Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[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.

[OldOriole]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

In the same manner, do you also trust 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? Are they not "actual experts"? Seems like they might know what they're talking about in terms of matching the images to certain players.

[SteveS]

BobC, I know you asked drcy, but I wanted to chime in with my feelings on that. I think I mentioned above that I feel it's absolutely possible that this stereoview could have been produced from an earlier negative. Although I think I've provided pretty solid evidence to show that it most probably dates to the 1850s. I attach two photos below, a negative and positive of Edward Anthony. The picture is verifiably documented to have been taken in February, 1847 by Wliiliam Henry Fox Talbot, one of the inventors of negative photography. Anthony visited him at that time to learn from the master, and of course came back home to start his own very successful photography business. So it's clear that negative photography was available in the New York area as early as 1847, and in the hands of someone with a documented association with the Knickerbockers. It's also very well known that earlier negatives were used to make stereoviews, and in fact, there are many thousands of examples of the same picture being used by different companies in different parts of the country/world decades apart (copyright enforcement clearly wasn't a priority back then). So it's most certainly within the realm of possibility that, just to throw out an example, Anthony took the picture and when he started the stereoview portion of his business used an old negative he had lying around to practice or stock up his inventory. I am certainly not saying that happened, and after doing extensive research and hearing back from my first inquiry to a museum regarding the date, I am convinced it is from the 1850s. But as you say, it doesn't preclude that the picture can be from some earlier time. One other thing that I find interesting. At the time of this photo Edward Anthony was 28. So for those who have commented about how old some of the guys look in my stereoview, this is what 28 looked like back then.

OldOriole, as I pointed out a couple of times, the two people you mentioned saw the stereoview only in e-mails, and at a time when I was incorrect on some of the IDs. I was the one who pointed out in my first post in that thread about their opinions. I didn't hide or shy away from anything. But rather than be stubborn, I took to heart what I learned and have been able to make the IDs that I believe are correct, and also document enough research to respond to anyone with questions and concerns. I respect those people greatly when it comes to baseball history. I have learned a tremendous amount and spent literally hours reading books and blogs they've done on baseball history. However -- and this has been mentioned before and is extremely important -- knowledge of baseball history does not equate to having an opinion of the similarity of two photographs. Especially when there are so few pictures available of the subjects. Knowing how Jim Creighton died doesn't mean that one's opinion means more than someone off the street as to whether one picture of Creighton looks like another. I need only point to what I wrote above regarding the 1847 daguerreotype. So if people on this board are being intellectually honest, they would not put so much weight on the opinion of people who have misidentified photos in the past and use their own eyes.

[OldOriole]

I'm aware of your previous posts, you don't need to repeat them. If you think you have the IDs right now, don't you think it's now time to ask them again? Afterall, in reading all your previous posts, you've twice stated that you would go back to them for another opinion. This is what they love to do so I doubt you'd be putting them out or burdening them. You can't get much more unbiased than them. They have no hidden motives or agendas. Just send the new ID claims to them, get the results, and be done with it.

[smokelessjoe]

In A strange turn of events, it has been determined that two of the guys in the OPs photo are actually the same person! One of the two images has been cut and pasted at either an earlier or later date... TBD... Using googles Age Progression software, the results show with 99% accuracy this is the same person and that the images were taken 15 years apart.
Notice the receding hairline!

Now the tricky part:

1. Is it a younger AND older Doc Adams?
2. Or is it a younger AND older Duncan Curry?

If only we could see all four ears....?

[SteveS]

OldOriole, no, I never stated that I would go back to those particular people. I had never sent it to either of them in the first place. As I mentioned above, the first time it was passed along to Mr. T. by someone very high up at SABR who believed that it may be the Knickerbockers. It was passed along to him other times without my consent for the same reason. I don't know exactly how many times, and I'm not complaining about the no consent issue as they believed they were doing me a favor. In one of those correspondences I replied to the original person with whom I was dealing something similar to what I've said here about the controversy regarding the IDs in the 1847 daguerreotype. Unbeknownst to me, when I replied to that e-mail, it got CC'd to Mr. T. He got immediately angry and wrote me back in no uncertain terms that I should never contact him again. So I will respect that, and I would be upset if anyone else passes it along to him with the updated IDs without my consent as I don't want him to think that I had anything to do with it. It was a very upsetting experience for me, as I had learned so much about baseball history from him, and my only personal dealing with him did not leave me with a very favorable impression. Besides, as I've said many times, why are you so trusting of his opinion of a Knickerbocker photo when this very forum ripped it apart ten years ago?

smokelessjoe, you may be onto something. Look at them in the known photos. Has anybody ever seen Doc and Duncan together in the same room?

[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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by 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.

