Circa 1846 Daguerreotype – Alexander Joy Cartwright debate

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

You are saying that Mr. Mancusi is not qualified to compare faces in photographs and has no understanding of the effects of lighting and retouching, as if one would think that was not a significant part of his job as the NYPD’s senior forensic artist for 24 years. That is of course completely ludicrous.

I am sure in the 24 years Mr. Mancusi has been a NYPD forensic artist he many times had occassion in his line of work to analyze mid-19th century daguerreotypes of current crime suspects.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I am sure in the 24 years Mr. Mancusi has been a NYPD forensic artist he many times had occassion in his line of work to analyze mid-19th century daguerreotypes of current crime suspects.

Exactly what illusionary effects unique to dags are present that would explain the specific gross differences apparent in the above images?

On p. 29 I said:
As to lighting and head angle, again there is no explanation given as to of how this would cause the observed feature differences. It is as if the differing light sources or small differences in head angle exhibited in these photos would magically change the apparent shape of numerous key features in a way we could not understand. However, the differences seen here cannot just be dismissed as illusions. If that contention is true, we should easily be able to find such multiple feature differences among clear photos of the same player from the many thousands of available early ballplayer images. I contend that such a find would be at least extremely rare.

Please tell us how the dag process or hand tinting can, for example, change the shape of the lower edge of the upper lid in these two clearly open eyes from subjects C and A. This feature is apparent in all the subject A images.

[oldjudge]

First, Jimmy made a great point before which has not been addressed. What are the markings on the dag? If we can date it we may be able to say for certain whether it could be Cartwright. If it dates from post 1849 then it can't be Cartwright as that is when he left for the Gold Rush and ended up in Hawaii. If dating is not possible, or it dates from before Cartwright's departure, then it's back to facial recognition.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

First, Jimmy made a great point before which has not been addressed. What are the markings on the dag? If we can date it we may be able to say for certain whether it could be Cartwright. If it dates from post 1849 then it can't be Cartwright as that is when he left for the Gold Rush and ended up in Hawaii. If dating is not possible, or it dates from before Cartwright's departure, then it's back to facial recognition.

To my knowledge there are no markings on the dag. However, based on the plain brass matting, it is consistent with dags produced in the mid 1840's (the early stage of daguerreotypes). By the 1850's, the matting become more ornate. This is a great point that Jimmy raises and one that 20 years ago when I purchased the dag I looked into closely.

Assuming one accepts that the dag comfortably dates to the period that Cartwright was in NYC, may I add that besides being back to facial analysis we are also back to provenance analysis.

[bmarlowe1]

>>If there are no exclusionary differences between the comparison subjects, the conclusion that the subjects likely are different individuals then becomes a subjective determination

No it is not so simple.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>>If there are no exclusionary differences between the comparison subjects, the conclusion that the subjects likely are different individuals then becomes a subjective determination

No it is not so simple.

I agree it's not so simple. If these differences exist in all photo shoots, are not affected by the passage of time and are objective, then they would be exclusionary. Yet your own expert does not characterize them as such. So perhaps their presence is a function of the time difference between comparison images and particularities of pose.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Exactly what illusionary effects unique to dags are present that would explain the specific gross differences apparent in the above images?

On p. 29 I said:
As to lighting and head angle, again there is no explanation given as to of how this would cause the observed feature differences. It is as if the differing light sources or small differences in head angle exhibited in these photos would magically change the apparent shape of numerous key features in a way we could not understand. However, the differences seen here cannot just be dismissed as illusions. If that contention is true, we should easily be able to find such multiple feature differences among clear photos of the same player from the many thousands of available early ballplayer images. I contend that such a find would be at least extremely rare.

Please tell us how the dag process or hand tinting can, for example, change the shape of the lower edge of the upper lid in these two clearly open eyes from subjects C and A. This feature is apparent in all the subject A images.

First, they're gross differences to you. Please allow that others might feel differently.

Second, what blows my mind about this is that you raise a point in your response yet prohibit me from seeking a response from Mr. Richards. Wasn't it the case that the publication of the newsletter supplement was delayed for a few days while you and I went back and forth on whether my reference to lens focal length was generated by the knowledge I obtained from being a college physics major who studied optics, as opposed to being obtained from Jerry Richards? (Let me guess-reference to another private communication). Only when I satisfied you that I did not obtain it from Jerry Richards did you consent to have it published. You can't behind the scenes put conditions on what a person may do/say and then criticize him for adhering to your conditions.

Third, as a partial answer to your question, iris size. Mr. Mancusi felt he saw a very significant discrepancy, which I believe influenced him greatly in his conclusion. Yet in the end that discrepancy turned out not to exist. (And please don't mention the 20% difference you still see. May I respectfully suggest you educate yourself on margin of error analysis associated with daguerreotype emulsion type.)

[bmarlowe1]

>> Second, what blows my mind about this is that you raise a point in your response yet prohibit me from seeking a response from Mr. Richards. Wasn't it the case that the publication of the newsletter supplement was delayed for a few days while you and I went back and forth on whether my reference to lens focal length was generated by the knowledge I obtained from being a college physics major who studied optics, as opposed to being obtained from Jerry Richards?

