Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[slightlyrounded]

Originally Posted by SteveS

slightlyrounded, as for father/son, I really don't see a familial resemblance here. If you think the guys with the hand on the shoulder are father and son, you should probably look closer. Besides, it's not uncommon to see a hand on a shoulder. This one is from the 1859 Knickerbocker team photo. And please understand that I know that I need to do more to prove the IDs. But the date was a huge hangup for a few people here, and I think we should move beyond that.

I think there's a distinction between leaning on someone in a line photo and making a purposeful connection to someone more formally seated in front of you.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by SteveS

bnorth, two of the three men in the back row are the ones who people earlier in the thread thought looked the oldest.

I just went back and looked again and to me the back row look to be 20-30 years younger than the person sitting directly in front of them. They also resemble each other way more to me than the side by sides you posted.

Just shows how different people see the same thing and see something different.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I have been doing photography for a very long time and could write paragraphs about stereoview photography and it's evolution but suffice it to say you have a c. 1870 stereoview on your hands with it actually in my opinion most likely dating to about 1872-75...

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Your photo is 100% more recent than the 1862 known Knickerbocker photograph. The clothing and facial hair combined with photography method and presentation place this to c. 1870-1875...

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I want to walk away from this debate very badly. Once passion enters an objective assessment, you can no longer have a rational discussion. You are passionate about wanting this to be a Knickerbocker photo badly, which I get, but it is clouding your rational assessment of the history of photography which is pretty easy considering how fast the genre changed between the 1850's-1870's. It really is not that hard to date the "approximate" age of photographs as a result.

I have handled perhaps as much as half a million stereoview cards since I started collecting photography and am not a novice. Online research is one thing, handling these things consistently over years and years (more than 30 years), you start to learn things that hold true over time. I've also handled as many or more 1860's-1880's albumen prints on CDV cards etc. Here are some useful facts for you.

Fact 1: The stereoview "viewer" was not really invented until 1859. Before that date, these things were mostly daguerreotypes and ambrotypes that had to be developed and then another one shot and redeveloped at a slightly different angle and then viewed through cumbersome devices hand made one at a time. These were done as novelties and nobody owned them aside from businesses and the ultra wealthy. Paper stereoview cards may have been "invented" in 1859 as well (nobody knows for sure) but that literally means nothing. CDV and albumen technology was in its absolute infancy by the start of the Civil War. You essentially do not find albumen prints before 1862 and yours is 100% albumen. Your photo was done after the famous 1862 salt print, well after actually.

Fact 2: The oval top cut on your stereoview was not in vogue until the late 1860's and 1870's. Do a quick Google search for Civil War dated stereoviews or other images concretely dated to have been MADE in the early-mid 1860's. All have square cuts. The ones that do not were done after the Civil War as commemorative issues which were popular throughout the 19th century. I have never seen a pre-Civil War era stereoview with the larger oval cut at the top, if you find one, it was almost certainly made in the late 1860's at the earliest using an older image. This was a "style" of photography and it did not become popular until after the Civil War.

Fact 3: Absent Civil War scenes where photographers like Matthew Brady and a few others operated completely out of wagons with all their equipment including darkrooms available to them, outdoor photography was almost impossible in the 1860's and basically did not exist in the 1850's. It was an expensive and cumbersome process until the 1870's. There are almost no known outdoor albumen photographs because the lighting was tricky, the camera weighed a ton, the exposure time was ridiculous and things like clouds and wind could not be controlled and would destroy portrait shots. It was many, many times easier to produce an image in a studio so you find 99.9%+++ of all portraits and groups taken inside, until the technology got better in the 1870's.

I would bet money that if you took the "Knickerbocker" angle away and just approached 100 antique photography experts about the approximate age of your image based on style, dress, outdoor setting, oval top stereoview style etc., you will get all 100 answering that the image is c. 1870-1876. I can not imagine a scenario where a single one would estimate Civil War era and you would be laughed out of the room if you suggested 1850's because it is impossible.

Others can debate the facial accuracy, I am just going off photography style here since you said you "disagree" with my dating which I will stand behind with extensive experience.

Now I think I can walk away and wish you the best of luck on your research project. If you still question the dating, you will be fighting a VERY uphill battle but I wish you well. Take care.

