Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by SteveS

rhettyeakley, throughout this thread I have done my utmost to respond to every single person who posted in a full and respectful way. I have not made anything personal. But I have to say that when you, the person I believe is your brother, and drcy say that there's no way this stereoview can be from before the 1870s because of the color and arched photos, you immediately lose any right to call yourself an expert, no matter how many classes you've taught. It's such a basic thing, and I've posted numerous examples of such stereoviews that are confirmed to be from the 1850s. So frankly, everything you say after that carries little weight. But even people without any knowledge of photography or baseball history can render an opinion as to whether people look alike. As I go back and read through this thread, it's been the three people I mentioned above who have found it necessary not just to give their opinion, but to do so in the most condescending and dismissive way. Please understand that in no way am I a novice or an idiot. As I mentioned above, I have been collecting sports memorabilia for 54 years. But as I also mentioned, anyone with a working set of eyes can say whether or not two people are a match. The fact that the three people I mentioned above go well beyond giving an opinion and find it necessary to say how superior they are and ridicule those who disagree with them (despite their being proven incorrect on most everything they've said), shows that there must be some sort of agenda beyond just commenting on a chat board.

I tried. Not sure why I let myself engage sometimes.

Steve you are going to continue to see what you want and continue to confirm your own bias. I wish you well with your endeavor.

Snowman you add nothing.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I tried. Not sure why I let myself engage sometimes.

Steve you are going to continue to see what you want and continue to confirm your own bias. I wish you well with your endeavor.

Snowman you add nothing.

Toodle-oo "expert".

[SteveS]

rhettyeakley, thank you for your well wishes. I sure can't deny that I'm biased because I'm the one who owns the photograph. However, I have done my level best to talk myself out of it, and simply can't. Putting aside any bias and human element, the facial-match results are pretty conclusive. Also, of the people to whom I've shown it off of this thread, including a nice mix of baseball historians and "laypeople," most have ranged from it's plausible that it may be the Knickerbockers to it's definitely them. Only two people have been emphatic that it's not. One thing I definitely learned from this thread is that computer screens affect how it's viewed. I will try to figure out a way to correct that, as it's tremendously important when making these comparisons to look closely, beyond the lighting and shadows

As for Snowman, I appreciate greatly that he has my back. I disagree that he adds nothing. He has pointed out actual, observable matches. It's one thing to disagree with them, but he has taken the time with no bias or skin in the game to look at the pictures and form an unbiased opinion. And I'll repeat what I said above. It's always fun to talk about baseball!

[ThomasL]

My first look I thought most of the suggested IDs were stretches that could be put in a "maybe" category at best (and that was just going off the supplied comps and not looking for more/better comps)...and some wishful stretches of what I call The Billy the Kid effect or maybe better for here The Joe Jackson effect (which I have been guilty of)

but the reality of it is the first and most important ID here is the date of the item in question which prewarsports, an expert, very concisely made. He knows what he's talking about.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

but the reality of it is the first and most important ID here is the date of the item in question which prewarsports, an expert, very concisely made. He knows what he's talking about.

Except for the fact that he clearly does not as proven multiple times throughout this thread already. Why do people keep pretending like this never happened? How many times do we have to go over this? It has been proven several times already from multiple photos that the stereoviews of this type did in fact exist in the late 1850s and 1860s. Multiple people have posted screen shots of their stereoviews from those years in this very thread, despite the "expert" claiming it's not possible.

It's also been proven, that his stereoview is NOT gray, and that it is a cream/beige color. Both through his color palette card adjacent to the photo of the actual stereoview and through my screenshots of how those colors render through an extremely high-definition color balanced retina display screen.

At what point do you guys consider the actual evidence provided in this thread?

[JollyElm]

16. Koquak (also Fauxtographer or Failface)
After someone starts a “Does anyone know who this player is??” thread, this person’s guess isn’t anywhere even remotely close to having a resemblance to the person being asked about, as if he just picked a random name out of the Baseball Almanac and posted it.

See also: Clueless Joe - a person who’s convinced any player pictured in an old B/W photograph is Joe Jackson.

[SteveS]

ThomasL, Snowman summed up perfectly what I would say in response. I would add that I wish there were other comps; it would make this whole thing a lot easier. Unfortunately, half these guys have only one known photo, and for the ones that have one or two others, most of them are not from the same era.

JollyElm, look closer. It's not as big a Gamble as you think (see what I did there?). Seriously, look at other pictures I posted, such as the comparison to Adams as an older man. Tell me where you see glaring differences. Look at the overlays I posted of Adams and Birney. They are perfect matches. Not close matches; perfect matches. Both photos fit over each other with every single facial feature lining up exactly. I can understand someone saying, "Yeah I can see resemblances, but here are specific differences I spot which make me think it's not them." But so far, not one single person has pointed to a specific facial feature in one that can't be seen in the other. Also notable are the people who say it's not them without providing anything else except for some sick need to throw in an insult. I can speculate what's going on there, but I'll leave it to other readers of this thread to judge their behavior and contribution to the discussion.

