Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[Snowman]

The thing I find most troubling with respect to just looking at the photos and comparing facial features is the hair loss of Avery and Curry. If Avery eventually goes completely bald on top as in his 1862 photo, then he wouldn't have had a full head of hair at the age of 43 (assuming the photo was taken in 1857). Someone with that level of hair loss is going to begin losing their hair in their 20s and will show signs of severe hair loss by their mid-30s. Either the timelines here are way off, or it's simply not the same person. But nobody has a full head of hair at the age of 43 and then goes on to lose it all on top years later.

That said, I do think the eyes, brow, nose, bridge, mouth and angles of the face look quite similar for Avery in both photos. But the hairlines do not line up with expectations unless the photo was taken much much earlier than 1857 (would have to be at least a decade earlier I would argue, and probably more like 15 years earlier).

[drcy]

It does not appear to be the Knickerbockers.

[prewarsports]

Originally Posted by drcy

It does not appear to be the Knickerbockers.

David, you might want to clarify which "knickerbockers" you are referring too as this photo has about as much chance of being the 1991 New York Knickerbockers basketball team as it has to being an 1850's shot of New York Knickerbockers baseball team.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

David, you might want to clarify which "knickerbockers" you are referring too as this photo has about as much chance of being the 1991 New York Knickerbockers basketball team as it has to being an 1850's shot of New York Knickerbockers baseball team.

I'll grant that it has a better chance of being the 1848 Knickerbockers than the 1991 Knickerbockers.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I guess I come back to a simpler problem. Why would there be a picture of 6 random Knickerbockers in street clothes?

[SteveS]

David, still can't come up with any specific features that are glaring non-matches, huh?

Scott, the 1862 pic is ten random Knickerbockers in street clothes. If I had to make a guess on mine, all six were elected team officers/directors, serving in various roles throughout the years. Perhaps this is a photograph of the officers/directors from whatever year it was taken. I can't find a record of the elections for every year.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by SteveS

David, still can't come up with any specific features that are glaring non-matches, huh?

Scott, the 1862 pic is ten random Knickerbockers in street clothes. If I had to make a guess on mine, all six were elected team officers/directors, serving in various roles throughout the years. Perhaps this is a photograph of the officers/directors from whatever year it was taken. I can't find a record of the elections for every year.

10 is a team though. 6 isn't. It doesn't prove anything, just seems weird.

[bdk1976]

I think one of the guys might be Shoeless Joe

[egri]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The thing I find most troubling with respect to just looking at the photos and comparing facial features is the hair loss of Avery and Curry. If Avery eventually goes completely bald on top as in his 1862 photo, then he wouldn't have had a full head of hair at the age of 43 (assuming the photo was taken in 1857). Someone with that level of hair loss is going to begin losing their hair in their 20s and will show signs of severe hair loss by their mid-30s. Either the timelines here are way off, or it's simply not the same person. But nobody has a full head of hair at the age of 43 and then goes on to lose it all on top years later.

That said, I do think the eyes, brow, nose, bridge, mouth and angles of the face look quite similar for Avery in both photos. But the hairlines do not line up with expectations unless the photo was taken much much earlier than 1857 (would have to be at least a decade earlier I would argue, and probably more like 15 years earlier).

I don't have a horse in this race, but is it possible Avery was wearing a hairpiece?

[SteveS]

Joe, thank you for taking the time to look that up and posting what you found!

Scott, I'm not sure if hairpieces existed then. To me, it looks like a guy with thinning hair who's doing the best with what he has.

[egri]

Originally Posted by SteveS

...a guy with thinning hair who's doing the best with what he has.

I resemble that remark!

[SteveS]

Well, Scott, at least you have something in common with a baseball pioneer. And it happens to the best of us.

[molenick]

I cannot comment on the reliability of facial recognition but one thing I think is not meaningful (in either direction) is that there are six people in the photo.

The "pro" side has to come up with something about it being a reasonable number for executives and directors. The Knickerbockers had three officers to start (president, vice president, secretary-treasurer). I am not sure what happened later on but four (splitting secretary and treasurer) would be pretty standard. Six seems arbitrary. Why not five or seven? Sure, it could be a mixture of current and former officers…in which case, there could be any number of people in the photo. While it is possible to make up a story to fit the narrative that these six people were all associated with the Knickerbockers, it is also true that there are many, many other reasons that six people would be in a photo. I don't think six has any significance without some other information coming to light.

The "con" side wants it to be ten (I guess for the starters plus a manager or substitute) but I don't think that is necessary for it to be the Knickerbockers (or any team). Maybe it was a reunion and only six people showed up. An undocumented reunion of the most famous team of early baseball who are essentially now known because they liked to document things.

Here is a photo of what are clearly baseball players on the same team (or at least people dressed as baseball players on the same team) plus the manager or proud father or owner of the photo studio or top hat salesman. Why are there four? I don’t know, but that doesn’t mean they are not baseball players on the same team. It doesn’t mean anything except that four people in baseball uniforms (plus a guy in a suit) posed for a photo 130-140 years ago.

[SteveS]

That's a really cool pic, Michael! I love those bats. And I totally agree that it means nothing either way that there are six people in the photo. I was just throwing out a possible reason. As you say, one of many. But just as an aside, six would not be at all unreasonable if it is indeed the officers. They would have a president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, and a couple or a few directors (the numbers varied over the years).

[molenick]

Thank you, Steve. I decided awhile ago that if I was going to collect generic baseball cdvs, cabinets, and tintypes I wasn't going to mess around with street clothes poses...or even uniformed poses without equipment (I didn't want to end up with firemen or acrobats). Of course, there are exceptions if the uniform is obviously baseball or if the street clothes pose is in a known set with positive IDs (like Warren cdvs of the Boston Red Stockings...not that I have any). But for 95% of that part of my collection, I need some baseball equipment to be shown or I am usually not interested (to the point where I prefer street clothes and equipment to uniforms and no equipment).

That being said, good luck with your photo. I lean more on the "I need to see more proof" side but I admire your utilization of modern techniques to try and figure out what you have.