Experts can be wrong sometimes, but never THIS wrong. It would be one thing if prewarsports had said something along the lines of, "I believe this is most likely from the 1870s because of x, y, and z. Earlier dates are possible, though very unlikely." But it's something else entirely to go off on a multi post rant like this, babbling on about how much of an expert you are, having handled over a million similar prints by hand, and saying that there is no possibility whatsoever of it dating to the 1850s and that 100 out of 100 experts would unanimously agree that this would date to the 1870s.

Oops.

Prewarsports, any comment on the above agreement from from 4 actual experts all dating this to the 1850s? When I'm this wrong, I follow it up with an apology and accept it as a learning opportunity and adjust my understanding accordingly going forward.

[SteveS]

slightlyrounded, here are the Brooklyn Bridegrooms. Three of the men have their hands on the man in front of them (two of them have both hands!). I doubt there were any fathers/sons on that team. There are plenty of examples of this you can find by googling pictures of baseball teams.

bnorth, here are my Avery and Adams side-by-side. I cannot see a 20-30 year age difference or a close resemblance. But I do agree that different people can see different things. That's why I utilized the facial-match programs, which take the human element out of it.

[SteveS]

Snowman, you posted while I was writing my previous post. In my follow-up with two of the experts, that's when I mentioned my Knickerbocker belief and that it was dismissed by a few people on this forum because of their staunch belief that it's an 1870s photo. They were very, very adamant that it is not, and is much earlier than that.

[smokelessjoe]

Steve,

I think you may have accidently dodged my "round-about" questions. let me be more clear.

1. Did you specifically ask all three experts to provide you with information as to how they came to their conclusions?

2. Did the three experts provide you with any information as to how they came to their conclusions?

3. If so, can you share that information with us so we can learn from them?

4. Have you looked at the similarities amongst the men themselves in the photo?

5. Have you run the google / facial recognition program only using the men in the photo?

6. If so, can you share the results with us? If not, can you run the program using only them?

Hoping you can answer these questions and others to come so we can solve this mystery.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by SteveS

slightlyrounded, here are the Brooklyn Bridegrooms. Three of the men have their hands on the man in front of them (two of them have both hands!). I doubt there were any fathers/sons on that team. There are plenty of examples of this you can find by googling pictures of baseball teams.

bnorth, here are my Avery and Adams side-by-side. I cannot see a 20-30 year age difference or a close resemblance. But I do agree that different people can see different things. That's why I utilized the facial-match programs, which take the human element out of it.

To me they look quite similar(father/son) and easily have a 20 year age difference.

That is weird because the people you matched with the computer programs look nothing alike to me.

Either way I have enjoyed this thread and wish you the best on finding out who they really are.

[SteveS]

smokelessjoe:

1. I did not ask specifically for any reasons. I sent my scans of the front and back of the stereoview and asked if they would be able to date it.

2. Yes, they did provide some of their reasoning.

3. To summarize, the clothing and grooming styles. The mounting design. The overlap on the left side indicates that it's from a very early stereoview camera. Now, I should point out that the people here who say that it's from the 1870s gave no reason other than, "I've been doing this for a long time and I say so."

4. Assuming you're serious, that's an emphatic yes. I looked, but I don't see any familial resemblances among these men.

5. No.

6. I posted those results above shortly after Snowman requested them. EDIT: I just reread what you requested; I misunderstood the first time, and will post those results as quickly as I can get it done....

bnorth, thank you! I appreciate your input.

[GaryPassamonte]

It was very common for players to have their hands/arms etc on other players in early baseball photography. In this cdv I once owned, at least half the players are touching another player. I would guess it was a fraternal practice.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Prewarsports, any comment on the above agreement from from 4 actual experts all dating this to the 1850s? When I'm this wrong, I follow it up with an apology and accept it as a learning opportunity and adjust my understanding accordingly going forward.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, and I probably should just keep my mouth shut, but I have to ask: what experts?

The American Museum of Photography is an online only museum that appears to have not been redesigned since it was hosted on Geocities, AmericanPhotographs.com is a flickr site that you can't actually view, and the Stereoscopy Blog is run by Rebecca. They may very well be experts, but we don't actually know who they are or what their CV looks like. Furthermore, without actually seeing the question posed and the answered received, we have no idea what they said other than what Steve has told us they said.