[OldOriole]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Also, of the people to whom I've shown it off of this thread, including a nice mix of baseball historians and "laypeople," most have ranged from it's plausible that it may be the Knickerbockers to it's definitely them. Only two people have been emphatic that it's not.

As for Snowman, I appreciate greatly that he has my back. I disagree that he adds nothing. He has pointed out actual, observable matches. It's one thing to disagree with them, but he has taken the time with no bias or skin in the game to look at the pictures and form an unbiased opinion. And I'll repeat what I said above. It's always fun to talk about baseball!

Steve, I agree you've been civil throughout the thread and this has been an interesting discussion. Many on here have applauded your effort (as have I) and wished you luck in your endeavor, but almost none agree with you (just one does). Not sure to whom you're speaking outside of this thread, but there seems to be a theme. Let's sum up the responses on the alleged Knickerbocker image:

YES:
1) Snowman - "I'm definitely leaning toward yes" (post #33). I'll count this as a 'yes', even though he also said "I won't bet on the Knickerbockers photo". (post 96)

NOT SURE:
1) vtgmsc - I have no idea" (post 8)
2) GaryPassamonte - "I cannot speak to the identification of the men in the stereoview". (post 18)
3) Directly - if 100 experts were polled, you'd get 25% yes, 25% no, 25% inconclusive, and 25% maybe. (post 21)
4) jpop43 - neutral and informative (post 23)
5) BobC - no definite proof either way (post 111)

NO:
1) old judge - "I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid (post 4)
2) prewarsports - 100% of antique photography experts would date it 1870-1876. (post 11)
3) benjulmag - "I would be very skeptical of the reliability of the facial recognition in this instance". (post 28)
4) rhettyeakley - almost 0% chance (post 35)
5) bgar3 - "I would be very surprised if the market place agreed with you without an astonishing amount of additional information". (post 36)
6) sphere and ash - "I am not convinced the stereoview depicts 'six learned gents', let alone the Knickerbocker Club". (post 37)
7) drcy - "it does not appear to be the Knickerbockers". (post 51)
8) oldoriole - "I just don't see it". (post 100)
9) slightlyrounded - "this is a complete stretch". (post 68)
10) D. Bergin - "Knickerbockers 6 - Definitely not. Sorry". (post 109)
11) molenick - ""I lean more to the 'I need to see more proof' side". (post 80)
12) Tao Moko - "The KBBC is way off to me".
13) ThomasL - prewarsports knows what he's talking about. (post 152)

I hope I did not misinterpret anyone's comments. If not, we have 1 YES, 5 NOT SURE, and 13 NO. When to we have a consensus?

[robertsmithnocure]

I just saw this original thread on the subject from earlier this year:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=295178

It looks like John Thorn, the official MLB Historian, has also seen the Knickerbocker photo and did not feel that it was them either.

[drcy]

If John Thorn, the official historian for MLB, and Mark Firmoff, the top forensic facial recognition expert and co-chair of SABR's Pictorial History Research Committee already said no, doesn't that pretty much seal the deal? If their two opinions had been mentioned at the beginning of the thread, this thread would have been about 1/10th as long

I've been correct all along that is not the Knickerbockers. However, I made snide and snarky remarks once or twice-- and I apologize to SteveS for that. My error in not being more polite.

As I said earlier, they are both nice original photos of anonymous people- and there's nothing wrong with that.

[SteveS]

OldOriole, thank you for recognizing my civility and your well wishes! My first step after doing my own research was to show the comparisons to friends and family. The consensus there was unanimous in seeing the resemblances. Now, clearly that is in no way scientific, but it helped tell me that I'm not grasping at straws, as I can assure you that if they had disagreed many of these people would have told me to shove that stereoview up my you-know-where.

After that, I sent the images to someone considered very important at SABR (I don't want to use any names here, as these were private e-mails and I don't have permission from anybody to divulge anything). He said that he felt that I might have made a very important discovery, but he wanted to pass it along to another very important SABR member who knows more about 19th-century baseball history. That person gave a thumbs down, but without any specific reason other than it would be a needle-in-a-haystack to find a Knickerbocker photo on eBay. I searched the Net for e-mail addresses of people considered to be baseball historians and authors who wrote seminal books on baseball history, including the Knickerbockers. Of the ones who responded, the consensus was that they definitely see the resemblances, but couldn't commit to saying that they are definitely Knickerbockers without further information, such as where it was taken (although a couple did say it was their belief that at least some Knickerbockers are depicted for sure). Some of them forwarded it to the same SABR person who they were not aware had already said no before, and/or to another SABR person who is considered to be knowledgeable in that era who also said no. Those two received forwarded messages so many times that they ended up getting seriously pissed at me, even though I never sent it to them directly in the first place. Nonetheless, they are the only two people of the ones I've shown it to off this board who are flat-out nos.

