Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[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.

[Tao_Moko]

I see a resemblance in the Wright images. Would not bet a testi on it, but it would be worth digging into further. The KBBC is way off to me. Unless I missed it, there's no provenance provided.

***Update*** After further review, I would not bet on the Wright.

[OldOriole]

OK, I'm trying to be impartial and objective. I've read through the entire thread two more times today to try to take it all in. I just do NOT see it. I think when we want something to be a certain thing so badly, our mind starts to connecting dots and we go from being hopeful to thinking we have proof.

I applaud the level of effort on this and it's been an interesting thread to read (at least for me).Some of the commenters being dismissed by our newly registered optimists (welcome to the board in 2021, BTW) are experts in the field, have written books on photography, early baseball, etc., and are not just being 'disingenuous'. They're giving you their honest , learned opinion that these are both examples of grabbing at straws.

If you want to keep thinking you made the amazing discovery of the Knikerbocker team or George Wright (who wouldn't want either of these to be true?) go right ahead. Please just hear the people who politely disagree. We're fans of this era, of baseball, of it's history, We'd love it to be true, but do not feel that it is. I'm going to fall on the side of Rhett, drcy, and many others on this thread. You don't have to agree with us (you think you have PROOF) just like we don't have to agree with you (we don't think this is PROOF).

[SteveS]

Wow, a lot of great discussion while I was asleep! Let me see if I can address everything. First of all, I want to say a little bit about my background in the hobby. I got my first Topps pack in 1967 when I was two years old. I went to my first card show in 1975 when I was ten (it was at the Marriott or Hilton next to LAX). In 1979, when I was 14, I was listed in "The Sports Collectors Bible" as one of "The World's Leading Hobbyists." This was in the days before there was a uniform price guide (I think Beckett's first book came out later that year), so I had people calling me from that listing asking if I could appraise their cards. They were shocked to see a young kid come over. Now, in no way would I say that I have ever been a big-wig in the business. That's because I have never treated it as a business. It has always been a hobby for me, one that has become much less enjoyable over the years with the introduction of fraud, even by the grading companies that are supposed to keep it out.

As for the Knickerbocker stereoview, as I have said, I saw it on eBay and first noticed the strong resemblance to Doc Adams. I was more familiar with him than the other early members of the team, as he had been in the news more recently with the discovery of "The Rules of Baseball." I don't remember how I stumbled on the stereoview, as it didn't have much of a description. It was a week-long auction, and two days before ending someone placed a bid. As you know, when clicking on bidders one can't glean too much, but it was very interesting to me that this bidder's history showed interest in only sports cards and memorabilia. Not old photos or anything like that, and seeing as how the stereoview was not listed with any connection to sports, I figured I was onto something. Luckily there were no other bids, and I got it with the second bid.

When it arrived, I started my endeavor in trying to figure out who was depicted. I began with my initial ID of Adams, who to me seems like a lock. So obviously the next step was to compare the other gentlemen to his teammates. Some of the resemblances were apparent immediately. At that point I was not as informed about photographic history and facial recognition as I am now. I made mistakes in my initial identifications. But I did not dismiss people's critiques and suggestions. I learned from them. As well as studying up very hard on photography and facial-matching. At this point, I am very confident in the identifications I have made. I have pointed out specific unique features in the Knickerbocker photo that are matches. I have not been shy in inviting any naysayer to point out anything glaring in the facial features that do not match. It's very interesting to me that the person who purports to be a photography expert claimed that a white/cream-colored stereoview with squared corners and arched photos could not possibly be from the 1850s, yet there are several photographic history websites that say just that, and numerous examples of such date-verified photos in museums and collections. I've already posted one, and another member in this thread verified what I said from his own collection.

Believe me, I did not choose this board randomly. I know that you all are the very top of the collecting mountain. Not only did I expect a grilling, I wanted it. And I believe that I've withstood it pretty well. I have not backed down or shied away from any answers, and my answers have addressed each question and concern individually. As I go through this thread, I once again point out that while I see opinions saying, "I don't think it's them," I don't see any specific glaring differences mentioned. I truly believe that when you look at each comparison individually, following the shape of each facial feature one at a time, you will see how close they are. I have seen and read about people who have taken photos who kinda/sorta resemble someone and then forge identifying information on the back with period ink. Some of these people are so successful at it that they fooled top experts in the auction and collecting fields and their fraud was not uncovered until years later. I am presenting to you what I purchased on eBay, exactly as I received it and without embellishing any background. Eventually I would like to auction it at some point, but it would not benefit me unless there's enough evidence to say that it's the Knickerbockers. I believe that I have presented such evidence. I don't feel that the opposing evidence has been sufficient other than, "I've been doing this for a long time and I just don't think it's them." I would love to hear specifics, such as, "I see a clear scar on Subject A that isn't on Subject B." I have spent many an hour trying to convince myself that this isn't what I think it is. But I am very confident in my IDs and prepared to respond to anyone who wishes to call out any specific differences that they see.

