Circa 1846 Daguerreotype – Alexander Joy Cartwright debate

[benjulmag]

Barry, thanks for your response. And yes, I would want you to be objective. I might add to what you said that Mark's expert also says the differences are not exclusionary.

It is not my intention to restate what I wrote in the newsletter. The only point I want to make here is that it is Mark's subjective opinion that the facial mismatches are signficant. Others, including recognized professional experts, not only may but in fact do vociferously differ not only as to their significance but whether they in fact even exist (being caused instead by photographic illusion or studio touch up).

Mark is correct about one thing -- I am not an expert in photographic facial comparison. I wasn't when I acquired the dag over 20 years ago, and I'm not now. Yes I know a thing or two, and I certainly know a lot more now than I did a year ago when Mark and I first began discussing this question, but nothing compared what a true expert knows. That was why I consulted with experts before I bought the dag, and why now I retained who I believed was the top photographic facial comparison expert in the country. Before Jerry Richards agreed to take on the project, he made it crystal clear to me that he was going to call it as he saw it and that if I expected otherwise he did not want to get involved. I also made it a point to not discuss the item's provenance with him until after he had completed his analysis as I did not want there to be any question that even subconsciously that information might have influenced him.

Jerry opines that the facial mismatches Mark and Mr. Mancusi speak of, besides not being exclusionary, are not even close to being exclusionary. The single most important "difference" to Mr. Mancusi, iris size, doesn't even exist. At this point, I don't even know what Mr. Mancusi's conclusion would be today if he eliminated the irises, nose and scar from his analysis. Those were three differences he put tremendous emphasis on and I believe Jerry Richards has completely shattered the validity of all of them.

I might also add, that as to the question of who a true photo ID expert is, a point Mark devotes a section of his report to, I still am having great difficulty with Mr. Mancusi's falilure to understand that in order to compare an image to another image, one must do a direct comparison. It is not sufficient to compare image #1 to image #2, conclude they probably are of the same person (a conclusion which in this instance Mr. Richards disagrees), and then say the conclusions one draws from comparing image #1 to the image in question would be identical to the conclusions one would draw from comparing image #2 to the image in question. That something so basic as to go to the core of how one undertakes a photographic facial comparison, is consistent with every notion of common sense, and the fact that Mr. Mancusi doesn't understand it I find very troubling.

[Leon]

In order for this very important document to be read and responded to I have "stuck" it to the top of the page. It will remain here for a few days or so.....

For folks only casually reading this thread, or who may not have the level of interest as some, the importance of this photo and ensuing debate can not be overstated. The next oldest "baseball" (with characters in any type/part of a uniform ie... hats, bats, balls etc..) photo is believed to be in the 1856-1858 era. That would make this the oldest baseball photo by approximately 10+ years. A fairly significant situation, even for a novice or less interested baseball hobbyist.

[barrysloate]

I just read through the entire report again this morning- that is now three times for Corey's and twice for Mark's- just to keep the information fresh for the basis of a discussion. One point I want to make is with regard to the credibility of Bruce Cartwright. I know that he undoubtedly exaggerated the accomplishments of his grandfather, and his belief that it was AJC who invented baseball has of course been disproved. But as far as the photograph he submitted to the Hall of Fame, it was not the only one the family saved. They had at least three dags, one ambro, one CdV, and possibly others that they could have chosen from. So while this of course in no way proves that AJC is the man in the back row, there is no reason to believe that Bruce deliberately sent the wrong image to the Hall of Fame. Of course he could have been mistaken, but I have to believe there was a very good chance he knew who his grandfather was.

I know this proves nothing, but I wanted to bring it up.

[terjung]

First, I am really enjoying this discussion and am particulary thrilled to see how civil it is - so thank you for all who are involved for not letting emotions get in the way - as so often can happen for these things that we care so much about.

Second, after reading the entire article and the discussion too, I'd prefer not to speculate as to whether or not it is truly him. I only wanted to add what amounts to a bit of an interesting corollary. A few months ago, I was at an annual family reunion where 5 siblings (my father and his 4 brothers and sisters) were puzzling over something very similar. It has nothing to do with baseball, but does relate. They were all looking over quite old pictures and were trying to figure out who was pictured in them. I only bring this up because there was difference of opinion (3 to 2) as to whether certain pictures were of their grandfather (my great-grandfather). They all knew their grandfather (since he was alive during their lifetimes), but in a similar situation, at least 2 of them would have misidentified their grandfather in a picture. The importance of that discussion is nowhere near the same plane as this one and I have no idea in our case as to whether my aunts and uncles would be certain enough in their opinion to select it as a representative picture, but I felt it pertinent enough to share that I have seen firsthand where people misidentified their own grandparent in a photograph. (In our case, I still don't know whether it was him in the photograph or not, but I do know that at least 2 (and maybe 3) of the siblings are wrong. As Barry said, it either is or it isn't.)

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

...there is no reason to believe that Bruce deliberately sent the wrong image to the Hall of Fame. Of course he could have been mistaken, but I have to believe there was a very good chance he knew who his grandfather was.

