Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[prewarsports]

I want to walk away from this debate very badly. Once passion enters an objective assessment, you can no longer have a rational discussion. You are passionate about wanting this to be a Knickerbocker photo badly, which I get, but it is clouding your rational assessment of the history of photography which is pretty easy considering how fast the genre changed between the 1850's-1870's. It really is not that hard to date the "approximate" age of photographs as a result.

I have handled perhaps as much as half a million stereoview cards since I started collecting photography and am not a novice. Online research is one thing, handling these things consistently over years and years (more than 30 years), you start to learn things that hold true over time. I've also handled as many or more 1860's-1880's albumen prints on CDV cards etc. Here are some useful facts for you.

Fact 1: The stereoview "viewer" was not really invented until 1859. Before that date, these things were mostly daguerreotypes and ambrotypes that had to be developed and then another one shot and redeveloped at a slightly different angle and then viewed through cumbersome devices hand made one at a time. These were done as novelties and nobody owned them aside from businesses and the ultra wealthy. Paper stereoview cards may have been "invented" in 1859 as well (nobody knows for sure) but that literally means nothing. CDV and albumen technology was in its absolute infancy by the start of the Civil War. You essentially do not find albumen prints before 1862 and yours is 100% albumen. Your photo was done after the famous 1862 salt print, well after actually.

Fact 2: The oval top cut on your stereoview was not in vogue until the late 1860's and 1870's. Do a quick Google search for Civil War dated stereoviews or other images concretely dated to have been MADE in the early-mid 1860's. All have square cuts. The ones that do not were done after the Civil War as commemorative issues which were popular throughout the 19th century. I have never seen a pre-Civil War era stereoview with the larger oval cut at the top, if you find one, it was almost certainly made in the late 1860's at the earliest using an older image. This was a "style" of photography and it did not become popular until after the Civil War.

Fact 3: Absent Civil War scenes where photographers like Matthew Brady and a few others operated completely out of wagons with all their equipment including darkrooms available to them, outdoor photography was almost impossible in the 1860's and basically did not exist in the 1850's. It was an expensive and cumbersome process until the 1870's. There are almost no known outdoor albumen photographs because the lighting was tricky, the camera weighed a ton, the exposure time was ridiculous and things like clouds and wind could not be controlled and would destroy portrait shots. It was many, many times easier to produce an image in a studio so you find 99.9%+++ of all portraits and groups taken inside, until the technology got better in the 1870's.

I would bet money that if you took the "Knickerbocker" angle away and just approached 100 antique photography experts about the approximate age of your image based on style, dress, outdoor setting, oval top stereoview style etc., you will get all 100 answering that the image is c. 1870-1876. I can not imagine a scenario where a single one would estimate Civil War era and you would be laughed out of the room if you suggested 1850's because it is impossible.

Others can debate the facial accuracy, I am just going off photography style here since you said you "disagree" with my dating which I will stand behind with extensive experience.

Now I think I can walk away and wish you the best of luck on your research project. If you still question the dating, you will be fighting a VERY uphill battle but I wish you well. Take care.

[SteveS]

Leon, awesome! I would look forward to seeing them if you have the chance.

prewarsports, please don't be frustrated. I would never question your expertise. All I'm saying is that my research has led me to other directions. I am posting a pic showing a stereoview from the 1850s with the same characteristics as mine, and also info about the availability of outdoor stereoviews in the 1850s. But again, the date of the stereoview isn't necessarily the most crucial thing. It could have been taken from an earlier image and made into a stereoview at a later time (which, as you point out, was known to have been done). That is why a photograph expert would need to see it in person rather than just scans.

Finally, I wanted to post something I mentioned above. In both of these known pictures of the Knickerbockers, Charles De Bost is to the left of Doc Adams (from our view). In the 1859 pic (standing), Adams appears to be slightly taller than De Bost. But in the 1862 pic (sitting), De Bost towers over Adams to a ridiculous degree. A close look shows the cutting and pasting that was done. My point is just that I don't think the facial matches of six people can be ignored. If it was just one or two and I was saying, "Well, just ignore the other four," that would be one thing. But all six that close seems to be a stretch to say it's not them.

