An Authentic New York Knickerbocker Team Photo Discovery!
 

looks to be authentic! I still need to choose an auction house, this photo is just fun to look at. The photo pictures 10 well dressed young men in all. 9 of which are original founding members and the 10th man standing in the far right back row is a young awkward looking Henry Chadwick. Some of the easier men to identify a bit quicker than some are..
Henry T. Anthony, Doc Adams, Alexander Cartwright, Henry Chadwick, William Wheaton and Charles H. Birney. The other 4 men require a bit more attention to detail. Feel to take a peak, i look forward to all comments.

In addition to the side by side comparisons, i included 2 transparency/overlays on the very bottom. i used 2 examples i found online, one for Doc Adams, and the other for Henry Chadwick

Poll Q. Like
Dis-like
Not Sure

oh no.....here we go again

Are they all holding bibles ?

+1. The photo Looks about 50 years more recent than 1846 to my eyes. But the ears will have it...

I like the content of the photo and the potential history of it but sadly I am not sure

That photograph would not have been possible in 1846. The size, contrast and pose would not have been possible at that time. look at the known 1846 images and you will see it is not even close

The gentleman on the far left is also clearly making a very obvious hand gesture from a famous "club" that is dying out quickly over the last couple decades.:(

I'm certainly no expert, but my eyes do not see the matches in many of the pictures used for identifications.

There is no documentation that I know of Henry Chadwick being aware of, let alone having a picture taken with, the Knickerbockers in 1846. I believe his interest in baseball did not surface until the 1850s when he encountered the game while covering cricket as a reporter.

I am not convinced of this photo being the New York Knickerbockers, but I would like to thank the OP because researching this made me aware of this site https://www.langdonroad.com/ which lists thousands of early photographers and studios based on public records. There is only one Dowling listed and the dates are more in line with the type of photograph this appears to be.

I am wondering if the "dating" of this image was based on someone writing 1896 on it and this being incorrectly interpreted as 1846 (since a badly written 9 can look like a 4).

I am spending way more time on this than I think it deserves...but it beats shoveling snow.:)