Your are free to inform us as to how focal length affects what we see in this case. The agreement as I understood it was my expert – your expert – my response – your response. I felt it was fair to see your expert's opinion before I made my final response.

>> Please don't mention the 20% difference you still see. May I respectfully suggest you educate yourself on margin of error analysis associated with daguerreotype emulsion type.

Yes – please explain exactly how your “margin of error” number is derived.

>>Mr. Mancusi felt he saw a very significant discrepancy, which I believe influenced him greatly in his conclusion. Yet in the end that discrepancy turned out not to exist.

It does exist. I'm sure you will tell us without explanation that this is but another illusion. Note that C and A4 are both from dags.

[bmarlowe1]

>>I agree it's not so simple. If these differences exist in all photo shoots, are not affected by the passage of time and are objective, then they would be exclusionary. Yet your own expert does not characterize them as such. So perhaps their presence is a function of the time difference between comparison images and particularities of pose.

You have made the same point several times and my answer is the same. If what you say is true, then one should be able to go though dags of famous people or photos of 19thC ball players and relatively easily find multiple feature differences between faces of the same person such as those exhibited in the C vs. A comparison. I maintain that such examples would be at least extremely difficult to find. In any case - you don't have to do it today, I am patient. I'm even willing to help you. I can certainly supply the faces.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>>I agree it's not so simple. If these differences exist in all photo shoots, are not affected by the passage of time and are objective, then they would be exclusionary. Yet your own expert does not characterize them as such. So perhaps their presence is a function of the time difference between comparison images and particularities of pose.

You have made the same point several times and my answer is the same. If what you say is true, then one should be able to go though dags of famous people or photos of 19thC ball players and relatively easily find multiple feature differences between faces of the same person such as those exhibited in the C vs. A comparison. I maintain that such examples would be at least extremely difficult to find. In any case - you don't have to do it today, I am patient. I'm even willing to help you. I can certainly supply the faces.

I really really wanted to go back to Jerry to respond to this Mark, but I knew you wouldn't allow it. So the question now is, after one year of doing this, are we to continue? I don't know. I know that for what matters, I have satisfied myself, which as I said earlier has always been my main objective. I now have to weigh whether continuing the discussion and investing more time and money is something I want to do. I tend to think not, but in time I might feel differently. As I consider the matter, would you agree to split the expense?

[bmarlowe1]

>> I really really wanted to go back to Jerry to respond to this Mark, but I knew you wouldn't allow it.

Corey - I would have allowed it if I then had yet another opportunity to respond to Jerry, again. However, as you know this thing came off the rails several times. IMO - it would have never ended. I was really not aware of the extent to which you felt that your own skills were not up to responding to me (and I'm still not sure you felt that way). I really don't think lens effects or perspective distortion are an issue in this case, but perhaps someone could argue otherwise.

I must add that there are a number of points that you made in your final response that I would very much like to respond to, but you rightly had the last word in the newsletter supplement. I plan to respond in the next issue. I may address some of them here if it seems worthwhile.

>> So the question now is, after one year of doing this, are we to continue? I don't know.....I have satisfied myself, which as I said earlier has always been my main objective. I now have to weigh whether continuing the discussion and investing more time and money is something I want to do...As I consider the matter, would you agree to split the expense?

As to expense, my funds for this are very limited, but we would have to discuss that offline. In any case, if you wish to engage Jerry or anyone else to respond to anything I have said - that is your choice. There is nothing preventing you from submitting such a response to Bill H. for a future newsletter cycle, posting it on Net54, or publishing it anywhere else you wish.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> Second, what blows my mind about this is that you raise a point in your response yet prohibit me from seeking a response from Mr. Richards. Wasn't it the case that the publication of the newsletter supplement was delayed for a few days while you and I went back and forth on whether my reference to lens focal length was generated by the knowledge I obtained from being a college physics major who studied optics, as opposed to being obtained from Jerry Richards?

Your are free to inform us as to how focal length affects what we see in this case. The agreement as I understood it was my expert – your expert – my response – your response. I felt it was fair to see your expert's opinion before I made my final response.

>> Please don't mention the 20% difference you still see. May I respectfully suggest you educate yourself on margin of error analysis associated with daguerreotype emulsion type.

Yes – please explain exactly how your “margin of error” number is derived.

>>Mr. Mancusi felt he saw a very significant discrepancy, which I believe influenced him greatly in his conclusion. Yet in the end that discrepancy turned out not to exist.

It does exist. I'm sure you will tell us without explanation that this is but another illusion.

First, I assume your Walgreens ruler is accurate, as is your scaling.

Second, from Mr. Richards' report.

Measuring the iris with any degree of accuracy can be problematic.

As to why he says that, I would respectfully ask you to educate yourself on margin of error analysis associated with daguerreotype emulsion type. In the alternative, just as you were kind enough to put me in touch with Mr. Mancusi, if you desire, I will ask Jerry to discuss it directly with you.

[bmarlowe1]

Agreed. i would be happy to talk to him.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Agreed. i would be happy to talk to him.

I will ask Jerry to discuss it with you.