Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[RCMcKenzie]

That's awesome, Steve. The ears match don't they?

[SteveS]

Yes, among other things. To me, the eyes are very close. Looking at this and other pictures of him, notice how his left eye stretches out, and the eyebrow extends well past his nose. You don't see that in a lot of people. The same hairstyle can also be seen in other photos of him. I'm sure you can find some connection to Boston; I'm sure he must have played a game there at some point. Chickering certainly would have been a candidate to take a picture of someone of his status there. But again, I am not going down that rabbit hole and I'm not saying for sure that it's him. That's something you can investigate further if you want. Maybe you can start another thread on here and enjoy the experience that I've had. I'm kidding about that last part. It's actually been fun, because talking about baseball is always fun.

[seablaster]

Cap Anson? Seriously?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

That's awesome, Steve. The ears match don't they?

No, the ears do not match. Nor do the eyebrows. This is definitely not the same person.

[SteveS]

Just gonna say it one more time. In no way did I say that this is Cap Anson. I didn't see a resemblance to anyone when I first looked at it, but the reverse image search spit out this photo of Anson. After looking at this and other pictures of him, I can't say that it's absolutely ridiculous. So I posted it for RCMcKenzie to investigate further if he wants, but again, I am not making any claims. I have enough on my hands with Knickerbockers and Wrights.

[Snowman]

It looks like the purported Wright cabinet photo most likely dates to the early to mid 1890s based on drcy's feedback and the artist's other similar work that I've been able to find online. George Wright was born in 1847, so he would have probably been in his early to mid 40s when this photo was taken. Obviously that doesn't prove that it's him, but if you were to ask me how old I thought the subject in the photo was without any other information, I would have guessed mid 40s.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

That's awesome, Steve. The ears match don't they?

One has detached ear lobes the other one attached.

[SteveS]

Snowman, yes, I would not have bought it without the age being right for the era (or "Wright for the era," If you will) and the strong Boston connection, which I believe provides at least some provenance.

Scott, as I said, I don't make any claims regarding RCMcKenzie's photo, and he can pursue it further if he wants. But when I sharpen it and blow it up and look very closely, it's difficult to tell where the ear ends and the shadow begins. The part I find most interesting that is more evident in other pictures of Anson is the stretched eye and elongated eyebrow. I posted this particular picture of him because that's the one the reverse image finder produced. But again, I am in no way making any claim that it is Anson, and would rather stick to Knickerbockers in this thread.

[drcy]

With the Anson and the Nicholas Cage photos (and the Ty Cobb in the other thread), I think people are catching on that it takes more than a resemblance to prove a photograph identification authentic. If you look through someone's yearbooks, you'll likely find someone who resembles someone famous.

I've never dismissed that there are resemblances, or that the Chickering as a photographer is significant.

This all also demonstrates why the examination of the photograph itself and its age is essential. Doesn't matter how much someone looks like Babe Ruth. A 30 year old Babe Ruth couldn't appear on a 1890 cabinet card.

In cases of some photos of famous people, the photos are known to have come from the estate. In fact, there are Cap Anson photos out there that came from his family, I believe his granddaughter.

And with many antique photos there are mysteries and always will be mysteries. Most tintypes, and most baseball tintypes, are of unknown people, their identities lost in time.

[bgar3]

To illustrate your point David, this really is George Wright, and was once his.

[SteveS]

drcy, I have never disagreed with you about an in-person examination. Trust me. That WILL happen. But by the same token, I don't think that anyone should say with 100% certainty that it can't be from a certain era without seeing it in person, especially when the characteristics of that era can be seen in the scanned images (with the knowledge that they render differently on each person's screen).

As for the estate issue, I point again to the 1847 daguerreotype (as always, I don't make an opinion either way on it, but I am really rooting for its owner to tip the proof scale).

The first new friend that I made in high school was Crispin Glover. Although I never practiced and ended up in a totally different career, I did go to law school with the current Vice President of the United States (I do not say that in any way as a political statement; it's just neat to say). So I have some pretty cool yearbooks.

bgar3, check out the pictures that Snowman posted earlier of Wright at various ages. Lost all that great hair, and someone looking casually would swear that it's not the same person. But certainly with the number of pictures available of him in his playing days along with the fact that the ones you posted came from his own collection, it would be extremely difficult to argue the identification (although I guarantee you there are people on this board who would try -- KIDDING!!).

[SteveS]

HI everyone! I woke up to some good news in my inbox this morning. I heard back from three more stereoview experts: The American Museum of Photography, AmericanPhotographs.com, and Stereoscopy Blog. All are worldwide-recognized photo experts, specifically stereoviews. I sent mine to them with no mention of Knickerbockers or anything else. Just asked if they could date it. All three said mid-late 1850s, with the absolute latest possibility being very early-1860s if it's British or the photographer had an older mounting card lying around. They also feel that it's an original albumen photograph taken with an early stereoview camera, not copied from an earlier picture. The evidence cited for that is a lack of movement of the subjects, and the overlap on the very left of the left picture which is not evident on the right one (I am posting that below). It seems that earlier stereoviews were transposed, meaning that the picture taken with the left camera lens was put on the the right side of the stereoview card, and the right one was placed on the left.

One of them asked if I knew who the subjects were, and I wrote back with my Knickerbocker comparisons and mentioned that a few experts on this board were adament that the stereoview had to be from the 1870s. She said she can see the resemblances, and is absolutely 100% certain that it is much earlier than the 1870s. Of course, you can make your own judgments, but I'm now 4-4 in stereoview experts saying 1850s. But I know that's just the first hurdle. I recognize that I now have to prove the IDs....