Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[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 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

[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?

[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