[GaryPassamonte]

Albumen stereoviews first showed up in the mid-late 1850s, I believe. Frederick Langenheim of Philadelphia made the first stereoviews on glass circa 1854.
Shortly thereafter, he began making albumen stereoviews. I have a few non-baseball Langenheim 1850s albumen stereoviews with the curved top photograph style. Their date is confirmed by their reverse "American Steroscopic Company Langnheim and LLoyd" identifier. Langenheim and Lloyd were partners in the American Stereoscopic company from circa 1857 until 1859, thus the positive late 1850s dating. Although in the photography business for years, the Anthony brothers didn't start making stereoviews until 1859. This means the "Knickerbockers" stereoview can be as early as 1859 per my Langenhein Lloyd stereoviews of a similar style. I can not speak to the identification of the men in the stereoview, but the stereoview can be circa 1860. Seeing the reverse of the stereoview might also help with determining its age.
I will also add that if the stereoview in question is a larger "imperial" size stereoview, it would almost certainly be post 1870.

[SteveS]

Thank you so much for that info, Gary! I have no idea whether this is an Anthony photograph, as it's unmarked. And while they didn't open their stereoview business until 1859, it's possible that this could have been done before that for their personal use. Also possible that some other photographer took it. But I appreciate that you were able to confirm that this type of photograph did exist during that period.

[Snowman]

This is a fascinating discussion. I'll start out by saying I know nothing at all about Civil War era photography or stereoviews. But I do have two comments to add that I think supports both arguments.

1. Male pattern baldness comes in several different forms, but the form in which an individual experiences it is determined by their genetics. One can't switch between types of male pattern baldness, they can only continue to lose hair that is consistent with their type. The man with the eyebags (I believe you identified him as Duncan Curry?) appears to have two different types of male pattern baldness in the two photos. Perhaps the younger photo is a combover of sorts? Perhaps they're not the same person? I don't know.

2. Probability theory informs us that the probability of the group photo being the Knickerbockers based on the individual probabilities associated with facial recognition algorithms of each individual is proportional to the product sum of those probabilities. In other words, if the probability of each person being a "match" is 90%, then the probability of the group being the Knickerbockers is equivalent to the 1 - (0.1^6) = 0.999999 or 99.9999% chance that this is the Knickerbockers. However, this is based on the assumption that a "90% match" actually means the individuals in two photos are 90% likely to be the same person. I don't know if this assumption holds true, and wouldn't be surprised at all if it didn't. I don't know enough about facial recognition software to make that claim. But I do know enough about probability theory to know that if all 6 are high matches then the group as a whole is a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher likelihood of being a match as well.

[Directly]

If the photo was examined by 100 experts, 25 would say without a doubt its right--25 would say no way, 25 would be inconclusive, 25 would say it may be, it may not.-- the burden of proof is up to the owner to convince all 100 experts its right---good luck in your quest.

[SteveS]

Snowman, I did notice Curry's hair. When I blow up his photo from the stereoview, there's a smudge/blur that goes across his forehead that obscures a bit of the hairline; the outdoor lighting also contributes to that. But he has those very prominent eye bags, as well as a distinctive nose and open mouth which have me convinced.
Directly, you summed up where I stand pretty perfectly.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This is a fascinating discussion. I'll start out by saying I know nothing at all about Civil War era photography or stereoviews. But I do have two comments to add that I think supports both arguments.

1. Male pattern baldness comes in several different forms, but the form in which an individual experiences it is determined by their genetics. One can't switch between types of male pattern baldness, they can only continue to lose hair that is consistent with their type. The man with the eyebags (I believe you identified him as Duncan Curry?) appears to have two different types of male pattern baldness in the two photos. Perhaps the younger photo is a combover of sorts? Perhaps they're not the same person? I don't know.

2. Probability theory informs us that the probability of the group photo being the Knickerbockers based on the individual probabilities associated with facial recognition algorithms of each individual is proportional to the product sum of those probabilities. In other words, if the probability of each person being a "match" is 90%, then the probability of the group being the Knickerbockers is equivalent to the 1 - (0.1^6) = 0.999999 or 99.9999% chance that this is the Knickerbockers. However, this is based on the assumption that a "90% match" actually means the individuals in two photos are 90% likely to be the same person. I don't know if this assumption holds true, and wouldn't be surprised at all if it didn't. I don't know enough about facial recognition software to make that claim. But I do know enough about probability theory to know that if all 6 are high matches then the group as a whole is a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher likelihood of being a match as well.

