Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[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.

[jpop43]

I’ve been following this thread since it began, and even posted a couple of times along the way…not opinions as to authenticity of the image or the alleged identifications of the subjects…but to add some dates and context in furtherance of the discussion. Context being the issue for me when things like a photo authentication are in question. The who’s, what’s, where’s, when’s, and why’s of the image have to be painstakingly examined when there is so much disagreement over the identities of the subjects. If the supporting elements of the image back up the primary subject matter, a stronger case could be made for such images (and, I’m speaking generally about all disputed imagery).

As this is the angle that I’ve been thinking of and focused on, I was moved to review the backgrounds on two tintype photos of 'Billy the Kid' that made BIG news some years back. I was interested to see how they were evaluated, investigated, researched, and ultimately accepted as authentic images of that legendary figure.

In going thru a number of articles pertaining to these images, it was clear that complete consensus was not going to be reached (and, for the record, it still hasn’t been). However, the owners of these images felt so strongly about them that they spent years pursuing the opinions of numerous expert researchers. They had geographic analysis done on the scenes and settings of the images, and had scientific/forensic facial recognition tests conducted by licensed professionals in that field. These evaluative procedures ultimately led those that mattered…auction houses…to accept them as authentic.

The definition I’m using for “authentic” in the case of these ‘Billy the Kid’ images is that they could be written up in an auction catalog with descriptions that cited expert analysis, AND the fact that they sold for millions of dollars. Those individuals that needed to be satisfied by the research obviously were and, lets be honest, that’s exactly who any of us with such an image would want to satisfy.

This ‘expertly researched/auction angle’ was raised in a previous post, and I think…in many ways unfortunately so…is the best and most legitimate gauge for authenticity and acceptance of the purported KBBC image (or any such disputed/debated sports image). If the owners, presidents, pickers, and buyers for the innumerable sports auction houses leaned towards this image as being authentic (and we ALL know they’re aware of it), we’d know about it by now. The OP would likely be shouting it out loudly (as I would be, too) in validation of his assertions, OR it would quietly go away only to be formally and professionally researched like the ‘Billy the Kid’ images prior to being auctioned for a boatload of money.

I don’t know that at this point the questions being asked about the image are even the most important or most obvious ones. My suspicion at this point is that the image may be radioactive and there would have to be a HUGE, laborious, and lengthily process to try and hit re-set in making the case for authenticity. That said, if the OP feels the same way about his image as the owners of those ‘Billy the Kid’ images felt about theirs, it seems to me there is a way to pursue validation. And, if it were my image, I would try and do just that. In my humble opinion, an authentic image of the 6 Knicks alleged to be in the photo would be the baseball equivalent of those ‘Billy the Kid’ images to historians and collectors of the West.

In reading those articles on the ‘Kid’ tintypes it seems as though this sort of pursuit could be very long and costly and may still not yield the desired answers when all is said and done. However, if one is convinced and serious about such an image, I cannot see why they wouldn’t pursue every scholarly avenue available.

Remember, at the end of the day its those registered bidders you need to satisfy. IF NOT, then we should find contentment with what we have and enjoy it for what it is or what we believe it to be.

That’s just my 2 (well, maybe 4) cents. And, as I posted early on, I am one who would want an image like the alleged KBBC example to be legit. As someone who is always searching for that hidden treasure it would be motivation to keep on looking.

Regards and happy hunting to all,

Jonathan
www.dugouttreasures.com

[SteveS]

Snowman, while I want to stay out of any wagers here, I just see it as extremely difficult to nearly impossible to find an end point where both sides of the bet will be satisfied with the findings.

Jonathan, I appreciate your following the thread. I mentioned the Amelia Earhart photo/documentary above, but I also watched the one on the alleged Billy the Kid tintype. The experts the show had did not convince me. I can't say for sure that the croquet tintype depicts Billy or any of the other people purported to be in it, mainly because the people are so tiny and rather blurry when blown up. To me, the person claimed to be Billy looks more like Alfalfa from "The Little Rascals." It's my understanding that most Old West historians haven't bought into it, and it hasn't been sold at any auction.

[jpop43]

...yes, to your point, I believe a sale was privately brokered for 5 million...clearly someone(s) was more than convinced of its authenticity per the exhaustive, professional research process. Another image, that underwent the same sort of process/scrutiny, did auction for 2.3 million in 2011. But, as you said, you yourself were not convinced by the years worth of research and evidence laid out for the former image.

My point is that there is a process by which an individual...any individual who believes in what they have...can have said item assessed and evaluated in ways that others can more or less understand and accept. Otherwise, one just ends up with a contentious photo that I hope they themselves can enjoy.

Again, I hope that someday, somehow you get the answers you want on your image. When you do, I'm hoping you will let us know.

[drcy]

The obvious start would to have the photograph itself dated.

[SteveS]

Unless someone can recognize a 160+ year-old building from the few bricks that can be seen, or Doc Adams comes down from Heaven to advocate for his Hall of Fame candidacy, I doubt I will be able to provide rock-solid provenance. I definitely agree that dating it is important, which is why I've sent the images to places with notable stereoview collections, and as I said above, the first response came back "mid-nineteenth century." When I look that up the consensus seems to be that "mid-nineteenth century" means 1830-1860, but as we're talking about a stereoview most likely 1850s. But yes, I will keep pursuing all avenues and keep everyone posted.

[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.

