Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[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.

[drcy]

I meant the physical photograph, not sending in images of it.