Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[sphere and ash]

There are statements made above that the probability of a match is so high that one may be “100% convinced,” or that the match shown for all six subjects may be as high as “99.9999%” or even “84-97%.” All of these estimates reflect a misunderstanding of probability, which I will attempt to explain below. But let me declare my bias from the outset: I am not convinced the stereoview depicts “six learned gents,” let alone the Knickerbocker Club.

All probabilities have a margin of error. Most people are aware of this when they see political polling: when one candidate leads in the polls 51-49, but the polling organization discloses a 3% margin of error, it is understood that the race is a statistical tie.

What we need to know is the margin of error for the facial recognition software used. The problem is that the software maker determines a margin of error using the same photographic process and type (say, a mug shot or passport photograph), similar lighting, contemporaneous images, etc. And what we have here are different photographic processes (salt, albumen, and, I believe, a silver gelatin copy photograph), with very different lighting (outdoor versus studio), taken many years apart, with limited visual information (these are group photographs taken from a distance where the ears are not visible, etc.), and where the original poster has altered the shadows in the photographs using another software program prior to analysis.

To give you some idea of how high the margin of error may be in this case, consider that a Google search shows estimates for facial recognition for African-American women may be higher than 35%. And that is with all the commonalities and without the difficulties cited above. I would be stunned if the margin of error here were not much higher. One can’t speak of meaningful probabilities in the presence of such a high margin of error. You’re asking the software to do something for which it was not designed and not tested.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

There are statements made above that the probability of a match is so high that one may be “100% convinced,” or that the match shown for all six subjects may be as high as “99.9999%” or even “84-97%.” All of these estimates reflect a misunderstanding of probability, which I will attempt to explain below. But let me declare my bias from the outset: I am not convinced the stereoview depicts “six learned gents,” let alone the Knickerbocker Club.

All probabilities have a margin of error. Most people are aware of this when they see political polling: when one candidate leads in the polls 51-49, but the polling organization discloses a 3% margin of error, it is understood that the race is a statistical tie.

What we need to know is the margin of error for the facial recognition software used. The problem is that the software maker determines a margin of error using the same photographic process and type (say, a mug shot or passport photograph), similar lighting, contemporaneous images, etc. And what we have here are different photographic processes (salt, albumen, and, I believe, a silver gelatin copy photograph), with very different lighting (outdoor versus studio), taken many years apart, with limited visual information (these are group photographs taken from a distance where the ears are not visible, etc.), and where the original poster has altered the shadows in the photographs using another software program prior to analysis.

To give you some idea of how high the margin of error may be in this case, consider that a Google search shows estimates for facial recognition for African-American women may be higher than 35%. And that is with all the commonalities and without the difficulties cited above. I would be stunned if the margin of error here were not much higher. One can’t speak of meaningful probabilities in the presence of such a high margin of error. You’re asking the software to do something for which it was not designed and not tested.

Paul- I didn't even consider this stereoview being a silver gelatin print. It may well be. I can't tell from the posted images. That would push it into the late 1870s, at the earliest?

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Paul- I didn't even consider this stereoview being a silver gelatin print. It may well be. I can't tell from the posted images. That would push it into the late 1870s, at the earliest?

Sorry for the confusion, Gary—I wasn’t clear. I believe the stereoview is albumen. The final image above, depicting a man who appears to have just removed his cap, is—I believe—a later silver gelatin copy photograph of an 1859 print. I may be mistaken; doing this from memory, which gets increasingly unreliable.

Edited to add: the person I am referring to has been identified by some sources to be Charles Schuyler De Bost, but I think even that identification is tentative. The image of De Bost was taken from a “photostat copy” in the collection of the New York Public Library after the original was either lost or stolen. Suffice it to say that working from a photostat copy of an original albumen photograph introduces error.

[robertsmithnocure]

SteveS, you might want to try contacting Mark Fimoff from SABR for his opinion. He is a facial recognition expert.

[SteveS]

Thank you all for your opinions. I find it really interesting that some people can look at it and see the resemblances immediately, while others don't see anything. As for provenance, while it would be great to know more about this photo's history, I have learned from this forum that provenance is not everything. There is a fascinating thread from several years back regarding the 1847 daguerreotype purported to depict the Knickerbockers. It was given to the Hall of Fame by Alexander Cartwright's grandson. They used it to design his plaque. It's been pictured in books and TV shows, including by some of baseball's most noted historians. Rock-solid provenance. But one of SABR's experts had questions, and wrote a lengthy analysis about how the photograph does not depict the people suggested, despite the fact that it was kept within Cartwright's family. The owner wrote a very passionate defense. Both were supported by facial-recognition experts who had diametrically-opposed opinions. In the end, it's up to the viewer to decide.

As for facial-recognition software, I merely pointed out the results that I got (and I need to correct that it was 82%-97%). I do not put full credence in that, and would never claim that it proves anything conclusively one way or the other.

As for the similarities I see, I will try to summarize some of them here. For Avery, the slanted jawline. For Adams, the eyelids/droopy eye and open mouth (all of which can be seen in both of the comparisons I posted of him). For Curry, the severely bagged eyes and open mouth. For De Bost, the hairline and face shape. For Niebuhr, the hairstyle, including the parts combed forward. For Birney, the face shape and ear placement. Please note that this is just a very cursory summary of just a few of the unique features that stand out. For each of them, the eyes, noses, mouths, and ears all line up in terms of size, shape, and placement.

