Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[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?

[OldOriole]

Originally Posted by 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.

1)

Originally Posted by SteveS

Scott, thank you very much for those suggestions! I've actually done both of those things. The HOF replied that they weren't allowed to authenticate photos, and provided a list of authentication services. I sent it to SABR people awhile back before I sharpened the pictures and had firmer IDs. One person thought it could be them, and one didn't. Perhaps I'll submit it again with the more recent info.

2) (Post #46) "Scott, I am truly honored that your 5,000th post came within my thread, and I will try again with the HOF and make it clearer this time."

Do you think you'll submit it again? Will you try again with the HOF as you stated?