that he wasn't going to strike it rich in the Gold Rush and moved back to New York and rejoined the Knickerbockers. So somewhere around there would be a reasonable guess, and would not eliminate the possibility that it went directly to a stereoview, especially if Anthony took it. But I also know that even older pictures were made into stereoviews years (or decades) after they were taken. I suppose I should do some reading up on anatomy to see how long it would take Avery and Birney to go bald based on their degree of hair loss and attempts at a comb-over.

[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”

[bgar3]

For me, I have no problem with you believing the identification is “irrefutable “, and keeping it in your collection . I would have a problem with you attempting to do something with it . I would be very surprised if the market place agreed with you without an astonishing amount of additional information that supports your view, which I do not believe is highly probable.

[sphere and ash]

There are statements made above that the probability of a match is so high that one may be “100% convinced,” or that the match shown for all six subjects may be as high as “99.9999%” or even “84-97%.” All of these estimates reflect a misunderstanding of probability, which I will attempt to explain below. But let me declare my bias from the outset: I am not convinced the stereoview depicts “six learned gents,” let alone the Knickerbocker Club.

All probabilities have a margin of error. Most people are aware of this when they see political polling: when one candidate leads in the polls 51-49, but the polling organization discloses a 3% margin of error, it is understood that the race is a statistical tie.

What we need to know is the margin of error for the facial recognition software used. The problem is that the software maker determines a margin of error using the same photographic process and type (say, a mug shot or passport photograph), similar lighting, contemporaneous images, etc. And what we have here are different photographic processes (salt, albumen, and, I believe, a silver gelatin copy photograph), with very different lighting (outdoor versus studio), taken many years apart, with limited visual information (these are group photographs taken from a distance where the ears are not visible, etc.), and where the original poster has altered the shadows in the photographs using another software program prior to analysis.

To give you some idea of how high the margin of error may be in this case, consider that a Google search shows estimates for facial recognition for African-American women may be higher than 35%. And that is with all the commonalities and without the difficulties cited above. I would be stunned if the margin of error here were not much higher. One can’t speak of meaningful probabilities in the presence of such a high margin of error. You’re asking the software to do something for which it was not designed and not tested.

[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”

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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!

[SteveS]

Scott, I am truly honored that your 5,000th post came within my thread, and I will try again with the HOF and make it clearer this time.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

I spoke to my son who is better at math than I am and he started talking about Bayesian probability and I kind of lost him halfway through.

But I think his point was that knowing one person was 100% a Knickerbocker does indeed affect the probability that the others are Knickerbockers…the problem is we don’t know how it affects the probability. For example, if we knew for a fact that this one person only had his photo taken with other Knickerbockers (and never had a photo taken with family members, business associates, friends, or anyone else, ever) that would affect it in a very positive way…the other people would all have to be Knickerbockers. But if we knew this person was estranged from the other members and refused to be photographed with them, that would affect it in a negative way...the other people could not be Knickerbockers. We would essentially need to know the universe of all the photos this person was in and what percentage of these photos contained only Knickerbockers. Seeing as how we don't know how often/rarely they got photographed together, the odds are still based on these being independent occurrences at 90% per person.

However, if one person was 100% a Knickerbocker, it does help in the fact that the odds have increased from 0.9^6 = 53% to 0.9^5 or 59% that all of them are Knickerbockers.

For the purposes of the above, I am assuming the 90% number to be accurate and that I am correctly conveying what I understood from what my son was telling me.

[SteveS]

Thank you, Michael, for that very thorough and helpful analysis! I just want to stress again that I am not relying on facial-match programs, no matter how high the results. I don't think they've reached the level of acceptability where what they say is taken by everybody as gold. I am looking at each facial feature with my own eyes and determining where there are matches. And while I know that some people disagree with me, I see enough matches, especially among their unique features, to convince me that they are Knickerbockers. One thing that I find interesting is that of the people who disagree with me, not one has pointed to a feature in any of the men that stands out as a complete and obvious non-match to the comparison. It's just a general, "I don't see the resemblances." What I would like to see is if somebody can say something like, "So-and-So has a giant wart on his nose which is not there in the comparison pic" (or whatever, some other blatantly obvious difference). I can (and have briefly above) point out the numerous similarities. So I don't know what or who, if anything or anybody, will be able to convince those who just don't see it.

[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.