I spent way too much of my misspent youth mucking about in the evolution-creation wars. This whole discussion triggers flashbacks for me. Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, anonymous expert opinions, sciency sounding explanations. It's all here. Including question begging when you are asking someone to respond to expert opinions when it hasn't been established the people are actually experts.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I don't have a dog in this hunt, and I probably should just keep my mouth shut, but I have to ask: what experts?

The American Museum of Photography is an online only museum that appears to have not been redesigned since it was hosted on Geocities, AmericanPhotographs.com is a flickr site that you can't actually view, and the Stereoscopy Blog is run by Rebecca. They may very well be experts, but we don't actually know who they are or what their CV looks like. Furthermore, without actually seeing the question posed and the answered received, we have no idea what they said other than what Steve has told us they said.

I spent way too much of my misspent youth mucking about in the evolution-creation wars. This whole discussion triggers flashbacks for me. Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, anonymous expert opinions, sciency sounding explanations. It's all here. Including question begging when you are asking someone to respond to expert opinions when it hasn't been established the people are actually experts.

Fair enough. I made an assumption, and could be wrong. Although I do believe the museum curator that he was referred to probably knows what they're talking about.

It's funny to me that you mentioned the creation vs evolution debates. I was thinking the exact same thing earlier when reading through this thread.

[SteveS]

GaryPassamonte, thank you for posting that. It's a very cool pic!

carlsonjok, I googled "stereoview expert" and variations of that. Clearly I was able to access the websites to get the contact information and send messages which they received and responded. I posted who they are so that anyone can find out for themselves their level of knowledge and expertise when it comes to stereoviews. Without insulting anybody here, I trust their experience in the field more than some of the people here whose expertise is based on the fact that they run auctions. I sent out a bunch of e-mails, and I'll see how any other responses come back. I certainly would post contrarian opinions, but so far, all have been consistent. I uploaded the front and back of the stereoview here so anybody seeing it can render an opinion. God/Science bless you (I don't know on which side of the argument you were.

smokelessjoe, here are the results I promised. I ran the people in the back against the people in front of them. The results were 42%, 52%, and 59%, with all showing "from different persons."

[SteveS]

Snowman, yes, I figured anyone reading through this thread can see the name of the museum I posted earlier. There aren't a plethora of people in this world who specialize in stereoview expertise, but I found the ones I could. If anyone here who doubts them would like to recommend someone I haven't already contacted and hasn't already seen it on this board, please provide me the contact information and I will be more than happy to send the images to them for an opinion.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by SteveS

GaryPassamonte, thank you for posting that. It's a very cool pic!

carlsonjok, I googled "stereoview expert" and variations of that. Clearly I was able to access the websites to get the contact information and send messages which they received and responded. I posted who they are so that anyone can find out for themselves their level of knowledge and expertise when it comes to stereoviews. Without insulting anybody here, I trust their experience in the field more than some of the people here whose expertise is based on the fact that they run auctions. I sent out a bunch of e-mails, and I'll see how any other responses come back. I certainly would post contrarian opinions, but so far, all have been consistent. I uploaded the front and back of the stereoview here so anybody seeing it can render an opinion. God/Science bless you (I don't know on which side of the argument you were.

smokelessjoe, here are the results I promised. I ran the people in the back against the people in front of them. The results were 42%, 52%, and 59%, with all showing "from different persons."

Awesome, now since they are obviously different people how do those percentages compare to 2 random people? Like if you ran a pic of you and me.

[OldOriole]

Originally Posted by SteveS

carlsonjok, I googled "stereoview expert" and variations of that. Clearly I was able to access the websites to get the contact information and send messages which they received and responded. I posted who they are so that anyone can find out for themselves their level of knowledge and expertise when it comes to stereoviews. Without insulting anybody here, I trust their experience in the field more than some of the people here whose expertise is based on the fact that they run auctions. I sent out a bunch of e-mails, and I'll see how any other responses come back. I certainly would post contrarian opinions, but so far, all have been consistent. I uploaded the front and back of the stereoview here so anybody seeing it can render an opinion."

Steve, I probably would have tried googling experts too, much the same way you did. I'm just not sure - and this may be part of Jeff's point - that I would say "All are worldwide-recognized photo experts, specifically stereoviews" (as you did in post 245). Not from one google search, anyway.