Anyone can have an opinion, but it's the value of that opinion. There are people who do forensic examinations of photos to determine identity for the courts. Those types of opinions would actually matter as to getting the photo accepted by the hobby as opposed to 100 people at WAWA.

In this day and age we seem to be discounting actual expertise in favor of mass opinion. Just an observation and it has nothing to do with whether or not your photos are legit, but it has a lot to do with whether or not you can convince the hobby at large.

Look at it this way. I own an auction company and we have a number of other guys in this group who do as well. Do you think for one minute that you wouldn't be getting flooded with consignment offers if auction companies thought you had unassailable proof? I can assure you, we all watch these boards and get in touch when something cool comes up. The second you convince the broader population rest assured they will come calling. Rhett runs an amazing auction that basically does nothing but photographs. He'd much rather you be right. I honestly believe we ALL would rather you be right. Again this board has been home to some amazing discoveries that took a ton of group research to bring to fruition. That's a helluva lot more fun than telling someone "no"

I quoted Snowman about the Cornell thing. Can't find it now but I thought he made a claim that he had been collecting for over 50 years. He has edited a number of his posts, so maybe he retracted that statement. Was just a light-hearted

[molenick]

Originally Posted by SteveS

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.

Yes, sorry, I get that. Not trying to hijack this into a "separated at birth" thread. But I think it is interesting that people can look at the same thing and have their mind take them to a totally different thing. I see Dabney Coleman you see Gabe Kaplan (which I get as well, but I see less of). And I don't see Chris Cornell at all. Maybe I am seeing something in the expression and not the actual features, maybe I am looking at one particular feature and not another, who knows?

But I do think that people that say they do or don't see similarities are being honest about it (or as honest as they can be without underlying subconscious influences).

[SteveS]

drcy, I guess I'm still confused as to how you can judge the generation of the photo and thickness of its mount with the 100% certainty you've been maintaining without having seen and held it in person? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that it appears to be something to you, rather than it is absolutely something? After all, through no fault of your own the color appears to be different to different people. I've posted it next to a gray sample and a cream sample to show the best that I can that it is a shade of cream. Also, I have owned stereoviews from the 1850s-the early-20th century. I posted earlier in this thread a few of my baseball-related ones from the 1860s (Leon posted the same one that he has). Believe me, I know the difference between a thicker mount with rounded corners and the manufacturer's/distributor's info versus a thinner, flat mount with squared corners.

D. Bergin, the word "expert" itself wasn't used derogatorially. It was used facetiously with regard to the people who claimed that the age of the stereoview could not be from before the mid-1870s because of the arched photos. That has been disproven enough times in this thread, and it's just a basic thing that someone calling himself an "expert" should know, that at least in my opinion it discredits everything that comes next. But you won't get any argument from me about the intelligence of the general population.

Scott, I don't know if Snowman said that and edited it later. I said it a couple times in here, and it's true. Up until a certain age, pretty much every extra cent I had went to baseball cards. After that certain age, and with the proliferation of fraud, it took a backseat to other things. Also, the reason I chose this board to post the stereoview is because I knew that it would be the toughest to convince. I'm really not sure that I will ever be able to convince everybody with 100% certainty. In fact, I have absolutely no idea what would be needed to tip that scale. However, I truly believe that by being well prepared and responding to every question and concern without cowering, that I've been able to sway some people to the maybe/plausible category. I do know that many people are loathe to jump into the fray on social media, especially when there's a fear of being ganged up on by people who claim to know everything and attack anyone who disagrees. So I feel that there are a decent number of people who see a resemblance (not necessarily agree that it's absolutely Knickerbockers), but won't say so for fear of being ridiculed by a handful of others.

Michael, I'm totally fine with the people who give their honest opinion either way. It's the ones who state it as fact rather than opinion and look down their noses at anyone who dares to disagree that I just tune out.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I guess I disagree with the idea that this board is the toughest place to convince people. I have seen a number of cool discoveries here, if the evidence is clear this board will champion your cause pretty quickly. I have not, and will not offer my opinion on your claims, because mine is about as valid as the moron's from WAWA but I really don't see this as a group of skeptics.

Anyway best of luck, I've managed to tiptoe through all of this without pissing anyone off, gonna quit while I'm ahead!

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I guess I disagree with the idea that this board is the toughest place to convince people. I have seen a number of cool discoveries here, if the evidence is clear this board will champion your cause pretty quickly. I have not, and will not offer my opinion on your claims, because mine is about as valid as the moron's from WAWA but I really don't see this as a group of skeptics.

Anyway best of luck, I've managed to tiptoe through all of this without pissing anyone off, gonna quit while I'm ahead!

People ask and people say things are authentic regularly on this board (as well saying things are reprints, fakes, etc.): trading cards, photographs, autographs and memorabilia.

[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.