Quote:
Originally Posted by benjulmag
For purposes of full disclosure, I am the person who purchased the Anson tintype...To be totally transparent, SABR’s pictorial committee newsletter several years ago concluded the image does not depict Anson, something I was well aware of when I reached the opposite conclusion. The flaw with the newsletter’s analysis is that it does not take into account the tintype is a reverse image, so all the comparisons it makes to the corresponding features on the comparison images were based on the opposite-side’s feature. The human face is not symmetrical, thereby IMO rendering the analysis flawed. I also strongly believe that even if done properly, between the fact that certain facial features change over time (e.g., ears) coupled with the difficulty in taking exact measurements due to resolution and distortion effects, the comparison is simply not precise enough to rule out Anson.
|
Corey is quite right in pointing out that when I wrote the article in 2016, I did not know the image in question was a tintype. I saw it in a John Thorn article - indeed I had it flipped the wrong way . However with the image in question oriented correctly, each and every argument I made still applies. The tintype does not depict Anson. I will post a revision here.
>> certain facial features change over time (
e.g., ears)...
They don't change in such a gross manner as would be required to support this guy being Anson. Ear changes in men of baseball playing age are extremely hard to see in photos.
>> difficulty in taking exact measurements due to resolution and distortion effects...
The differences are gross - sub-millimeter resolution is not needed and I would not attempt it. Exactly what has caused the claimed very large distortion?