[slightlyrounded]

Originally Posted by SteveS

GaryPassamonte, thank you for posting that. It's a very cool pic!

carlsonjok, I googled "stereoview expert" and variations of that. Clearly I was able to access the websites to get the contact information and send messages which they received and responded. I posted who they are so that anyone can find out for themselves their level of knowledge and expertise when it comes to stereoviews. Without insulting anybody here, I trust their experience in the field more than some of the people here whose expertise is based on the fact that they run auctions. I sent out a bunch of e-mails, and I'll see how any other responses come back. I certainly would post contrarian opinions, but so far, all have been consistent. I uploaded the front and back of the stereoview here so anybody seeing it can render an opinion. God/Science bless you (I don't know on which side of the argument you were.

smokelessjoe, here are the results I promised. I ran the people in the back against the people in front of them. The results were 42%, 52%, and 59%, with all showing "from different persons."

To be fair, now that we're using unmanipulated (ie no longer reverse images) comparisons, the original "matches" you were claiming (see post #56) have now fallen apart as well.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by slightlyrounded

To be fair, now that we're using unmanipulated (ie no longer reverse images) comparisons, the original "matches" you were claiming (see post #56) have now fallen apart as well.

Do you have the actual #s from when the pictures are not reversed? It would be interesting to see the change.

[smokelessjoe]

Steve,

Lets avoid summarizing and try to be as detailed as possible. This way we can all learn from the experts and have a better understanding of the photo in question.

1. What specifically about the clothing led all three experts to the mid 1850s date?

2. What specifically about the mounting design led all three experts to the mid 1850s date?

3. Can the experts explain how an overlap in the photo is indicative of dates in mid 1850s

Also, I was not asking that you compare the guys who are front and back of each other but rather the ones you feel most resemble each other - as you did with the Knicker photo.

For example, can you run a report on these two guys.

Thanks for running those reports

[slightlyrounded]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Do you have the actual #s from when the pictures are not reversed? It would be interesting to see the change.

Here are a few...I wouldn't put ANY stock in these results either way personally.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by slightlyrounded

Here are a few...I wouldn't put ANY stock in these results either way personally.

I wouldn't put much stock into them because the old pics are so blurry and small there is no way for it to be accurate IMO. Still cool to see and play around with. I found and bookmarked the site.

[SteveS]

bnorth, here are the leading MVP candidates. Fernando Tatis Jr. with Vladimir Guerrero Jr. gets 55%. Tatis with Shohei Ohtani gets 35%. Both "from different persons."

OldOriole, in my Google search I did see them cited in websites outside the US. And if ESPN can call themselves "the worldwide leader...."

slightlyrounded, I know that at least three of them match to the same level, as I did it originally with the natural orientation. As I said before, I thought I had read that stereoviews are reversed. But as I related above, the expert explained it much clearer that the images are transposed, not reversed. But I just did Avery in his original orientation and he's 88% and "from the same person" (posted below).

[slightlyrounded]

I can't wait to be on my deathbed and think about the month I wasted debating the identities of all present at 'the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Boise Osteopathic Association' or somesuch, lol.

[drcy]

The website is interesting and I'll check it out (Good to know it is able to say that Willie Mays and Tommy Lasorda are not the same person )

A question no one has asked: How does anyone know that the photo is even from the United States?

With the cabinet card you have the luxury of knowing where and by whom it was made.

[SteveS]

You guys were posting fast and furious while I was writing my last post. To smokelessjoe, whatever they told me I related here. No specifics about the clothing or the mount (although I did discuss several times in here what I found in my research).

drcy, there are no markings to say where it's from. That's part of the mystery.

To everyone with the facial matches, I was VERY clear many times that I don't put much faith in them. I mentioned it as an aside, and posted results only when someone asked. I don't know how it affects things using whatever resolution they upload into here, and using the comparison photos rather than the originals. I posted the one I did quickly with Avery. But let me stress again what I've said many times and what you all seem to agree. The facial-match programs are fun, but don't prove anything either way.

