Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Shoeless Moe]

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.

I think it's more likely Chris Cornell or his great grandfather.

[SteveS]

Shoeless Moe, how could everyone have missed that! George Wright never died. He put on a wig and became Chris Cornell. Then Chris Cornell faked his own death, and we'll have to wait another 50 years to see who he comes back as next.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

I think it's more likely Chris Cornell or his great grandfather.

In perhaps another strange twist, I used to mow Chris Cornell's grass when I was in high school. True story. You might be on to something here.

[molenick]

I have already admitted defeat on George Wright because even the known photos of him don't look like the same person to me. But I will say that the first person I thought of for this one was Dabney Coleman.

Side-by-side I now notice more of the differences than the similarities but when I saw the picture, that's the first person that came to mind. Not only came to mind but in my head he looked exactly like Dabney Coleman. I think I picked up on some of the similarities and filled in the blanks until I was convinced that that is what Dabney Coleman actually looks like.

I'm not sure what this means except that the mind does have a tendency to look for patterns and comparisons that may or may not be based on reality (this is not a comment on any of the previous claims or suppositions, which I will leave to others).

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snowman

In perhaps another strange twist, I used to mow Chris Cornell's grass when I was in high school. True story. You might be on to something here.

Just want to make sure I'm keeping this all straight. You've been collecting for 54 years (I can't find it now but I think you said that somewhere) You mowed Cornell's grass while you were in High School. If Cornell were still alive he'd be 57. If you've been collecting 54 years one would assume you are older than 57. Let's say you counted the first pack you got at 6 years old as the time you began collecting. That means you graduated high school in 1979 or 1980. When Cornell was 15 or 16...

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

This is one of the country's problems right now. Somehow the opinion of the masses is more valid than the opinion of people who have made a real study of something. Frankly 100 random people are largely going to be morons. My apologies to all who consider themself random...

We're not talking about solving differential equations though and polling the general public. We're talking about whether or not two people look similar. Why you guys keep wanting to pretend like this skill requires an "expert" is beyond me. I'm not talking about dating a photograph or what methodologies might have been used to develop the print, or what decade someone's apparel is most likely from. We're talking about looking at two photos and determining if the people in those photos look alike. That's it. This isn't rocket science.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Just want to make sure I'm keeping this all straight. You've been collecting for 54 years (I can't find it now but I think you said that somewhere) You mowed Cornell's grass while you were in High School. If Cornell were still alive he'd be 57. If you've been collecting 54 years one would assume you are older than 57. Let's say you counted the first pack you got at 6 years old as the time you began collecting. That means you graduated high school in 1979 or 1980. When Cornell was 15 or 16...

No. I've been collecting for about 35 years.

[SteveS]

Scott, before I posted my pic here I scrolled through some pretty brutal threads with people who did the same thing. But I appreciate your contributions to this one, and that's quite a feat to not have pissed off anybody!

Snowman, I think I've presented enough evidence with regard to not excluding that the stereoview is from the 1850s. After that, as you say, unless someone can point to specific unique areas that don't match, it's pretty much subjective whether someone sees the resemblances, regardless of their knowledge of baseball history.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Snowman

In perhaps another strange twist, I used to mow Chris Cornell's grass when I was in high school. True story. You might be on to something here.

If I am not mistaken, I believe the phrase "mowed Chris Cornell's grass" is a commonly used euphemism for smoking marijuana.

Brian