If you've read through this thread and this long diatribe, I thank you so much and appreciate it greatly. If you've contributed a comment, please know that I am grateful and take it seriously, regardless of where you stand. And Snowman, thanks for having my back! I think your money and balls are safe.

[molenick]

The only thing I have learned from this is that even George Wright doesn't look like George Wright to me. Meaning, in my mind "George Wright" looks like the 1870's era George Wright. If I saw pictures of him as an older man and was not familiar with the image as one already having been identified as him, I have to admit that I would not see the resemblance to the younger man and would say "that's not George Wright".

It would be great if the Chickering photo was dated on the back in period writing so we could get a match against Wright at a similar age. Barring that, I guess I can't offer an opinion having admitted I couldn't pick the older Wright out of a lineup (unintentional pun but very happy with it).

[BobC]

It is interesting to hear different opinions about whether or not these are or are not Knickerbocker players or George Wright, and the back and forth as to similarities and dissimilarities of the images and other ancillary data and information to support the suppositions that these are photos of the alleged parties. At the end of the day though, there is no way to 100% prove, or disprove, either side of the argument, which is unfortunate. And human nature being what it is, there will always be someone to disagree with you, no matter what the topic or issue is.

What makes me wonder though is the way that some parties just summarily dismiss any and all thinking and logic and simply declare someone is just wrong, and that they are right, period. I am no photo or facial recognition expert, but like everyone else, have a lifetime of experience in deciding what does or doesn't look similar to me. For the alleged Knickerbocker players, there clearly are not enough contemporary photos of the parties involved to allow for a more comprehensive comparison and determination as to who the parties are in the picture. And the chances of the six gentlemen being the Knickerbocker players is extremely remote at best. And without some other irrefutable evidence and provenance to prove the photo of the six gentlemen are the alleged Knickerbocker players, aside from some perceived facial similarities, the naysayers know you'll never get consensus agreement from the "experts" and can therefore confidently claim it is not them. The issues with photo quality, questions of aging and respective age differences of the parties involved, and so on, make it literally impossible to make an absolute verification of the identities of the six individuals in the gentlemen's photo. But that goes both ways as you can't absolutely disprove that maybe one, or more, of the six gentlemen were in fact Knickerbocker players. To sway the minds of the "experts" you'd need something like a descendant of one of the alleged Knickerbocker players to suddenly come forward with a similar photo of the same six gentlemen taken during the same photo session. And have them tell how it has been in the family for generations, handed down from the relative in the photo who was in fact on the Knickerbockers, and that the further family story is that he is pictured with former teammates. You'll still find some "experts" that will vehemently deny the story and say it is false, and that the photo is not what it is then claimed to be. But a majority of "experts" would likely acquiesce and go along with the story and new found provenance, and that would colloraborate the authenticity of Steve's photo. Will that ever happen, probably not. But it could!

As for the George Wright photo, there are a lot more photos of him out there to use for comparison purposes to the one Steve has than there are for the alleged Knickerbocker players. Some have stated how there are dissimilarities between Steve's alleged photo of Wright, and the confirmed photos of him, thus proving to them that Steve's photo is not of Wright. However, forgetting Steve's photo and looking just at all the confirmed photos of Wright shown in this thread from over his years, if you didn't know the provenance and acceptance of those photos and simply had them laid out in front of you, could you honestly beyond any doubt say they were all of the same person? I honestly could not. Photo quality, age differences, angles, lighting, shadows, they all factor in to what we see, or think we see, along with the bias from being told up front that all the pictures are confirmed as George Wright.

So there is no definitive proof either way that Steve is right or wrong, and likely never will be. Just estimated probabilities on either side of the question. Good luck to Steve in additional research. You never know, sometimes miracles do happen and the "experts" are proven to be anything but.