Snowman,

Not sure what you are saying. But to be clear, if each individual has a 90% chance of being a Knickerbocker, the probability of all six individuals being Knickerbockers is 0.9^6 which equates to 53%. The probability of only one of the members being a Knickerbocker is 1 - (0.1^6) which equates to the 99.9999% you cite. For it to be a Knickerbocker group photo, the relevant probability would be the 53%, not the 99.9999%.

[SteveS]

Jonathan, thank you very much for those important contributions and well wishes. De Bost gave me a lot of problems, as at first I thought he was wearing glasses. But after sharpening it up and looking very closely, he's not wearing glasses. His eyes are mostly shut. As with some of the other gentlemen, the blurring of the stereoview and outdoor lighting/shadows make it appear that they have wrinkles where there aren't any. Niebuhr was also very difficult, as he does look younger than the rest. As I said above, I thought at one point that it could be Harry Wright. I can still be convinced of that, but his features match up very well with Niebuhr. In fact, I believe that each of them line up very well when facial features are compared. Here's a side-by-side with an older Doc Adams, which I think is even more convincing.

Corey, I'm glad you were able to see this again after I've researched it further and made it easier to see and get more accurate comparisons. Math is not my forte, but at least the odds are above 50%.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I would suggest reaching out to the HOF and the SABR photo group.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Snowman,

Not sure what you are saying. But to be clear, if each individual has a 90% chance of being a Knickerbocker, the probability of all six individuals being Knickerbockers is 0.9^6 which equates to 53%. The probability of only one of the members being a Knickerbocker is 1 - (0.1^6) which equates to the 99.9999% you cite. For it to be a Knickerbocker group photo, the relevant probability would be the 53%, not the 99.9999%.

We're not quite saying the same thing. Your math is correct if the question is phrased as "what is the probability that all 6 men are indeed a match for the 6 people Steve thinks they are?"

But that's not quite the same question I was answering above. If this is indeed a Knickerbockers photo, then the subjects in the photo are not independent of one another (independent in the statistical sense). In other words, if one of them is indeed a Knickerbocker, then that increases the likelihood that a second person is also a Knickerbocker. And if 2 are known to be Knickerbockers, then again, it increases the likelihood that a 3rd is, etc. Knickerbockers are likely to be photographed together. So my framing of the question "what are the odds that this is a Knickerbockers photo?" approaches it with that dependence structure in mind. It basically calculates what the odds are of all of his 90% Knickerbocker matches to be wrong rather than what the odds are for each one to be correct independently. My approach allows for, say, 5 of his 6 matches to be correct but him mistaking the identity of the 6th one, thus still making the photo a "Knickerbockers" photo.

[Snowman]

Earlier, I made a statement regarding the facial match results and how those might affect the likelihood of the group as a whole being the Knickerbockers (namely that if each subject has a high match, then it greatly increases the likelihood of the group as a whole). While I asserted it as an "If A then B" statement, it was received as me promoting the idea that this meant there was a 99.9999% probability of this being a Knickerbockers photo by many here (despite my careful phrasing intended to avoid that conclusion).

Anyhow, I think this is worth revisiting now that I've had a chance to play around with their software a bit more. What I wrote earlier is quoted below for reference. Note my qualifier statements highlighted in bold.

Originally Posted by Snowman

...if the probability of each person being a "match" is 90%, then the probability of the group being the Knickerbockers is equivalent to the 1 - (0.1^6) = 0.999999 or 99.9999% chance that this is the Knickerbockers. However, this is based on the assumption that a "90% match" actually means the individuals in two photos are 90% likely to be the same person. I don't know if this assumption holds true, and wouldn't be surprised at all if it didn't. I don't know enough about facial recognition software to make that claim...