[SteveS]

slightlyrounded, you have raised an excellent point regarding the kerchief, and I appreciate it greatly, as I believe it points out a major error that I made, but also makes my identifications stronger. I thought I had read somewhere awhile back that stereoviews are reversed, like tintypes and dags. After your post, I researched that info and found out that I was incorrect. So the original orientation of my stereoview is proper. I have posted below the comparison photos with that orientation. To my eye, not only do the resemblances now look stronger, but the unique matches I pointed out earlier have not changed. But more importantly, slightlyrounded noticed something that I did not. Of the six men who are depicted in both my stereoview and the 1862 salt print, only one is wearing a kerchief in both pictures. And it's the same man -- Niebuhr. Now of course that is not going to make everybody here drop their jaw and concede the IDs. But the math experts can figure out the odds of that.

As for the Anthony connection, in no way would I ever rely on that nor say that he or his brother or someone in his company took this photograph, as there is no attribution. I am pointing out that the technology to take this type of photograph definitely existed in the 1850s and definitely in the area where the Knickerbockers were located.

drcy, Thank you for recognizing that there are resemblances. While I know that doesn't change your ultimate conclusion, at least you can see that much.

sphere and ash, I respect very much your experience in photography, and I wish you the best in your house sale and many glorious years in your new home. I regret that bets are being discussed with regard to my photographs, as I know that, especially when bet money is on the table, either side can find someone to justify their conclusion, and of course, the other side will not accept it. I worked for a time in a law office, and we had two stacks of solicitations from experts literally up to my knee. One stack was from people who were inclined more favorably to defendants, the other to plaintiffs. I'd like to think that they were testifying honestly, and not just leaning towards who paid them. I also remember seeing a documentary about a photo alleged to be of Amelia Earnhart after her disappearance. They had a parade of experts, including facial-match professionals and former FBI agants, all bragging about their experience in the field and swearing on their reputation that the person pictured was Earnhart. Shortly after the show aired, someone discovered a copy of the exact same picture in a travel pamphlet published before her disappearance and in a place that was confirmed she wasn't present at the time. So as 100% certain as these experts were with their impeccable resumes, they were dead wrong.

I also point to the earlier thread on this forum regarding the 1847 daguerreotype. I respect greatly Mark F.'s knowledge of baseball history and have learned a lot reading things he's written. In that thread, he turned to a professional facial-recognition expert, and the dag owner (C.S.) did as well. Both of these experts, whose credentials were not questioned by anyone, came up with diametrically opposed opinions on the identifications in that photo. Do you think that if there had been side bets anyone would have been satisfied with the result to have paid?

I also point to the experts here who claimed that there's no way on the face of this Earth that the stereoview can be from before the 1870s. One thing about which I'm very confident is that I've proven that it could most definitely have been done in the 1850s. Even you said that the technology existed in 1851. I think someone needs to see it and hold it in person to get a better grasp of its color, thickness, etc. But while I don't wish to question the knowledge or skill of anyone on this board, I tend to discount a conclusion that is based on being so incorrect on a basic thing.

I posted on this board with the full expectation that I would face a ton of skepticism and criticism. I certainly don't mean that in a bad way. My reputation is important to me too, and I don't want to look like a jackass going around saying a photo is something it's not. I am not ignoring a single thing that's been written, and in fact listened to the kerchief clue and found it enormously helpful in providing further proof of my IDs (although I know that wasn't the poster's intention). I am quite certain that I will never convince everybody, just as I am certain that both sides can find experts who will come to opposite conclusions. So if you want to give me specific reasons why you think the stereoview can't be from the 1850s, or you want to post comparisons of specific unique features that are glaring non-matches, I welcome you to do so. I don't think, "I've been doing this for 20 years and it just doesn't look right to me," is convincing. But as I have demonstrated, my mind is open....

[SteveS]

sphere and ash, I didn't notice your comment about the 1862 salt print until after I posted. I actually got that info from Mark F. I post below a snippet from the report made regarding the 1847 daguerreotype. As you can see, it points out that it's a composite, and apparently another composite was contemplated at some point as Alexander Cartwright wanted to send in a CDV to be included. One interesting thing is that I'm not sure that the date of the salt print has ever been confirmed. I know that it says "December, 1862" on the back, but I don't know whether that date is verified or written by Avery at some later time.

[slightlyrounded]

Originally Posted by SteveS

slightlyrounded, you have raised an excellent point regarding the kerchief, and I appreciate it greatly, as I believe it points out a major error that I made, but also makes my identifications stronger. I thought I had read somewhere awhile back that stereoviews are reversed, like tintypes and dags. After your post, I researched that info and found out that I was incorrect. So the original orientation of my stereoview is proper. I have posted below the comparison photos with that orientation. To my eye, not only do the resemblances now look stronger, but the unique matches I pointed out earlier have not changed. But more importantly, slightlyrounded noticed something that I did not. Of the six men who are depicted in both my stereoview and the 1862 salt print, only one is wearing a kerchief in both pictures. And it's the same man -- Niebuhr. Now of course that is not going to make everybody here drop their jaw and concede the IDs. But the math experts can figure out the odds of that.

c'mon man

[drcy]

Originally Posted by slightlyrounded

c'mon man

One's a salt print and the other photo shows men who all used salt.

[SteveS]

This is hysterical! I get criticized by a select few people here saying that I'm stubborn and not listening. Then when I see something constructive and listen to it and take action on it, I'm criticized for that. So unless you have something very specific that you can point out in a side-by-side comparison (as with the kerchief above), I can assure you that "I've been doing this for 20 years and you're wrong" simply doesn't cut it.

[molenick]

Here are a few specific issues I have. These may have been addressed before so apologies if this is the case.

In the pair on the left, I can honestly say that to my eye these two men do not resemble each other (and it seems to me the person on the left is older than the person on the right).

However, in the three pairs stacked on top of each other, clearly the people on the right are older than the people on the left.

(Sorry about the way the photos loaded, I can't figure out how to make the pair on the left line up with the top of the three other pairs.)

[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.