I sat here while several of the "experts" on this board came very close to calling me an idiot and insisted in the most snooty way possible that there is no way in this universe that the stereoview can be from the 1870s. You may not agree with the experts I asked (probably because they disagree with you), but I found them in a completely neutral way and trust that they are indeed experts about stereoviews specifically. And so far, they have been unanimous in their opinion that my stereoview is from the 1850s. It's perfectly understandable that reasonable people can disagree as to the resemblance of faces. But I have put them side by side and pointed to specific features that are unique and can be seen in both examples (no matter which way they're facing). So you tell me how Doc Adams' open mouth and droopy eyes aren't compelling. Or Duncan Curry's severely baggy eyes and open mouth. Etc. Or tell me specific things that don't match. Because trying to say that putting a hand on a shoulder makes someone a father, I need to go on Maury Povich's show for a battery of paternity tests.

[smokelessjoe]

Steve,

You had stated that you were "summarizing", so I took that to mean that you had reduced, consolidated, condensed etc. the information you were given in order to get your point across. You also stated "I believe I mentioned above some of the information they provided to back up the date" which led me to believe more information was available. You did not say that you had given all of the information - so that is why I asked.

Being that you have no specifics at this time, can you ask the three experts for such? As you have pointed out several times, it is very important to you that one can backup their claims.

Question:

Do you see any similaries between these two fine fellows?

[JollyElm]

For the helluva it, I went to that site and uploaded the pics of two people in the same photograph...

oldphotocomp.jpg

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by smokelessjoe

Question:

Do you see any similaries between these two fine fellows?

I see a possible similarity in the noses, but the fullness and facial hair patterns of the beard and mustache make it clear that these two can't be the same person.

[SteveS]

I see as much similarity as I do in these pictures of them (both from the 1862 salt print).

Unfortunately, this thread is now getting ridiculous. If I had relied on the facial-match program I would have put the result images in my initial post. Yet no matter how many times I say that they are for fun and not really indicative of anything, some people keep insisting on focusing on that rather than what's relevant. I believe that I have addressed every concern that has been raised. Whether I convinced anybody or moved people into the "maybe" category, I'll probably never know. A lot of people are reluctant to comment in a social media post if they know they'll be jumped on. I will most definitely continue to research the stereoview, and absolutely will take your questions and concerns to heart. When you questioned the date, I reached out to experts in the field. I will try to find people educated and experienced in facial matching to get over the next hurdle. Anybody is free to post in here. But I believe I have provided all the information I have thus far, and I don't like going in circles or having to explain a hand on a shoulder. And that's where we seem to be right now. So this is my last post in this thread. if you have any questions that haven't been addressed in here, hit me up in a PM. If I get any major revelations in the future, I'll start a new thread for that. Until then, I'll see you in other threads and maybe at shows. Card collectors are the best people, and share a special bond. But it's not like I'm gonna put my hand on your shoulder or anything....

[smokelessjoe]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I see a possible similarity in the noses, but the fullness and facial hair patterns of the beard and mustache make it clear that these two can't be the same person.

Good... This is very good. So you do see some similarity. Do you think there is a possibility that those two guys are related? How about the two guys below?

Do you see and similarity between these two guys?

[smokelessjoe]

Originally Posted by SteveS

I see as much similarity as I do in these pictures of them (both from the 1862 salt print).

Unfortunately, this thread is now getting ridiculous. If I had relied on the facial-match program I would have put the result images in my initial post. Yet no matter how many times I say that they are for fun and not really indicative of anything, some people keep insisting on focusing on that rather than what's relevant. I believe that I have addressed every concern that has been raised. Whether I convinced anybody or moved people into the "maybe" category, I'll probably never know. A lot of people are reluctant to comment in a social media post if they know they'll be jumped on. I will most definitely continue to research the stereoview, and absolutely will take your questions and concerns to heart. When you questioned the date, I reached out to experts in the field. I will try to find people educated and experienced in facial matching to get over the next hurdle. Anybody is free to post in here. But I believe I have provided all the information I have thus far, and I don't like going in circles or having to explain a hand on a shoulder. And that's where we seem to be right now. So this is my last post in this thread. if you have any questions that haven't been addressed in here, hit me up in a PM. If I get any major revelations in the future, I'll start a new thread for that. Until then, I'll see you in other threads and maybe at shows. Card collectors are the best people, and share a special bond. But it's not like I'm gonna put my hand on your shoulder or anything....