And again, much as with on this board, no one has been able to point out anything specific in the facial features that don't match in such a glaring fashion that it would exclude them definitely without further argument. As has been mentioned, it takes no expertise in any field to say whether two people look alike. And whether or not it's my photo, I absolutely do believe that somebody who looks at it and says categorically that he or she sees absolutely no resemblances at all without giving specific reasons is just being a jerk for whatever motive they may have. I know it's customary to give the new guy on a message board a hard time. I'm fine with that. While I am not new to the hobby after more than a half-century of collecting, and while I have read this board for several years without joining, I chose it for the specific reason of knowing that you guys would be tough cookies. I believe I've held up pretty well to the grilling. Of the naysayers you pointed out, as I've said many times, not one of them has pointed to a specific glaring facial-feature mismatch. I have posted results from completely neutral facial-match programs, including overlays that show perfect fits. I have also shown beyond the shadow of any doubt that the people who said emphatically that the stereoview cannot be from the Knickerbocker era are emphatically incorrect. Of course I'm not saying that any of that proves conclusively that this stereoview depicts Knickerbockers. But I do feel that I've demonstrated enough for people reading through this thread to stop and think that there actually is a chance it could be them, without dismissing it out-of-hand with an insult and nothing to back it up.

robertsmithnocure, I mentioned the original thread in my first post in this thread. I also pointed out that I took into account everything everybody said and realized that I was incorrect in some of my original identifications. I don't know whether the people you mentioned have seen the images that are now clearer and with correct IDs, but I do suspect from their previous comments that their opinions would not change.

drcy, thank you for your apology! Absolutely accepted!! I posted the best picture I have of both sides of the stereoview. Both are the best resolution I can get with the cameras/scanner that I have. I can't post anything else to showcase the color without adjusting sharpness, resolution, etc., which would defeat the purpose of showing the true color. I believe the side-by-side comparison with the confirmed cream-shade sample shows that it is definitely a cream color. As for your conclusion that the person you mentioned dismissing this as a Knickerbocker photograph means that you are correct for also coming to the same conclusion I need to point to only one thing. As I recall, the first thread I ever read on this board was about another purported Knickerbocker photo, the 1847 daguerreotype. The person you mentioned was one of the authorities who believed that it was absolutely Alexander Cartwright and his teammates and used it in his own book and it was included in Ken Burns' "Baseball" in which he appeared and other books and shows. The IDs of those players even changed over the years. But the other person you mentioned had serious doubts, and he and the owner of the dag hired experts and ended up with a fascinating report of dueling opinions. Reading through the Net54 commentary on that report, it seems that most people agree that the dag does not depict the people claimed. I don't know the owner personally, but I have exchanged a couple of e-mails with him and he seems like a genuinely nice guy and he's unarguably one of the world's top collectors of 19-century baseball memorabilia. I am rooting like heck for him and hope that he will eventually be able to prove the IDs in his photo. But my point is, serious doubts have been raised about that photo that had been accepted as the truth by the person you mentioned, so why would his dismissal of mine be accepted as gospel?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OldOriole

Let's sum up the responses on the alleged Knickerbocker image:

YES:
1) Snowman - "I'm definitely leaning toward yes" (post #33). I'll count this as a 'yes', even though he also said "I won't bet on the Knickerbockers photo". (post 96)

NOT SURE:
1) vtgmsc - I have no idea" (post 8)
2) GaryPassamonte - "I cannot speak to the identification of the men in the stereoview". (post 18)
3) Directly - if 100 experts were polled, you'd get 25% yes, 25% no, 25% inconclusive, and 25% maybe. (post 21)
4) jpop43 - neutral and informative (post 23)
5) BobC - no definite proof either way (post 111)

NO:
1) old judge - "I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid (post 4)
2) prewarsports - 100% of antique photography experts would date it 1870-1876. (post 11)
3) benjulmag - "I would be very skeptical of the reliability of the facial recognition in this instance". (post 28)
4) rhettyeakley - almost 0% chance (post 35)
5) bgar3 - "I would be very surprised if the market place agreed with you without an astonishing amount of additional information". (post 36)
6) sphere and ash - "I am not convinced the stereoview depicts 'six learned gents', let alone the Knickerbocker Club". (post 37)
7) drcy - "it does not appear to be the Knickerbockers". (post 51)
8) oldoriole - "I just don't see it". (post 100)
9) slightlyrounded - "this is a complete stretch". (post 68)
10) D. Bergin - "Knickerbockers 6 - Definitely not. Sorry". (post 109)
11) molenick - ""I lean more to the 'I need to see more proof' side". (post 80)
12) Tao Moko - "The KBBC is way off to me".
13) ThomasL - prewarsports knows what he's talking about. (post 152)

I hope I did not misinterpret anyone's comments. If not, we have 1 YES, 5 NOT SURE, and 13 NO. When to we have a consensus?

