Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

drcy · #1 09-06-2021, 12:54 PM

The problem about the ages was pointed out by someone else, but I'll give just one example:

After pointing out that there weren't gray mounts in the 1860s and the stereoview necessarily is from after the 1860s, I'm curious how one explains how the man on the left is at least twenty years younger than the man 10+ years later on the right?

The initial post said that it "seems irrefutable" that it is the six Knickerbockers "Walter Avery, Doc Adams, Duncan Curry, Charles De Bost, Fraley Niebuhr, Charles Birney". However, it more than seems irrefutable, it is irrefutable that it is not.

As far as the "George Wright" photo goes, it should also be pointed out that their heads aren't even the same shape.

molenick · #2 09-06-2021, 01:49 PM

On a lighter note, when I was a kid I was convinced that Ken Berry (the outfielder) was the same person as Ken Berry (star of F-Troop). There could not be two famous (to me) people with the same odd name, plus they looked enough alike to my young self. It wasn't until several years later that I grudgingly had to admit that this was not the case.

SteveS · #3 09-06-2021, 02:05 PM

drcy, you raise an interesting issue. One thing I can tell you is that the mount is most definitely an off-white/cream color. Because of its age, I can't tell how white or cream it started, but it is absolutely 100% not gray. Yet you said that it's a gray mount and therefore has to be from the 1870s. When I first sent out pictures of this, people had trouble seeing them. I made sure to send out originals, with no sharpening at all. However, it really was quite difficult to make comparisons. So as I have a pretty good photo app on my phone, I sharpened the pictures. They look nice and clear on my phone. However, I never really thought that they may show up differently on other people's screens. The fact that you see gray when I see off-white/cream (and know that to be the case in person) tells me that I may need to go back to using the originals or fine-tune them on different types of screens.

That said, the rendering may also be affecting the clarity of the images. Also, there are blurs within the photo in key places that obscure some key features unless the picture is blown up and observed very closely. Yes, Niebuhr looks young. But when you blow up the comparison and look very closely, even to the point of following strands of hair, you can definitely see the resemblances.

As for clothing and grooming styles of the period, I post a pic of men's fashions from the 1850s. You can see that the jackets are very similar in style, including the dark band around the jacket collar and the length of the jacket (which can be seen draped over the chairs in which they're sitting in my pic). The ties are also the same. Another interesting thing is that several of the men have beards in the 1862 photo, but not not in mine. Beards came into fashion after the election of 1860 (for obvious reasons), and stayed in fashion through the 1870s (Garfield was the last of the bearded bunch). After that, fancy mustaches were the rage, as seen in the Old Judge set. So yes, the time frame and matches of unique features are consistent with these men being Knickerbockers.

Michael, I did too!! I also just figured that Bobby Valentine was somehow related to Karen Valentine of "Room 222."

BobC · #4 09-06-2021, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drcy

As far as the "George Wright" photo goes, it should also be pointed out that their heads aren't even the same shape.

And neither do all the heads on the Wright photos that are confirmed as him all look to be the same exact shape either. There are differences in angles, lighting, shadows, age, amount of hair, how it is or isn't combed, clarity of the image itself, and so on that can effect how a photo image is perceived by someone. The one common trait that all the George Wright photos do have (besides him being a man) is that you were told these were all confirmed Wright photos, which normally adds a bias to anyone's opinion, whether they will honestly admit it or not.

Quite frankly, I am not at all familiar with what George Wright really looked like before following this thread, and I honestly couldn't tell you whether all these supposedly confirmed photos of him are actually him or not. I'm relying solely on the word of the people posting them, but know absolutely zilch about the evidence and provenance that proves each of these so-called, confirmed Wright photos is actually him. For all I know, one or more of these Wright photos could be deemed him simply because someone very early on said it looked like other pictures of him, and therefore it was him. And with no other evidence or provenance than that and the passage of time, such a photo may have been accepted and regarded as a true George Wright photo today. I'm not saying that is the case, but it is possible, isn't it? Otherwise, can you tell me the evidence and provenance of each and every one of these supposed real Wright photos that you are comparing Steve's photo to in this thread?

And that is another thing, back when pictures of individuals like Wright weren't necessarily considered as valuable, would it be possible that the effort to prove the authenticity of such a photo wasn't as difficult and people more readily accepted such a photo as real merely due to the resemblance? Nowadays, a new real photo of Wright being discovered would prove quite valuable, agreed? And for that reason alone, if one suddenly did appear out of nowhere, like Steve's photo, the initial thinking by many would be that this is too good to be true, if this is real it would have been found long before now, or that the person claiming it as real is just trying to cash in, and so on. And because of that inherent thinking, there is an immediate added bias that will likely kick in with many so-called "experts" that will have them only accepting such a photo as real if there is an extraordinary amount of virtually irrefutable evidence and provenance to go along with it. Just human nature.