And to Gary, this stereoview is an albumen. I believe that Sphere was referring to the photo taken in 1859, which is a copy (I am not sure whether the original still exists).

Finally, I am not sure whether this photo will ever be proven to be Knickerbockers with 100% certainty to everyone's satisfaction. As I pointed out above, rock-solid provenance is not what it's cracked up to be. I remember being at a card show at the Pomona Fairgrounds back in the '90s right after Bruce McNall bought the Wagner and PSA made it its first slab. It was displayed by the front door with a huge security guard standing next to it. I took one look, and within half a second knew that it was trimmed. If you've never seen it in person, it's blatantly obvious. I told anyone who would listen, and from that moment forward have never trusted the grading companies (who continue to have issues slabbing iffy cards). Yet that Wagner has been sold and resold since then. For record amounts, despite the full knowledge now that it is indeed altered and not in the condition claimed. My point is that knowledgeable and well-meaning people can look at the same thing and see it differently. I believe that this photo depicts Knickerbockers, and others on and off this forum agree with me. Others on and off this forum disagree with me. If I decide to keep it, that's up to me. If I decide to sell it or donate it, it would be up to the other person or entity to decide whether it's worth that investment. In any event, I will continue to do research to try and find more convincing evidence, and maybe find a trusted expert who can determine with certainty the age of the photo and whether it has been made into a stereoview from an earlier image. But I know that no matter how convinced I and others are, there will always be people who disagree. That's human nature for you.

[SteveS]

Sphere, thank you for your clarification! You posted it while I was writing my lengthy post above, and I didn't notice until after I posted it.

Rob, Mark has seen the images. Unfortunately, they were the earlier ones which were much less clear and my identifications were not correct. I am hesitant to send them to him again with the clearer images and much more confident IDs, as I know that he's a very busy man and I don't want to be a bother.

[bnorth]

I know nothing about the subject but sure am enjoying this thread.

For the next to nothing it is worth the photos don't look like the same people to me.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

There are statements made above that the probability of a match is so high that one may be “100% convinced,” or that the match shown for all six subjects may be as high as “99.9999%” or even “84-97%.” All of these estimates reflect a misunderstanding of probability, which I will attempt to explain below. But let me declare my bias from the outset: I am not convinced the stereoview depicts “six learned gents,” let alone the Knickerbocker Club.

All probabilities have a margin of error. Most people are aware of this when they see political polling: when one candidate leads in the polls 51-49, but the polling organization discloses a 3% margin of error, it is understood that the race is a statistical tie.

What we need to know is the margin of error for the facial recognition software used. The problem is that the software maker determines a margin of error using the same photographic process and type (say, a mug shot or passport photograph), similar lighting, contemporaneous images, etc. And what we have here are different photographic processes (salt, albumen, and, I believe, a silver gelatin copy photograph), with very different lighting (outdoor versus studio), taken many years apart, with limited visual information (these are group photographs taken from a distance where the ears are not visible, etc.), and where the original poster has altered the shadows in the photographs using another software program prior to analysis.

To give you some idea of how high the margin of error may be in this case, consider that a Google search shows estimates for facial recognition for African-American women may be higher than 35%. And that is with all the commonalities and without the difficulties cited above. I would be stunned if the margin of error here were not much higher. One can’t speak of meaningful probabilities in the presence of such a high margin of error. You’re asking the software to do something for which it was not designed and not tested.

I think you've misunderstood my statement. I am not claiming that there is a 99.9999% chance that this is a photo of the Knickerbockers based on the results of the software matches. If you read my statement carefully, you'll notice there are a couple of key qualifiers in it. Here's what I said:

"if the probability of each person being a "match" is 90% [Note added: this is NOT the same thing as the matching software outputting a "90% match"], 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."

The last part above highlighted in bold is important. While I don't know how their software is coded, thus I don't know enough about their specific outputs, I do write the same type of algorithms for work, so I have an idea of how I would go about writing my own code for such a task (I'm a data scientist, and facial recognition software is the same field of work). I'm not sure exactly what their "90% match" means in the real world, but I would wager money that it probably does not mean that there is a 90% likelihood of the two people being the same person (which is the mathematical assumption that my above calculation was based upon). I think I chose a poor example to convey my point. My point wasn't that this is a 99.9999% probability of being the Knickerbockers photo. My point was simply to demonstrate that the likelihood of it being a Knickerbockers photo increases as a result of each individual having such high match percentages. This is Bayesian statistics 101 stuff.

As far as having a "misunderstanding of probability" is concerned, I assure you, I do not have a misunderstanding of probability theory. Perhaps I worded my post poorly, but if you read it carefully, paying attention to the qualifiers, you'll find I'm not saying what some people here seem to think I am.

Also, you wrote "all probabilities have a margin of error." This is not true. Probabilities have no such property. The probability of rolling a 2 on a fair die is 1/6. There is no margin of error associated with it. The probability of drawing the Ace of spades from a randomized deck of cards is 1/52. Again, there is no margin of error. Perhaps you meant to say that predictions or estimates have margins of error, not probabilities? That would be true, and if so, I would agree with your point that any actual calculation about the probability of this photo being a Knickerbockers photo would have to be based on the real-world implications of the facial recognition matching model's output. Hence I stated above in my original post that I wouldn't be surprised if a 90% match didn't actually mean a 90% probability of two photos being the same person. Every time I upload a family photo to Facebook, it asks if I would like to tag my wife as her sister. They are not twins. So, I'm guessing the real-world confidence we might have from facial matches is actually quite a bit lower than something like 90%.

[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?

[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.