Barry - I agree there is no reason to believe that Bruce deliberately sent the wrong photo, but it's not hard to believe that he would think given the close resemblance that the person in the photo was AJC. I don't believe he's anymore of a photo identification expert than you or I and given the HPD was in his families collection he would be even more quick to assume that it was AJC.

[barrysloate]

Hi Tim- yes, I'm fully aware that he could have made a mistake. One would only hope that given the magnitude of the event, that his grandfather was about to be enshrined in the new Hall of Fame, and that the hall was requesting a good image to engrave on AJC's plaque, that he would have been deliberate in his choice of which photograph to submit. But of course, he could have been wrong. That only adds to the complication of this whole thing.

[oldjudge]

I thiink two points need to be made. First, as to who has the burden of proof. I think the answer to this stems from what point you start. Corey is starting from "I think it is Cartwright so you have to prove it is not". If I picked up this dag in a flea market I would have to prove it was Cartwright if I claimed it was him. I think Mark has shed considerable doubt on the image being Cartwright and that cloud will remain until someone can prove it is him. Secondly, as to the picture coming from the family. If the family had many pictures around is it that hard to imagine that there were pictures of someone else in the family who looked like Cartwright? If Bruce was 10 years old when Cartwright died he only remembered him as an old man. Trying to pick out his image when he was young, especially if a few people in the family had somewhat similar appearances, could have been tough. He probably didn't err intentionally, but nonetheless could have erred.

[bmarlowe1]

Corey: Others, including recognized professional experts, not only may but in fact do vociferously differ not only as to their significance but whether they in fact even exist (being caused instead by photographic illusion or studio touch up)....Jerry opines that the facial mismatches Mark and Mr. Mancusi speak of, besides not being exclusionary, are not even close to being exclusionary.

I challenged Corey several times in the newsletter to produce known photos of the same early ballplayers that exhibit multiple feature differences as do Cartwright and subject C. Corey has not been able to do so. Even if one wants to limit it to dags, we have multiple dags of famous people such as Dolley Madison, Edgar Allen Poe, Lincoln, etc. If what Corey says is true, we should be able to compare dags for these people and find such feature differences. If you go through this exercise you cannot find such differences. We should easily be able to find photos of the same 19thC ballplayer that exhibit such differences. Again, you cannot.

There over 800 dags in the online Library of Congress collection. There are quite a few cases of multiple dags of the same person taken at different times. Again, you cannot find such feature differences due to the hand-tinting, “photographic illusion”, or whatever it is that Corey speaks of.

Corey:I still am having great difficulty with Mr. Mancusi's falilure to understand that in order to compare an image to another image, one must do a direct comparison. It is not sufficient to compare image #1 to image #2,....

This is simply not logical. I answered it more than adequately in the newsletter:
“Mr. Richards states,"each ‘known’ image should be independently compared with the questioned image.” He asserts that it is necessary to not only compare A4 directly to C, but to also individually compare A1, A2, and A3 to C. But he does not state what difference he thinks that would make - what features of A1, A2 or A3 would compare more favorably to C? All the A's have virtually the same forehead width, so it suffices to then compare only one of them directly to C. The same can be said for the particular characteristics of the eyelid, lips/philtrum, and nose.

[barrysloate]

Same here Leon. I apologize, just responded to David.

[barrysloate]

Jay did make an excellent point, that perhaps AJC had a relative, such as a brother, who so closely resembled him that Bruce confused the two. That is very possible, but then who are these six men in identical straw hats (I believe Mark disputed that all the hats were the same, but they look the same to me)? I would find it a near impossible coincidence that six friends would get together for a social event wearing the identical hats unless there was some bond that brought the men together. So who are they? Keep in mind that the Knickerbockers wore straw hats as part of their uniforms.

[bmarlowe1]

There is no logical reason that I should have the burden of proof. This is not a criminal case where we want to bend over backwards to protect a defendant from a wrongful conviction. We are trying to determine what is true, or at least what is probably true - that is very different.

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I would find it a near impossible coincidence that six friends would get together for a social event wearing the identical hats unless there was some bond that brought the men together. So who are they? Keep in mind that the Knickerbockers wore straw hats as part of their uniforms.

In very hi-res, some of those hats are clearly not straw - even Corey now agrees to that (I won't waste space posting hat photos, and whether it's 2 or 3 is beside the point) However the hats do illustrate an important point. In a 1997 article in VCBC in which he argued that the HPD was the first baseball photo, Corey states, “First, all the individuals in the image are wearing straw hats.” Corey had maintained that view until recently. Well, they aren’t. Apparently he never noticed something that was plainly obvious when you have the photo in hand (or have a super hi-res scan) until I pointed it out, even though he has owned the HPD for about 20 years. I believe that he sincerely saw 6 straw hats when some were clearly cloth hats because that’s what he wanted to see. Anyway - who are these guys?:

[benjulmag]

"There is no logical reason that I should have the burden of proof. This is not a criminal case where we want to bend over backwards to protect a defendant from a wrongful conviction. We are trying to determine what is true, or at least what is probably true - that is very different."