Perhaps it's obvious to everyone by now, but I think it's worth noting that the output from the facial match recognition software definitely does not indicate the probability of two people being the same person. This much is clear from the results you get when simply uploading random subjects or when uploading two images of the same person. There are any number of ways that someone could create algorithms for facial matches and the scoring output from those models can be set up almost arbitrarily. That's not to say that the output of such a model is meaningless though, as the higher match % two images get, the more likely they are to truly be a match. That said, it should be noted that one cannot make probabilistic estimates based on these values as I proposed above since the % match values don't actually represent probabilistic estimates. They're more of an arbitrary scoring system.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I have been doing photography for a very long time and could write paragraphs about stereoview photography and it's evolution but suffice it to say you have a c. 1870 stereoview on your hands with it actually in my opinion most likely dating to about 1872-75...

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Your photo is 100% more recent than the 1862 known Knickerbocker photograph. The clothing and facial hair combined with photography method and presentation place this to c. 1870-1875...

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I want to walk away from this debate very badly. Once passion enters an objective assessment, you can no longer have a rational discussion. You are passionate about wanting this to be a Knickerbocker photo badly, which I get, but it is clouding your rational assessment of the history of photography which is pretty easy considering how fast the genre changed between the 1850's-1870's. It really is not that hard to date the "approximate" age of photographs as a result.

I have handled perhaps as much as half a million stereoview cards since I started collecting photography and am not a novice. Online research is one thing, handling these things consistently over years and years (more than 30 years), you start to learn things that hold true over time. I've also handled as many or more 1860's-1880's albumen prints on CDV cards etc. Here are some useful facts for you.

Fact 1: The stereoview "viewer" was not really invented until 1859. Before that date, these things were mostly daguerreotypes and ambrotypes that had to be developed and then another one shot and redeveloped at a slightly different angle and then viewed through cumbersome devices hand made one at a time. These were done as novelties and nobody owned them aside from businesses and the ultra wealthy. Paper stereoview cards may have been "invented" in 1859 as well (nobody knows for sure) but that literally means nothing. CDV and albumen technology was in its absolute infancy by the start of the Civil War. You essentially do not find albumen prints before 1862 and yours is 100% albumen. Your photo was done after the famous 1862 salt print, well after actually.

Fact 2: The oval top cut on your stereoview was not in vogue until the late 1860's and 1870's. Do a quick Google search for Civil War dated stereoviews or other images concretely dated to have been MADE in the early-mid 1860's. All have square cuts. The ones that do not were done after the Civil War as commemorative issues which were popular throughout the 19th century. I have never seen a pre-Civil War era stereoview with the larger oval cut at the top, if you find one, it was almost certainly made in the late 1860's at the earliest using an older image. This was a "style" of photography and it did not become popular until after the Civil War.

Fact 3: Absent Civil War scenes where photographers like Matthew Brady and a few others operated completely out of wagons with all their equipment including darkrooms available to them, outdoor photography was almost impossible in the 1860's and basically did not exist in the 1850's. It was an expensive and cumbersome process until the 1870's. There are almost no known outdoor albumen photographs because the lighting was tricky, the camera weighed a ton, the exposure time was ridiculous and things like clouds and wind could not be controlled and would destroy portrait shots. It was many, many times easier to produce an image in a studio so you find 99.9%+++ of all portraits and groups taken inside, until the technology got better in the 1870's.

I would bet money that if you took the "Knickerbocker" angle away and just approached 100 antique photography experts about the approximate age of your image based on style, dress, outdoor setting, oval top stereoview style etc., you will get all 100 answering that the image is c. 1870-1876. I can not imagine a scenario where a single one would estimate Civil War era and you would be laughed out of the room if you suggested 1850's because it is impossible.

Others can debate the facial accuracy, I am just going off photography style here since you said you "disagree" with my dating which I will stand behind with extensive experience.

Now I think I can walk away and wish you the best of luck on your research project. If you still question the dating, you will be fighting a VERY uphill battle but I wish you well. Take care.

