|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Circa 1846 Daguerreotype – Alexander Joy Cartwright debate
This article was written by hobbyist and Net54baseball member M.ark.Fim.o.ff and has to do with a photo owned by another Net54baseball member and hobbyist, Co.rey Shanu.s. Both gave approval to post this. It is a rather long article and before you make a comment on it please read it. After a day or two, taking comments into consideration; a poll will be added to this thread so you can voice your opinion. Most likely your votes will be able to be seen and I will make that clear when the poll goes up. You will be on your honor system to have read the article to vote. Admittedly I haven’t read it yet, but will. Thanks to both gentlemen for allowing this debate to take place in an open forum. It’s a passionate subject. I feel this topic should be posted on the main page because of it’s importance. *All comments are welcome and you need to be either well known or put your full name in your post.
The article is a .pdf you can easily download at the link below the cover page. Once clicked then click the "Download Now" words and you will be on your way. http://www.gamefront.com/files/20873...hoto_10_11_pdf . . . . . .
__________________
Leon Luckey Last edited by Leon; 10-14-2011 at 08:19 PM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I want to start by saying that I think that Corey is a terrific guy, very sincere and knowledgeable in many areas related to collecting. The reason for this debate is that we very much disagree on how one should determine who is pictured in an early baseball photo.
Part of Corey’s argument in support of the Cartwright ID of the man back-row center in his half-plate dag (HPD) is that there are other Knickerbockers in the photo. In particular he identifies subject G as Doc Adams. In support of that he includes a side by side facial comparison. Also, in a 1997 article in VCBC, he mentions that other collectors agree with him. In the article he states, “…I, as well as other persons respected and experienced in photo identification with whom I consulted, feel very comfortable with this Curry identification.” I post the following to dispute that ID and also address the lack of facial ID skill on the part of both Corey and the collectors who had then agreed with him (whomever they may be). I ask, are you “comfortable” with this ID? |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
I consider myself to be friends with both Corey and Mark and I have read the article in its entirety. First, for someone who is not an expert in facial recognition I must say that both sides provided me with a real education, and for this I thank you both. After reading the article through, and again I am not anywhere near an expert in the area, I lean towards the images in the dag probably not being Cartwright and the other two images almost surely not being the Knickerbocker members that they were thought to be.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
I have read the entire newsletter and the following are my thoughts. First and foremost I believe it's important to say that I respect that all parties involved showed a refreshing level of decorum even in spite of differing opinions with such an important item in question.
After reading and rereading all of the information presented by both sides I feel that Mark and Mr. Mancusi presented a great deal of information that shows there is a significant amount of doubt that the subject in question is Alexander Cartwright, much more doubt than probability. While Mr. Richard and the owner of the HPD did on several occasions disagree with the findings or call into question the credentials of the parties presenting this opinion they did not present enough or any evidence to show that the person in question was highly likely to be Cartwright. One can not simply prove that it is Cartwright by saying that it wasn't proven with certainty that it isn't Cartwright. In my opinion after reading all of the findings by everyone involved that at best it could be said that it's unlikely to be Cartwright and until further evidence can be produced to back up the claim that it is Cartwright it shouldn't be considered to be him. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mark, I will respond to your post in time. You do not mention Curry. Is that because you didn't focus on it or because you thought the comparison Currys matched up well?
The point I wish to respond to in this post is that of Abravefan11. First, thank you for taking the time to read the newsletter and provide your views. Regardless whether I agree with them or not, I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. The point you raise is an important one -- who has the burden of proof? In many instances, where there is no provenance or other external evidence linking two comparison subjects, and all one has are the images alone, then clearly one can't establish that they are the same individual merely by showing they are not different individuals. In such an instance, to establish the identification, compelling reasons must be shown via resemblance and a matching of various facial features. But that is not what we are dealing with here. In this instance the Cartwright family has identified Alexander Cartwright (AJC) as being in the image. This identification dates to the 1930's and comes from AJC's grandson Bruce, who was ten years old when AJC died. One would certainly think that Bruce's views on this issue would be identical to those of his father and his grandfather. It is my opinion, given such extraordinary provenance, supported too by other ancilliary information which I mention in the newsletter, that THE BURDEN OF PROOF HAS NOW SHIFTED SUCH THAT TO REFUTE THE CARTWRIGHT IDENTIFICATION IN THE HALF PLATE ONE MUST ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF EXCLUSIONARY DIFFERENCES (OR SOMETHING DARN CLOSE TO THAT). My expert, arguably as respected an expert in photographic facial examination as anyone in the field, opines quite emphatically that not only are there no exclusionary differences, but that the most photo ID can say in the negative about the ID is that AJC is possibly depicted in the half plate. Or to say it another way, the evidence you say one must have to establish the ID needn't just be photographic evidence. It can also be extraordinary provenance, which exists here. Last edited by benjulmag; 10-14-2011 at 11:56 PM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Curry does not match, but the presentation is not so brief so I was thinking of saving that for the next newsletter. If I can't do it in a page or less I don't really want to do it here. We’ll see where this goes.