Mark, I believe there is a very logical reason you should have the burden of proof. The provenance has shifted it to you. Yes, you will argue that the provenance is not as strong as I opine. And others point out the risk associated with family members one or two generations removed from identifying ancestors. But bear in mind what we are dealing with here. This is a c. 1846 half plate daguerreotype. Half-plate-size dags from that period constituted a very small percentage of total dags, and almost always they were used when the image had particular importance to the subjects. In addition, the Cartwright family did not in the 1930s, as the HOF was coming into being, suddenly take note of its ancestorial baseball connection. AJC's importance to the origins of the game was known to his family for many years. It is the most tortured rational conceivable to say that (i) for a dag this rare, (ii) a dag that purportedly represents to the family that which their ancestor was most proud of and which gave the family great prominence, (iii) a dag likely on the family's radar for many years as they as they sought to achieve their long-standing goal of having AJC's contributions to the game appropriately recognized, would, when the HOF finally came calling, blow it by giving them an incorrect image of their ancestor. Is it theoretically possible? Yes. As a practical matter is it possible? IMO no.

As to your point in an earlier post of my failure "to produce known photos of the same early ballplayers that exhibit multiple feature differences as do Cartwright and subject C", that was not my role. That was Jerry Richard's role, which by agreement between you and I both of us were to be prohibited from continually going back to our experts. He and I discussed the issue you now raise at length and he could not have been more emphatic in saying he has seen many instances of such "mismatches" coming from the same individual, and he in particular said your experience must be very limited to not know this.

Mark, I do not question your good faith. Nor do I in any way want to come across as being disrespectful. But with respect I say that while you clearly know more than the average person, your knowledge cannot compare to an expert such as Mr. Richards. That was why I hired him. As you and I developed this newsletter supplement together over the past number of months you know darn well that I was prohibited from going back to Jerry Richards to have him answer with his own words and illustrations points you had raised in your subsequent redrafts. So I do very much take exception to your criticism now of my "failure" to provide such illustrations.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

There is no logical reason that I should have the burden of proof. This is not a criminal case where we want to bend over backwards to protect a defendant from a wrongful conviction. We are trying to determine what is true, or at least what is probably true - that is very different.



In very hi-res, some of those hats are clearly not straw - even Corey now agrees to that (I won't waste space posting hat photos, and whether it's 2 or 3 is beside the point) However the hats do illustrate an important point. In a 1997 article in VCBC in which he argued that the HPD was the first baseball photo, Corey states, “First, all the individuals in the image are wearing straw hats.” Corey had maintained that view until recently. Well, they aren’t. Apparently he never noticed something that was plainly obvious when you have the photo in hand (or have a super hi-res scan) until I pointed it out, even though he has owned the HPD for about 20 years. I believe that he sincerely saw 6 straw hats when some were clearly cloth hats because that’s what he wanted to see. Anyway - who are these guys?:

Whether or not the hats are straw is irrelevant - if this were the style of straw hat that the Knickerbockers wore as a team, then it would be more relevant, but still not too important, as they aren't wearing their uniforms, so whatever hats they are wearing for the picture have nothing to do with baseball.

I could see how six friends could get together for a photo and arrange in advance to all be wearing nice dark dress clothing and their best light-colored wide-brim hats, just so that the picture would look good. If this picture had been taken in the deep south, all of them would have had such hats. If taken elsewhere, it would have taken minutes for any of them who didn't have one, to get such a hat at a hat shop.

[barrysloate]

Scott- I'm not so sure the Knickerbockers actually had uniforms. I think they took off their jackets, rolled up their sleeves, and played baseball. I never saw a reference that said the team had uniforms.

Corey and Mark: there is something here about this whole project that I do not understand. Why did the two of you have ground rules? Why did you both have to agree not to keep going back to your experts? Why did you both have to set the rules regarding who was allowed to amend his findings, and who would have the last word? I never understood that. If the point of this exercise is to determine the truth, what relevance do these ground rules have? I'm lost.

[bmarlowe1]

>>But with respect I say that while you clearly know more than the average person, your knowledge cannot compare to an expert such as Mr. Richards.

That’s why I obtained the services of Stephen Mancusi. That said, I think my response to Mr. Richards holds up very well.

>>As to your point in an earlier post of my failure "to produce known photos of the same early ballplayers that exhibit multiple feature differences as do Cartwright and subject C", that was not my role. That was Jerry Richard's role..

I honestly never considered that this would require an expert. It doesn’t seem very difficult to me to point out such differences if they exist. I can tell you that I cannot easily find such examples – as explained I have certainly tried and I can’t find any. That tells me that such a case would be at least extremely uncommon. This speaks to the likelihood of C being AJC. Of course the question is out there on this forum and through the newsletter. Let’s see what others may come up with. (see last paragraph p. 29)