Experts can be wrong sometimes, but never THIS wrong. It would be one thing if prewarsports had said something along the lines of, "I believe this is most likely from the 1870s because of x, y, and z. Earlier dates are possible, though very unlikely." But it's something else entirely to go off on a multi post rant like this, babbling on about how much of an expert you are, having handled over a million similar prints by hand, and saying that there is no possibility whatsoever of it dating to the 1850s and that 100 out of 100 experts would unanimously agree that this would date to the 1870s.

Oops.

Prewarsports, any comment on the above agreement from from 4 actual experts all dating this to the 1850s? When I'm this wrong, I follow it up with an apology and accept it as a learning opportunity and adjust my understanding accordingly going forward.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Prewarsports, any comment on the above agreement from from 4 actual experts all dating this to the 1850s? When I'm this wrong, I follow it up with an apology and accept it as a learning opportunity and adjust my understanding accordingly going forward.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, and I probably should just keep my mouth shut, but I have to ask: what experts?

The American Museum of Photography is an online only museum that appears to have not been redesigned since it was hosted on Geocities, AmericanPhotographs.com is a flickr site that you can't actually view, and the Stereoscopy Blog is run by Rebecca. They may very well be experts, but we don't actually know who they are or what their CV looks like. Furthermore, without actually seeing the question posed and the answered received, we have no idea what they said other than what Steve has told us they said.

I spent way too much of my misspent youth mucking about in the evolution-creation wars. This whole discussion triggers flashbacks for me. Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, anonymous expert opinions, sciency sounding explanations. It's all here. Including question begging when you are asking someone to respond to expert opinions when it hasn't been established the people are actually experts.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I don't have a dog in this hunt, and I probably should just keep my mouth shut, but I have to ask: what experts?

The American Museum of Photography is an online only museum that appears to have not been redesigned since it was hosted on Geocities, AmericanPhotographs.com is a flickr site that you can't actually view, and the Stereoscopy Blog is run by Rebecca. They may very well be experts, but we don't actually know who they are or what their CV looks like. Furthermore, without actually seeing the question posed and the answered received, we have no idea what they said other than what Steve has told us they said.

I spent way too much of my misspent youth mucking about in the evolution-creation wars. This whole discussion triggers flashbacks for me. Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, anonymous expert opinions, sciency sounding explanations. It's all here. Including question begging when you are asking someone to respond to expert opinions when it hasn't been established the people are actually experts.

Fair enough. I made an assumption, and could be wrong. Although I do believe the museum curator that he was referred to probably knows what they're talking about.

It's funny to me that you mentioned the creation vs evolution debates. I was thinking the exact same thing earlier when reading through this thread.

[SteveS]

GaryPassamonte, thank you for posting that. It's a very cool pic!

carlsonjok, I googled "stereoview expert" and variations of that. Clearly I was able to access the websites to get the contact information and send messages which they received and responded. I posted who they are so that anyone can find out for themselves their level of knowledge and expertise when it comes to stereoviews. Without insulting anybody here, I trust their experience in the field more than some of the people here whose expertise is based on the fact that they run auctions. I sent out a bunch of e-mails, and I'll see how any other responses come back. I certainly would post contrarian opinions, but so far, all have been consistent. I uploaded the front and back of the stereoview here so anybody seeing it can render an opinion. God/Science bless you (I don't know on which side of the argument you were.

smokelessjoe, here are the results I promised. I ran the people in the back against the people in front of them. The results were 42%, 52%, and 59%, with all showing "from different persons."

[SteveS]

Snowman, yes, I figured anyone reading through this thread can see the name of the museum I posted earlier. There aren't a plethora of people in this world who specialize in stereoview expertise, but I found the ones I could. If anyone here who doubts them would like to recommend someone I haven't already contacted and hasn't already seen it on this board, please provide me the contact information and I will be more than happy to send the images to them for an opinion.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by SteveS

GaryPassamonte, thank you for posting that. It's a very cool pic!

carlsonjok, I googled "stereoview expert" and variations of that. Clearly I was able to access the websites to get the contact information and send messages which they received and responded. I posted who they are so that anyone can find out for themselves their level of knowledge and expertise when it comes to stereoviews. Without insulting anybody here, I trust their experience in the field more than some of the people here whose expertise is based on the fact that they run auctions. I sent out a bunch of e-mails, and I'll see how any other responses come back. I certainly would post contrarian opinions, but so far, all have been consistent. I uploaded the front and back of the stereoview here so anybody seeing it can render an opinion. God/Science bless you (I don't know on which side of the argument you were.

smokelessjoe, here are the results I promised. I ran the people in the back against the people in front of them. The results were 42%, 52%, and 59%, with all showing "from different persons."

