Circa 1846 Daguerreotype – Alexander Joy Cartwright debate

[mark evans]

I sure don't know. But, the retouched photo at the bottom of page 7 of the report is curious, as it looks to me to picture a sort of hybrid between photos C and A1, sharing characteristics of both. If the retouched photo is Cartwright, that lends support in my mind that photo C could be Cartwright as well.

[GaryPassamonte]

Jay,
Since serious questions have been raised about the image, I don't believe anyone could be 100% sure Cartwright is pictured. On the other hand, I can't be 100% sure it isn't him, given the provenance. As others have said, we will probably never know for sure. But one thing is certain. Once doubts become associated with a piece, it is never held in the esteem it was formerly. I applaud Mark for his earnest efforts and I applaud Corey for his willingness to take the risk of having a piece in his personal collection deemed to be misidentified and thus, much less valuable.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Jay,
Since serious questions have been raised about the image, I don't believe anyone could be 100% sure Cartwright is pictured. On the other hand, I can't be 100% sure it isn't him, given the provenance. As others have said, we will probably never know for sure. But one thing is certain. Once doubts become associated with a piece, it is never held in the esteem it was formerly. I applaud Mark for his earnest efforts and I applaud Corey for his willingness to take the risk of having a piece in his personal collection deemed to be misidentified and thus, much less valuable.

That's not actually true. At least one person is 100% sure that it isn't Cartwright, as evidenced by the article. I'm positive that there are others who agree with him. I also disagree that the piece has lost esteem due to the new discussions - it's still the photograph chosen by Cartwright's grandson to be used by the HOF, and it's a 150+ yr-old dag that came from the Cartwright estate.

Please keep in mind that there are many of us who saw this photograph many years ago, along with some of the other Cartwright examples. This is not a new discussion - just a much more detailed analysis. I very much enjoyed the paper and the discussions.

[oldjudge]

Scott-You are exactly right. As I have indicated previously, I do not believe that it is AC. I'm sure many others feel either that way or are unsure. However, I am still looking for someone, anyone, other than Corey, who is convinced that it is AC.
As to value, that is not the discussion here. The number is immaterial since Corey wouldn't sell it. Ultimately, if it ever comes to market, the market will determine its worth.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Scott-You are exactly right. As I have indicated previously, I do not believe that it is AC. I'm sure many others feel either that way or are unsure. However, I am still looking for someone, anyone, other than Corey, who is convinced that it is AC.
As to value, that is not the discussion here. The number is immaterial since Corey wouldn't sell it. Ultimately, if it ever comes to market, the market will determine its worth.

I am convinced it is Alexander Cartwright.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by mark evans

I sure don't know. But, the retouched photo at the bottom of page 7 of the report is curious, as it looks to me to picture a sort of hybrid between photos C and A1, sharing characteristics of both. If the retouched photo is Cartwright, that lends support in my mind that photo C could be Cartwright as well.

Mark - thanks for taking the time to read the newsletter and post. I would respond:
1) The image you refer to was not used in the analysis by either expert because it was heavily altered and over-painted by an artist.
2) From p. 31 - The only specific similarities between the A's and C pointed out by [Corey's expert,] Mr. Richards, are similar vertical alignment and approximate iris size. Both are commonly shared by different people, and the latter claim requires a liberal interpretation of "approximate."

[ChiefBenderForever]

Very facinating stuff, I think it is him based on a gut instinct with no merit or qualifications to say so but that's what I think.

[GaryPassamonte]

It seems there are those who feel 100% for and against. I stand corrected. Nonetheless, I'm certain the vast majority are somewhere in the realm of unsure.
As to esteem and value, though not part of the original point at hand. You would be hard pressed to find a card or piece of baseball memorabilia not damaged by doubts cast upon it, with the possible exception of the "Gretzky" Wagner to some degree.

[tnfoto]

I am a long-time lurker who has never posted on Net54, and I am not an expert, but as the moderator of a baseball photo forum I have spent a great deal of time collecting, cataloging and identifying baseball photos. Having read the entire supplement and all of the messages in this thread, I finally feel compelled to speak up.

My personal opinion is that the subject in the Dag is not Cartwright.

To the issue of provenance, I would add that, IMHO, given the task to supply an artist with an image that will be used to memorialize my grandfather's legacy with a bronze plaque, I would try to select the most iconic photo I had. The other images I have seen of AJC are decidedly less-iconic than the image in question. In a ca. 1855 two-person image he looks respectable but not legendary, in a ca. 1860 three-person image he looks tired, and in the others I have he is a much older man. The strong-chinned, steely-eyed subject in the Dag certainly looks more legendary than any AJC image I have, and in the 1930s (as history proves out), who would question Bruce C. when he states that the image is his long-deceased grandfather?

I can also see how, as mentioned earlier in this thread, Bruce C. could have mistaken his grandfather for the other man. There is some resemblance, but as has been stated, family members (and, for that matter, even persons not related) may *appear* similar, but are not the same person. Another case in point--my grandfather and his two brothers were virtually indistinguishable separately. I knew my grandpa for the last 26 years of his life, but given the task of definitively identifying a man generally resembling my grandpa at a much younger age in a photograph showing a group of men I did not know, it would be impossible for me to categorically state whether the photo showed my grandpa, when it could easily have been one of his brothers.

T. Scott Brandon (tsb)

[barrysloate]

Scott- welcome to the board, and I must say your first post was a well thought out one. If you go back to post #44, I said exactly the same thing about my grandfather. Since I never met him, I had trouble distinguishing him from his brother in one of the only photographs I have of him (he died so young even my mother did not remember her own father!).

[Rich Klein]

And for the trivia fans on the board, please email him, he (and his partner in Horsehide Trivia) sends out a daily trivia question to more than 600 receipients. Those questiions get more difficult during the week.

Slight plug as I'm one of the "moderators" for those questions

Rich