I’d rather stick to discussing my initial point before going into provenance, I would for now only say that, for reasons given in the newsletter and other reasons, in my view the provenance is less than perfect. Your all caps statement assumes that everyone will agree with you that the provenance is “rock solid”. They may not. It is not a law of physics that one must have an absolute exclusionary difference to overcome the provenance in this case. As people read and digest this there will be a range of views on how good or lacking the provenance is and how good or bad the facial ID is, and how much facial mismatch must be shown to overcome the provenance. My interpretation of Tim’s view is that given all that he has read, the facial differences demonstrated by myself and Mr. Mancusi were sufficient to overcome whatever probative value that he saw in the provenance. That is a valid view to take. Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-15-2011 at 12:52 AM. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
I find that in general people interested in this subject are highly intelligent. Based on quite a few emails, I know that they fully understand that two competent experts can publish highly conflicting opinions, and they understand the reasons why. Certainly attorneys should understand this quite well. To say that either one of the experts doesn’t know how to compare faces in photographs is beyond ludicrous. I never said that about Mr. Richards.
Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-16-2011 at 01:00 PM. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by novakjr; 10-15-2011 at 10:06 AM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
And John Astin played Gomez Addams...another Adams.
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Anyways, in comparing the pictures of Adams, it would appear the HPD photo was reversed to get the proper angle for comparison. To an extent, I get why you did id, BUT you now find yourself comparing two right ears(from photo 1 and 2) to a left ear from the HPD.. Also, you might be mistaken in the angle of the ear from the HPD, because it appears as though some of it is covered by hair, making it very hard to make a proper determination of the true angle.
Last edited by novakjr; 10-15-2011 at 10:10 AM. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by bmarlowe1; 10-15-2011 at 10:26 AM. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
a small plea
Barry et al.....As much as I love having fun on the board, and Barry you know I consider you a very good friend, I am going to ask for the amount of off topic conversation in this thread to be limited. No hard fast rule but please be courteous and on topic with answers in this thread.
__________________
Leon Luckey Last edited by Leon; 10-15-2011 at 10:20 AM. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
I'll start by saying that I read this document at 5:00am this morning and sent comments to Leon and Barry. I'm only giving my opinion because Leon said that since I read the entire document, I should consider posting my thoughts.
I never thought that looked like Cartwright (compared to other pics), but never thought it mattered much. It's a significant historical image because Cartwright's grandson SAID it was him, selected it out of all the images available to him to be used for the HOF bust, and it's always been accepted as him. What always bugged me much more about the possible error, is that it means that the 'players' depicted are possibly not the Knickerbockers. But again, that will never be proven one way or the other. If I owned it, I'd just say - "I knew it couldn't be proven one way or the other when I bought it. I don't care. Go away."
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1928 Fro Joy Babe Ruth - Authentic? | Clutch-Hitter | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 27 | 07-05-2011 10:30 PM |
- SOLD - Alexander Cartwright Letter | aaroncc | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 2 | 04-27-2010 07:41 AM |
FS: 1923 V100 Willard Chocolate Grover Cleveland Alexander PSA 3 (mk) but clean | packs | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 04-04-2010 12:31 AM |
PRICE REDUCED - 1944-45 Albertype HOF Postcard - Alexander Cartwright (SGC 80) | bcbgcbrcb | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 10-07-2009 08:59 AM |
Cartwright Documents: Signature Question | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 2 | 11-14-2008 12:08 PM |