I think there are two conversations happening in this thread with respect to the purported Knickerbockers photo. One is whether or not this is in fact a Knickerbockers photo. The fact of that matter is that we have insufficient resources to make that determination with high confidence. Most everyone in this thread should be in the "I don't know" camp. Even I am in that camp. However, while it would be extremely difficult to affirm it as a real photo of them, it could be disproven through other methods quite easily. Some of those other methods were stated by the "experts" in this thread, but their supposed expertise was quickly shown to have no teeth when their reasoning about the "gray" paper stock and arches was debunked. No one has responded to the debunking yet, but several people continue to perpetuate the nonsense for reasons I don't understand (but could speculate about).

The other question, and the one I find more interesting here, is the question of whether or not the subjects in the stereoview have similar-looking facial features to the subjects in the 1862 photo. This is where there should be no disconnect and yet somehow, we still have one. Everyone is free to agree or disagree on whether or not they think it's a Knickerbockers photo, but we should have a nearly unanimous consensus here that the subjects at least have some fairly similar, if not remarkable, facial features. This is the question that I would argue, and which I believe Steve is referring to when he talks about asking people outside of the hobby, that would have near-universal consensus among an unbiased population. It is an objective fact that most of these subjects have similar facial features, and yet somehow, we have people in here who want to pretend like white is black and up is down.

Try printing out the pairings that he posted of the players in question and sitting out front of a grocery store or some public space and ask 100 random people the simple question, "Do these men look similar or at least have similar facial features?" and the overwhelming majority will say that they do. I guarantee it. If you run this experiment in an unbiased manner and the results come back to prove me wrong, I'll send you my 52 Topps Mantle.

[SteveS]

Thank you, Snowman, for that perfect summary! The only thing I would add is that as I mention in my post above, the very first museum to which I sent the images came back with the date of mid-nineteenth century. Certainly not 1870s. However, I should add that for a '52 Mantle, even I would say that there's no Knickerbockers in the photo.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Thank you, Snowman, for that perfect summary! The only thing I would add is that as I mention in my post above, the very first museum to which I sent the images came back with the date of mid-nineteenth century. Certainly not 1870s. However, I should add that for a '52 Mantle, even I would say that there's no Knickerbockers in the photo.

I trust that the Worcester Art Museum curator probably knows what they're talking about. Particularly since they were the experts that the other experts at the American Antiquarian Society referred you to since they specialized in late 19th century stereoviews and they knew yours had to be older than that. While it would have been great to get a more specific/narrow range for the years than "mid-nineteenth century", I think it's pretty safe to say that you have a stereoview from either the 1850s or the 1860s as the 1870s would not qualify as "mid-century" and because the experts who specialized in late-century (which would include the 1870s) expressly stated that it was older than that.

I also think it's pretty safe to say that the self-proclaimed "experts" we have here on the forums might in fact not be actual experts.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Try printing out the pairings that he posted of the players in question and sitting out front of a grocery store or some public space and ask 100 random people the simple question, "Do these men look similar or at least have similar facial features?" and the overwhelming majority will say that they do. I guarantee it. If you run this experiment in an unbiased manner and the results come back to prove me wrong, I'll send you my 52 Topps Mantle.

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...

[SteveS]

OldOriole, I already did. After Scott made his suggestion I went back to my original e-mail to them. I felt that I was pretty clear that I just wanted help with the IDs, but they wrote back saying they are forbidden from doing appraisals or authentications. I attach below what they sent me. I clicked on a link on their website to send it, and the response came from someone in the Reference Service Department. So I did not deal with the person you mentioned before. But I did send another e-mail to them in the same way I did before, and I was very clear about not wanting to know about value or anything, only the IDs. I'll update when I get a response.

Michael, I see a bit of Gabe Kaplan in him. But I don't want to further with this type of thing as it's a serious matter for me.

Scott, first of all, I will stand by my contention that anybody is as qualified as anyone else to judge whether in their opinion two people look alike. No matter how moronic they may be. Second, you have the wrong person. It was Snowman who said that he mowed Chris Cornell's lawn. I am 56 years old. But a young 56, if I may say so myself.

[D. Bergin]

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...

Yup, populism run amock. Don’t think I haven’t noticed how many times the term “expert” has been used as a derogatory term in this thread. The pundit is king now. If you’re a Pundit / Everyman, and right one time out of 10, you’re a prophet. If you’re an “expert”, and wrong 1 time out of 10, you’re a moron.