Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[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.

[SteveS]

drcy, agreed about having someone see it in person! And now, I'd like to take a moment to say something about you, if I may. Before I even had this stereoview, I would go to various photography websites to help date other photos that I have. When I got the stereoview, I went to those same sites, and they were all in 100% consensus regarding the oldest stereoviews' colors and corners. So when you and others said that it had to be from the 1870s, I went back to those sites to make sure that I hadn't misread anything. To my great surprise, I found out that one of those sites was yours (which I posted above)! I guess the other times I had visited the site I never noticed the name. But I want you and everyone else to know that I absolutely respect your knowledge of photographic history, and anybody looking to date an old photo should definitely visit the Cycleback website.

[drcy]

Please post the dimensions of the stereoview

[SteveS]

drcy, I don't have it with me where I can measure it right now, but as I recall it's approximately 3.5" x 7".

[Snowman]

Have any experts dated the purported George Wright cabinet photo yet? When I was looking for comparable cabinets, it looked to me like it was most likely made in the 1890s, just going by other similar photos/mounts with known dates. But I have no idea. Is it an albumen print? Anyone have any insights on its age?

Also, could you post an image of the back of the purported George Wright cabinet?