SteveS · #5 09-06-2021, 03:01 PM

Snowman, yes, I feel sorry for all those museums and libraries that will have to change all the dates in their collections because they've been wrong all these years. But what I'm wondering is how exactly would you be able to prove who wins the Wright bet? As you can see here, it's nearly impossible for everyone to agree, and the "experts" sometimes end up striking out.

Bob, you are a very wise man. I should point out that I won the auction for the Knickerbocker stereoview on 12/26/19. Almost two years ago. So it's not as though I haven't had time to research it six ways to Sunday. I posted here after I felt that I would be ready to answer any question or concern, which I believe I have. Of course whether my answers are accepted by the questioner is up to him. But I certainly haven't run away from anything. I think Snowman said it above, but it echoes my feelings that I can totally understand how someone can say that it's difficult to believe that a Knickerbocker photo could just be purchased on eBay without any provenance or history. But it's quite another, in my opinion, for someone to say that he sees absolutely no resemblances at all and not one of these people looks remotely like the comparison photo. I seriously question their motives.

Snowman · #6 09-06-2021, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveS

I think Snowman said it above, but it echoes my feelings that I can totally understand how someone can say that it's difficult to believe that a Knickerbocker photo could just be purchased on eBay without any provenance or history. But it's quite another, in my opinion, for someone to say that he sees absolutely no resemblances at all and not one of these people looks remotely like the comparison photo. I seriously question their motives.

Exactly. I perfectly understand people wanting to see more evidence for the Knickerbockers photo. There's a lot of uncertainty surrounding it and questions regarding the ages of the players in question and when the photo was likely taken. But if someone wants to sit here and pretend like there aren't at least some strong resemblances among the subjects then they're clearly not here for an honest conversation and everything they have to say on the matter should be dismissed entirely.

I also find it interesting that people are still referencing prewarcards' posts and deferring to him as the "expert" here in when this photo was taken despite the fact that he has been proven wrong multiple times already in this very thread.

Note, he stated the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by prewarcards

I have been doing photography for a very long time and could write paragraphs about stereoview photography and it's evolution but suffice it to say you have a c. 1870 stereoview on your hands with it actually in my opinion most likely dating to about 1872-75.
...
Your photo is 100% more recent than the 1862 known Knickerbocker photograph. The clothing and facial hair combined with photography method and presentation place this to c. 1870-1875.
...
The oval top cut on your stereoview was not in vogue until the late 1860's and 1870's. Do a quick Google search for Civil War dated stereoviews or other images concretely dated to have been MADE in the early-mid 1860's. All have square cuts. The ones that do not were done after the Civil War as commemorative issues which were popular throughout the 19th century."

I have no doubt that he is extremely knowledgeable about the history of photography in general and that he has handled countless photos from the 1800s. He seems to have a lot of knowledge about civil war photos as well. I'm confident that I could learn a lot from him. But his claims above that this photo couldn't possibly have been taken prior to the 1870s, let alone in the late 1850s based on the framing and arches used in the stereoview has been pretty clearly debunked in my opinion. Perhaps it was taken in the 1870s,and that it could still be demonstrated using some of the other characteristics he mentioned like the apparel worn by the subjects or the fact that it was outdoors or the technology used to develop the print. But he claims to have never seen one with arches like these prior to 1870 out of over the half a million that he's handled, yet somehow, 3 people in this very thread have posted images of theirs from the 1850s and 1860s with the very features he claims can't be found on photos from that time period. I'm not trying to throw him under the bus. We all learn something new every day, and I'm no stranger to discovering that something I had previously believed to be true simply wasn't. But I always adjust my views in the light of new evidence. I care deeply about what is and isn't true. I enjoy being proven wrong. It reminds me to always remain open minded and that learning/knowledge is a lifelong pursuit. Perhaps to the point of it being an obsession.

I'd be curious to hear from prewarcards now in how he responds to the evidence posted in this thread that appears to refute his claims about the arched framing of the photos and the corresponding dates assigned to them. Do you stick to your guns, claiming that those dates are all wrong, or do you make adjustments to your previous understanding? I'm not asking him to suddenly arrive at the conclusion that these are the Knickerbockers, but can we at least all agree now that the arches used in the stereoview do not preclude it from having been made prior to the 1870s?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Knickerbocker Photo	SteveS	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	18	01-22-2021 05:46 PM
O/T: using photo matching to update Marines in famous Iwo Jima flag raising photo	baseball tourist	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	0	07-02-2016 09:08 AM
1864 knickerbocker nine 1939 news photo - Price Reduction	earlybball	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	1	09-23-2014 03:08 PM
Need Help On A Vintage Photo Update	batsballsbases	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	14	01-17-2014 12:56 PM
REA Knickerbocker photo story	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	10-09-2007 11:30 AM