Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[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?

[drcy]

A thing is-- beyond the images of the people--, you can get definitive opinions about the age of the photo itself. There are many experts who would look at it in person and be able to tell you the age.

I can assure you that the photo is not old enough to be legitimate for the players you say are in the image. However, there's no requirement to rely on what I say. There are all sorts of photo experts out there-- many who know nothing about baseball-- who can tell you about the age of the photo itself.

[SteveS]

drcy, thus far, everyone who has seen the stereoview has done so in an e-mail or posted on this board. I totally agree that it's much better to have an in-person view. Unfortunately, I now live in a very small town and it's difficult for me to bring it to experts in person and I'm obviously reluctant to send the original around to various places. But believe me, at some point after I can actually determine which experts' opinions would be considered infallible, I will endeavor to have them see it in person.

After the earlier discussion on the date of the stereoview, I sent an e-mail to the American Antiquarian Society. They have a very large collection of stereoviews and are considered to be experts in dating. The person who responded said that their collection contains stereoviews from the latter-half of the 19th century, and as she felt mine was earlier referred me to the Worcester Art Museum for a more precise date. That museum is coincidentally having an exhibit of historic baseball photos. So I wrote to them. In another nice coincidence, the response came a few minutes ago in the same batch of e-mails that included the notification of your post above. The curator of that museum says that it is her opinion that the stereoview dates to the "mid- nineteenth century." While that is not specific, I would consider that to be 1850s-1860s. I don't think that the 1870s qualify as "mid- nineteenth century."

That said, I am curious about something. If it can ever be determined to your satisfaction that the date of the stereoview can indeed be justifiable to contain Knickerbockers, are you also contending that it would be impossible for even one Knickerbocker to be depicted? Have you looked at all six men closely enough to say with 100% certainty that individually, all six are excluded? As I have said numerous times in this thread, I have reviewed the IDs in every way possible. I am very confident in them. But if someone can prove that a better match exists, or that one or some of the matches seem accurate but others don't, I'm certainly willing to listen.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by drcy

A thing is-- beyond the images of the people--, you can get definitive opinions about the age of the photo itself. There are many experts who would look at it in person and be able to tell you the age.

I can assure you that the photo is not old enough to be legitimate for the players you say are in the image. However, there's no requirement to rely on what I say. There are all sorts of photo experts out there-- many who know nothing about baseball-- who can tell you about the age of the photo itself.

David, I've seen you on here for many years and know somewhat of your knowledge and expertise, no disputing you're one of the good guys. So please don't take my question the wrong way as trying to be snarky or sarcastic, I honestly don't know the answer and would like to find out something.

It has been said by some on this thread that what appears to be the biggest knock against the claim that Steve's photo is of Knickerbocker players is the stereoview and photo itself, and that it is not from the correct period. And therefore, based on the seeming ages of the players in the photo, cannot be the Knickerbocker players Steve alleges they may be. Have I stated that correctly?

Assuming so, my question is if it is possible that even if the steroview does turn out to have been created later on in the 1870's and not the 1860's or earlier, could it have been made using a photo or negative from a much earlier time, say 10-15 years earlier, which could then explain the seeming age disparity?

I'm not asking the likelihood, just is it possible. If possible, I would assume that likelihood would be extremely small, at best. Just trying to see if there is a 100% conclusive determination that can be made based on the stereoview and perceived ages of the men in the photo. Thanks.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by BobC

David, I've seen you on here for many years and know somewhat of your knowledge and expertise, no disputing you're one of the good guys. So please don't take my question the wrong way as trying to be snarky or sarcastic, I honestly don't know the answer and would like to find out something.

It has been said by some on this thread that what appears to be the biggest knock against the claim that Steve's photo is of Knickerbocker players is the stereoview and photo itself, and that it is not from the correct period. And therefore, based on the seeming ages of the players in the photo, cannot be the Knickerbocker players Steve alleges they may be. Have I stated that correctly?

Assuming so, my question is if it is possible that even if the steroview does turn out to have been created later on in the 1870's and not the 1860's or earlier, could it have been made using a photo or negative from a much earlier time, say 10-15 years earlier, which could then explain the seeming age disparity?

I'm not asking the likelihood, just is it possible. If possible, I would assume that likelihood would be extremely small, at best. Just trying to see if there is a 100% conclusive determination that can be made based on the stereoview and perceived ages of the men in the photo. Thanks.

The photographic prints appear first generation, so I assume not.

Realize that a stereoview or other photograph from the 1850s (Which it would have to be about from) is very, very early photography. The very first photograph was made in 1839. That REA Knickerbockers is a salt print, a process that was invented before albumen and one of 2 or 3 baseball salt prints known to exist. An 1850s photograph is going to be very distinct. I often compare photograph history to automobile history. A 1910 card is going to be very different in many and obvious ways from a 1930s or 1940s car.

Also note that the earlier the photo, the different the material. One way cabinet cards, CDVs and stereoviews are dated are by the thickness of the mount.