Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[slightlyrounded]

The thing that isn't sitting right with me: You initially made several identifications and reached out for some professional opinions. When those were met with doubt you revised half of your identifications and reversed the image to more closely match the comparisons. Correct?

Several of the hairlines and facial similarities were enhanced when you flipped the image, which I assume is why you did this....but I think the kerchief issue is a problem. I don't understand how the kerchief is shown in 'Niebuhr's' left breast pocket in your stereoview, but you somehow thought this image should be flipped, placing it on the right. Especially when the salt print has him wearing a kerchief in his left, as is customary.

Further: if the Henry Anthony association is being proffered as a reason this may be an earlier, 'cutting-edge' photograph, then why are neither he nor his brother in the picture? I don't think it's credible to lean on this association.

I accept that you can't be talked out of your belief that you've uncovered a historically significant find, but you need to understand the skepticism here. You've provided no 'when', 'where', 'why', or 'how' for the origin of this stereoview...only a 'who' after multiple revisions and a very subjective framing.

[drcy]

Most old photos found on eBay and flea markets are of unknown people whose identities have been lost in time. Having antique photos of unidentified people is the norm, and you own two. There's nothing wrong with that.

[drcy]

To answer snowman's question, yes there is a resemblance with some of the people. That the "Fraley Niebuhr," where, yes there is a resemblance, couldn't possibly be Fraley Nieburh, demonstrates why "some resemblance" isn't proof. Even SteveS admitted it wasn't Nieburh and suggested a different identity. This is why "some resemblance" means little with random 100 years old photos.

If you go through high school yearbooks you are going to find nobodies who resemble someone famous. That's the way looking at old anonymous photos work. My dad resembled Bob Newhart, and I can promise you that my dad wasn't Bob Newhart.

This also is why the photo itself, including its age, along with provenance, are important. It doesn't matter that the person resembles Babe Ruth if it's an 1880 cabinet card. Can't be Babe Ruth.

[sphere and ash]

I apologize for what will be a disjointed reply to various posts.

The original poster writes, “It's also possible that a previously-taken photo was made into the stereoview by taking a picture of that picture or using the negative process of that era.” There is more assumed in this sentence than is immediately apparent.

To create a stereoview in the middle of the nineteenth century, the photographer needed a camera with two lenses placed as the eyes are, side-by-side. With two lenses, you have two images, each slightly different. One could not take a single photograph, taken with one lens, and turn it into a stereoview. There must have been an intention to take a stereoview.

Your albumen silver print stereoview was taken using the wet plate collodion process. That process was not invented, I believe, until 1851. Prior to that time, photographers like Fox Talbott used paper negatives (when they used negatives at all), which recorded much less information than glass negatives.

I have made wet plate collodion negatives, and printed them on home-made albumen paper, and I have also made ambrotypes and tintypes, all of which are wet-plate processes. I am less knowledgeable about the chronology of the development of these processes, but am confident that if your stereoview was printed later, the original could not date from the 1840s.

As to whether the stereoview was taken or printed by the Anthony brothers, there is no evidence presented for such an assertion. I believe Henry T. Anthony was a member of a group that traded stereoviews, and I vaguely recall that some of these stereoviews survive with notes to fellow members on the verso. If that were the case here, you’d have a more compelling argument. But there is nothing about either the prints or the mount that tie it to the Anthony brothers.

[sphere and ash]

I have spent over 25 years collecting photographs, learning in the darkroom, and training in nineteenth century photographic processes. None of that, as the original poster correctly points out, gives me any advantage in facial recognition. But—it does give me some perspective. Finding a photograph that resembles another person is a commonplace. Take, for example, the two albumen photographs shown below. Couldn’t almost all of us agree on their identification?

I’m not trying to poke fun in any way—I’m just trying to impart some very hard-won learning. Within the last two weeks, the subject of a very valuable photograph that I own was shown to be someone else entirely—and this was a baseball photograph of the team founded by the subject in question.

Before I forget: for those wishing a good reference book on dating stereoviews, I recommend the work of William C. Darrah. I would consult my own copy now, but everything I own is in storage pending a house sale.