Steve,

I apologize for offending you, I did not realize I was. I was not asking for you to run the program as some kind of proof - it was just for fun as you had used it. Nothing more, nothing less... Proves nothing.
I did feel like I was being very polite and thought my questions for more information from the experts was on the up and up? Looks like we will not get to learn anything from the experts. Be well Steve

[Snowman]

Earlier, I made a statement regarding the facial match results and how those might affect the likelihood of the group as a whole being the Knickerbockers (namely that if each subject has a high match, then it greatly increases the likelihood of the group as a whole). While I asserted it as an "If A then B" statement, it was received as me promoting the idea that this meant there was a 99.9999% probability of this being a Knickerbockers photo by many here (despite my careful phrasing intended to avoid that conclusion).

Anyhow, I think this is worth revisiting now that I've had a chance to play around with their software a bit more. What I wrote earlier is quoted below for reference. Note my qualifier statements highlighted in bold.

Originally Posted by Snowman

...if the probability of each person being a "match" is 90%, then the probability of the group being the Knickerbockers is equivalent to the 1 - (0.1^6) = 0.999999 or 99.9999% chance that this is the Knickerbockers. However, this is based on the assumption that a "90% match" actually means the individuals in two photos are 90% likely to be the same person. I don't know if this assumption holds true, and wouldn't be surprised at all if it didn't. I don't know enough about facial recognition software to make that claim...

Perhaps it's obvious to everyone by now, but I think it's worth noting that the output from the facial match recognition software definitely does not indicate the probability of two people being the same person. This much is clear from the results you get when simply uploading random subjects or when uploading two images of the same person. There are any number of ways that someone could create algorithms for facial matches and the scoring output from those models can be set up almost arbitrarily. That's not to say that the output of such a model is meaningless though, as the higher match % two images get, the more likely they are to truly be a match. That said, it should be noted that one cannot make probabilistic estimates based on these values as I proposed above since the % match values don't actually represent probabilistic estimates. They're more of an arbitrary scoring system.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by smokelessjoe

Good... This is very good. So you do see some similarity. Do you think there is a possibility that those two guys are related? How about the two guys below?

Do you see and similarity between these two guys?

I guess it's plausible that this could be some sort of family photo or a photo of various family members, but I don't really see much reason to assume that. I don't think there is enough similarity across the members of the group to warrant that being my primary hypothesis. Most of the people appear to be similar in age to me, with the exception of the guy in the middle of the front row. He looks older to me than the other subjects.

I think we have a photo of 6 people taken in the 1850s, several of whom bear a significant resemblance to some of the members of the Knickerbockers. However, I think the ages of the men in this photo do not line up well with their appearances in the 1862 photo. I do not believe that these can be the same people if this is how they looked in 1857 and then just 5 years later, they looked how they do in the infamous salt print. However, I don't know how ironclad those two dates are. Perhaps this photo was taken in 1856 and the salt print was closer to 1865? If that could be the case, then I don't think I would rule this out as a potential Knickerbockers photo. But not ruling it out and concluding that it most likely is a Knickerbockers photo are not the same thing.

Overall, I think this is a fascinating and fun conversation. I know I've learned a lot about 19th-century photography just from the small amount of research I've done after discovering this thread. I still know next to nothing in the grand scheme of things, but it's a very intriguing field of study.

I'd like to see and learn more about the connections and potential provenance of this photo and any potential ties to the Knickerbockers though before I was convinced that this is indeed a photo of them. I definitely see the similarities in several of the people in the photos, but I'd want to know more before saying it can no longer just be a coincidence.

However, with the George Wright photo, I am as convinced as I possibly could be without ironclad provenance (e.g., the photo coming from his great-grandson or the descendants of someone who worked for him or who worked for the Red Stockings, etc.) that it is in fact a photo of George Wright

[68Hawk]

Knickerbockers as they were in their youth.
Yes, I have consulted all the known experts and run facial recognition.
It is undeniable.

[aquarius31]

Both the mount and albumen are in very good condition for an ‘early’ stereoview. I have one that is from 1860 and is faded, insect damage and brittle in spots. Depending on where you live, perhaps you consider getting a local photographer (or better yet a conservationist who deals in photo restoration) to take a look and further help with the dating. Online pictures can only go so far. When I went to a local conservationist with my stereoview, they actually had an original stereoscope and I was able to see the ‘depth’ and 3-D like imagery with it!