Circa 1846 Daguerreotype – Alexander Joy Cartwright debate

[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

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 believe I have skills in this area, but they don't compare to Jerry Richards'. IMO the experience of doing thousands of photographic facial comparisons gives a perspective that no amount of book learning can replicate. It bears directly on your point of providing instances of identical subjects that exhibit the same facial discrepancies we see in this instance. I know what Jerry told me over the phone. He and I had several in depth discussions about it. As to providing examples, he would be the person to provide them both because presumably he would have the data base to do it, and because without such a data base I can't justify the tremendous amount of time required for the task.

[bmarlowe1]

>>I believe I have skills in this area, but they don't compare to Jerry Richards'. IMO the experience of doing thousands of photographic facial comparisons gives a perspective that no amount of book learning can replicate. It bears directly on your point of providing instances of identical subjects that exhibit the same facial discrepancies we see in this instance.

I agree that experience is more important than book learning. That's why I stated the following:
p5:
Active forensic artists working for major metropolitan police departments may analyze and compare hundreds or more faces every month, thousands every year, many tens of thousands over a long career. Their primary focus is faces. There is no substitute for that kind of experience.
p28:
There is no substitute for the decades of repetitive intense exposure one gets as a career forensic artist working for a major metropolitan police department. There are perspectives that can only be gained by examining thousands of faces…..

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>>I believe I have skills in this area, but they don't compare to Jerry Richards'. IMO the experience of doing thousands of photographic facial comparisons gives a perspective that no amount of book learning can replicate. It bears directly on your point of providing instances of identical subjects that exhibit the same facial discrepancies we see in this instance.

I agree that experience is more important than book learning. That's why I stated the following:
p5:
Active forensic artists working for major metropolitan police departments may analyze and compare hundreds or more faces every month, thousands every year, many tens of thousands over a long career. Their primary focus is faces. There is no substitute for that kind of experience.
p28:
There is no substitute for the decades of repetitive intense exposure one gets as a career forensic artist working for a major metropolitan police department. There are perspectives that can only be gained by examining thousands of faces…..

I have always understood that Mark, and that is why, contrary to what you have said, I do not question Mr. Mancusi's competence in comparing facial features. But since presumably his work does not involve dealing with daguerreotypes and the particularities of that photographic process, he would be lacking in certain knowledge relevant to knowing what discrepancies he perceives he sees even exist. As to the issue of methodology (i.e., his belief that it is not necessary to undertake separate comparisons with each of the A subjects), that still continues to trouble me.

[edhans]

I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this, but I'm not in favor of a poll or vote. I don't think the results, whatever they may be, would add anything beneficial to the conversation. I do appreciate the newsletter being posted so that all sides and opinions can be discussed and anyone that wants to weigh in has the opportunity to do so.

+1

[oldjudge]

Late last night I thought I had figured out who the fellow in the middle of Corey's dag was. If you look at the fellow on the left in the ambrotype shown below you will see Alexander's brother Alfred. If Alfred's face is compared to the enlarged mid-back row face from Corey's dag, he looks a lot more like this man than does Alexander (Middle of ambrotype). However, Mark has analyzed this image and has found that Alfred is not the man in the middle either. Based on this, I am drawn to the conclusion that the man in the middle is almost surely a third Cartwright relative and is not Alexander.

[mark evans]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Late last night I thought I had figured out who the fellow in the middle of Corey's dag was. If you look at the fellow on the left in the ambrotype shown below you will see Alexander's brother Alfred. If Alfred's face is compared to the enlarged mid-back row face from Corey's dag, he looks a lot more like this man than does Alexander (Middle of ambrotype). However, Mark has analyzed this image and has found that Alfred is not the man in the middle either. Based on this, I am drawn to the conclusion that the man in the middle is almost surely a third Cartwright relative and is not Alexander.

Anyone got a photo of Benjamin? A quick internet search shows him to be the third brother in the family.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by mark evans

Anyone got a photo of Benjamin? A quick internet search shows him to be the third brother in the family.

Mark - an excellent question. I have not been able to locate one.