Also: someone above made the point that nearly all discussion participants agreed that the ‘Knickerbocker stereoview’ attribution was questionable. Although my own skepticism was correctly included on that list, I do not believe popularity is a good measure of the truth of an idea.

And: I was wrong to say in my first post that probabilities have margins of error. I should have said ‘Estimates have margins of error.’

[sphere and ash]

Finally, one poster asks the skeptics to put their money where their mouth is. This is a reasonable request. I am willing to wager the suggested amount for the George Wright photograph [edited to make clear that I am wagering against a match] based on the following criteria: that we jointly share the cost of retaining Mark F. and have his report published here. Mark uses preponderance of the evidence.

I will go further and make the same offer on the ‘Knickerbocker stereoview.’ If Mark believes the stereoview does not contain enough information to make a determination, then I would ask the original poster to bear the cost of the report.

I do not not know Mark and have never spoken to him. We did exchange a few emails about some photographs that I own about five years ago.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

Finally, one poster asks the skeptics to put their money where their mouth is. This is a reasonable request. I am willing to wager the suggested amount for the George Wright photograph [edited to make clear that I am wagering against a match] based on the following criteria: that we jointly share the cost of retaining Mark F. and have his report published here. Mark uses preponderance of the evidence.

I mentioned before that I don't want to derail this thread into a side discussion about prop bets, and I'd like to adhere to that, so this will be my last comment regarding any wagers people might like to place with me.

To be clear, I am not a mark. I do not place sucker bets. You aren't going to get me to agree to some 50/50 even money wager where I put up $10k and you put up $10k and I win only if expert X gives this photo a certificate of authenticity so that it can be sold at auction, but I lose if he does not. That would be a sucker's bet. I am completely ignorant about 19th-century photography and about how authentication of such things would even work. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the default position for an expert to take on something like this would be that of agnosticism with regard to the subject in question. It is one thing for even an expert to say, "wow, that sure looks like it might be George Wright and I believe it probably is him", but it's something else entirely for them to say, "yes, that is George Wright. Here is your certificate of authenticity." However, there are any number of ways that an expert could clearly demonstrate that the photo is in fact NOT George Wright (e.g., the dating of the photo is off by 30+ years, the eyes are a different color, the person in question has already been positively identified as a member of Congress, the photo was taken in Botswana while Wright lived in Boston, etc.). If you wish to place a wager with me where the only way I can win is if Steve gets handed a certificate of authenticity but you win in all other outcomes, then you're going to have to lay some serious odds in order for me to accept your bet or change the terms. Perhaps that means we won't be able to come to an agreement on the terms of a wager, perhaps we will. I just know that I firmly believe this photograph to be of George Wright and most people here do not. If you'd like to place a bet with me, send me a PM and we can discuss the terms, but let's keep it out of this thread going forward, please. But I assure you, I don't place sucker's bets, so if you're just looking to "catch" me throwing away free money, you're probably wasting your time.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

I have spent over 25 years collecting photographs, learning in the darkroom, and training in nineteenth century photographic processes. None of that, as the original poster correctly points out, gives me any advantage in facial recognition. But—it does give me some me some perspective. Finding a photograph that resembles another person is a commonplace. Take, for example, the two albumen photographs shown below. Couldn’t almost all of us agree on their identification?

I’m not trying to poke fun in any way—I’m just trying to impart some very hard-won learning. Within the last two weeks, the subject of a very valuable photograph that I own was shown to be someone else entirely—and this was a baseball photograph of the team founded by the subject in question.

Before I forget: for those wishing a good reference book on dating stereoviews, I recommend the work of William C. Darrah. I would consult my own copy now, but everything I own is in storage pending a house sale.

Also: someone above made the point that nearly all discussion participants agreed that the ‘Knickerbocker stereoview’ attribution was questionable. Although my own skepticism was correctly included on that list, I do not believe popularity is a good measure of the truth of an idea.

And: I was wrong to say in my first post that probabilities have margins of error. I should have said ‘Estimates have margins of error.’

[drcy]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

I do not believe popularity is a good measure of the truth of an idea.

This is true, and these elongated threads usually have at least one person who has no clue what he's talking about (but keeps on talking). However, that no one (OP excluded) in this thread ultimately said they believe it's the Knickerbockers, and the No's included several hobby-known experts, is significant.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by drcy

However, that no one (OP excluded) in this thread ultimately said they believe it's the Knickerbockers, and the No's included several hobby-known experts, is significant.

