Circa 1846 Daguerreotype – Alexander Joy Cartwright debate

[steve B]

Thanks Corey, it all makes sense now.

Steve B

[Rich Klein]

With any 19th century item from Ken Burns excellent series.

A long-time ago, I was chatting with Marty Appel, who wrote an award-winning work on Mike "King" Kelly. Somehow we were discussing Kelly and the subject of a photo purported to be Kelly on that documentary came up. Marty told me he asked Ken Burns office about that since he thought he had seen every possible photo of the King. Marty told he was told that the photo of the boozing young man was not Kelly but someone who looked enough like him for TV purposes.

This was not the only factual exaggeration Burns made, there was a great SABR-L thread back in the day about all the problems with anything from that documentary. That thread is worth reading and IIRC, Keith Olbermann also wrote a long article about all the factual problems with Burns.

So, if Burns says that is Alexander Cartwright, I'd really take that with a grain of salt.

I'm not a photo expert, but I do know about the Burns issue.

Rich

[bmarlowe1]

Subject F in Corey's dag is wearing an earring (see below). I have no thoughts on whether that has any useful significance, but if anyone else does, please post.

[Jaybird]

I know that earrings have traditionally been worn through history by sailors. This is neither here nor there but thought I'd bring it up.

I have to say that the burden of proof question is one that shouldn't come into play. It seems like it is a defensive position to speak about the burden of proof. What does it matter who has to prove what? The argument is what it is and speaks for itself.

The question has been brought up as to the ID and I think the question is in the air. It matters. It is important and the questionable ID brings facts to it like a magnet. It is good to bring it to a public debate because as a collective we have much more knowledge than as an individual. Someone might have an ID or other CDV or DAG of one of the other folks in the Dag and that could bring the whole matter into a different light.

As a side note, I don't see them as wearing uniforms. Hats are all of different sizes, brim width, ties are different, vests different colors, etc. only thing the same is that they are all wearing dark jackets.

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Subject F in Corey's dag is wearing an earring (see below). I have no thoughts on whether that has any useful significance, but if anyone else does, please post.

Is 'Subject F' the one 'identified' as Henry T. Anthony?

H.T. Anthony and Edward (early 1860s)

[bmarlowe1]

F was IMO incorrectly identified as William Tucker in Baseball in the Garden of Eden.

[Leon]

I am going to un-stick this thread sometime today. At this point, with everything taken into account, I don't feel a poll will prove anything more than has been debated here. Both parties have been advised of what is happening with the thread and both are fine with it. I want to thank Corey and Mark for their professionalism and civility in a very important and impassioned debate. Of course the thread will remain open for comments but it will be like any other thread and start moving down the page as other threads are responded to. I have to admit I didn't invest the amount of time needed to read the whole article, though I did skim over it and hit the high points. That, along with this thread, has helped me gain knowledge concerning photos and this photo in particular. I personally thank both parties for that too. Thanks also to our board members for their responses. I hope everyone has enjoyed the thread as much as I have. best regards

[GaryPassamonte]

Barry- Didn't you have an ambrotype with a player wearing an earring many moons ago in one of your auctions?

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Subject F in Corey's dag is wearing an earring (see below). I have no thoughts on whether that has any useful significance, but if anyone else does, please post.

I contacted professional dress historian Jayne Shrimpton to see if it was common/uncommon for men to wear an earring back in the 1840s/50s, and if it was gentlemanly to do so.

Her response was that it was not common for men to wear earrings in 1840s/50s. Probably a bit more common for Sailors/Laborers. She joked that maybe earrings were more acceptable in the Wild West back then and said the Dag is probably 1850s.

Thought this could help the debate.

J