Awesome, now since they are obviously different people how do those percentages compare to 2 random people? Like if you ran a pic of you and me.

[OldOriole]

Originally Posted by SteveS

carlsonjok, I googled "stereoview expert" and variations of that. Clearly I was able to access the websites to get the contact information and send messages which they received and responded. I posted who they are so that anyone can find out for themselves their level of knowledge and expertise when it comes to stereoviews. Without insulting anybody here, I trust their experience in the field more than some of the people here whose expertise is based on the fact that they run auctions. I sent out a bunch of e-mails, and I'll see how any other responses come back. I certainly would post contrarian opinions, but so far, all have been consistent. I uploaded the front and back of the stereoview here so anybody seeing it can render an opinion."

Steve, I probably would have tried googling experts too, much the same way you did. I'm just not sure - and this may be part of Jeff's point - that I would say "All are worldwide-recognized photo experts, specifically stereoviews" (as you did in post 245). Not from one google search, anyway.

[SteveS]

bnorth, here are the leading MVP candidates. Fernando Tatis Jr. with Vladimir Guerrero Jr. gets 55%. Tatis with Shohei Ohtani gets 35%. Both "from different persons."

OldOriole, in my Google search I did see them cited in websites outside the US. And if ESPN can call themselves "the worldwide leader...."

slightlyrounded, I know that at least three of them match to the same level, as I did it originally with the natural orientation. As I said before, I thought I had read that stereoviews are reversed. But as I related above, the expert explained it much clearer that the images are transposed, not reversed. But I just did Avery in his original orientation and he's 88% and "from the same person" (posted below).

[slightlyrounded]

I can't wait to be on my deathbed and think about the month I wasted debating the identities of all present at 'the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Boise Osteopathic Association' or somesuch, lol.

[slightlyrounded]

Originally Posted by SteveS

GaryPassamonte, thank you for posting that. It's a very cool pic!

carlsonjok, I googled "stereoview expert" and variations of that. Clearly I was able to access the websites to get the contact information and send messages which they received and responded. I posted who they are so that anyone can find out for themselves their level of knowledge and expertise when it comes to stereoviews. Without insulting anybody here, I trust their experience in the field more than some of the people here whose expertise is based on the fact that they run auctions. I sent out a bunch of e-mails, and I'll see how any other responses come back. I certainly would post contrarian opinions, but so far, all have been consistent. I uploaded the front and back of the stereoview here so anybody seeing it can render an opinion. God/Science bless you (I don't know on which side of the argument you were.

smokelessjoe, here are the results I promised. I ran the people in the back against the people in front of them. The results were 42%, 52%, and 59%, with all showing "from different persons."

To be fair, now that we're using unmanipulated (ie no longer reverse images) comparisons, the original "matches" you were claiming (see post #56) have now fallen apart as well.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by slightlyrounded

To be fair, now that we're using unmanipulated (ie no longer reverse images) comparisons, the original "matches" you were claiming (see post #56) have now fallen apart as well.

Do you have the actual #s from when the pictures are not reversed? It would be interesting to see the change.

[slightlyrounded]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Do you have the actual #s from when the pictures are not reversed? It would be interesting to see the change.

Here are a few...I wouldn't put ANY stock in these results either way personally.

[smokelessjoe]

Steve,

Lets avoid summarizing and try to be as detailed as possible. This way we can all learn from the experts and have a better understanding of the photo in question.

1. What specifically about the clothing led all three experts to the mid 1850s date?

2. What specifically about the mounting design led all three experts to the mid 1850s date?

3. Can the experts explain how an overlap in the photo is indicative of dates in mid 1850s

Also, I was not asking that you compare the guys who are front and back of each other but rather the ones you feel most resemble each other - as you did with the Knicker photo.

For example, can you run a report on these two guys.

Thanks for running those reports