We are in agreement on these images, but continue to disagree on theories of knowledge. I do not believe that authority (“known experts”) is the basis for the truth of an idea. I would say, rather, that authorities can be important because they may share important ideas not understood by laymen; but their authority, in and of itself, confers nothing. Some here (you are not among them) might dismiss theories of knowledge, but I think it’s at the heart of some of these discussions.

Separately, the original poster has repeated several times that the 1862 salt print is an amalgamation of numerous separate negatives. I do not believe that to be the case. To be fair, I’ve never seen it in person, but I’ve made enough albumen and salted paper prints to believe the print is from one negative. The odd relative sizes of some of the subjects can be explained by lens distortion more easily than it can be explained by what would be a very rare practice. There was a recent photograph of the Bidens and the Carters that displayed a similar distortion. The hand coloring of the photograph was used because enlargements from wet plate negatives on salted paper were difficult to make, required extraordinarily long printing times, and were typically too light. If you look up “solar enlarger,” you will see how this print was made.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

I have spent over 25 years collecting photographs, learning in the darkroom, and training in nineteenth century photographic processes. None of that, as the original poster correctly points out, gives me any advantage in facial recognition. But—it does give me some me some perspective. Finding a photograph that resembles another person is a commonplace. Take, for example, the two albumen photographs shown below. Couldn’t almost all of us agree on their identification?

I’m not trying to poke fun in any way—I’m just trying to impart some very hard-won learning. Within the last two weeks, the subject of a very valuable photograph that I own was shown to be someone else entirely—and this was a baseball photograph of the team founded by the subject in question.

Before I forget: for those wishing a good reference book on dating stereoviews, I recommend the work of William C. Darrah. I would consult my own copy now, but everything I own is in storage pending a house sale.

Also: someone above made the point that nearly all discussion participants agreed that the ‘Knickerbocker stereoview’ attribution was questionable. Although my own skepticism was correctly included on that list, I do not believe popularity is a good measure of the truth of an idea.

And: I was wrong to say in my first post that probabilities have margins of error. I should have said ‘Estimates have margins of error.’

Please tell me those are supposed to resemble Nick Cage and Matthew McConaughey. If not I REALLY need to stay out of photo ID threads lol.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Please tell me those are supposed to resemble Nick Cage and Matthew McConaughey. If not I REALLY need to stay out of photo ID threads lol.

LOL

Scott, You may need new glasses. You got Nicholas Cage right, as someone had already posted a photo of Cage next to that 19th century photo on the left in that earlier post. I thought the other photo is a dead ringer for Noah Wylie though. I also remember seeing a 19th century, or extremely early 20th century, photo that was a dead ringer for Eddie Murphy at one time as well. There are doppelgangers out there throughout history for quite a few people it seems. And if I'm wrong about Wylie, then I need new glasses.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by drcy

To answer snowman's question, yes there is a resemblance with some of the people. That the "Fraley Niebuhr," where, yes there is a resemblance, couldn't possibly be Fraley Nieburh, demonstrates why "some resemblance" isn't proof. Even SteveS admitted it wasn't Nieburh and suggested a different identity. This is why "some resemblance" means little with random 100 years old photos.

If you go through high school yearbooks you are going to find nobodies who resemble someone famous. That's the way looking at old anonymous photos work. My dad resembled Bob Newhart, and I can promise you that my dad wasn't Bob Newhart.

This also is why the photo itself, including its age, along with provenance, are important. It doesn't matter that the person resembles Babe Ruth if it's an 1880 cabinet card. Can't be Babe Ruth.

Thank you for being honest about there at least being a resemblance. This is primarily what has been driving me insane about this thread. I also completely agree with everything else you've said above. Resemblance alone simply isn't enough to warrant "authentication" of a photo as being of a certain person or group. As you state, this is one of the reasons why provenance matters. This is also where the guidance of experts is quite helpful. An expert can eliminate a match without even looking at the face of the subject in the photo simply because of other elements about the photo itself not lining up with the timeline of the person in question. They can also increase the likelihood of a match by providing details that correspond well to the subject in question.