Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[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.

[SteveS]

Thanks, Michael. I continue to look for more ways to prove it. And as you mentioned the Red Stockings and non-uniformed poses, I figure I'll toss in something that I picked up. Again, it was simply listed as just a generic guy from Boston, but I'm pretty sure he's George Wright.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Thanks, Michael. I continue to look for more ways to prove it. And as you mentioned the Red Stockings and non-uniformed poses, I figure I'll toss in something that I picked up. Again, it was simply listed as just a generic guy from Boston, but I'm pretty sure he's George Wright.

Nice find. This one looks like a dead ringer to me. Although I'm sure the expert Mr drcy will tell us all that he looks more like Shaq than George Wright.

[molenick]

Well, no disrespect meant, but (unless you are trying to be funny) the fact that you think that cabinet looks anything like the person below or either of the pictures you posted makes me more doubtful of the Knickerbockers IDs. But that's just me, I guess others could disagree.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Thanks, Michael. I continue to look for more ways to prove it. And as you mentioned the Red Stockings and non-uniformed poses, I figure I'll toss in something that I picked up. Again, it was simply listed as just a generic guy from Boston, but I'm pretty sure he's George Wright.

I think it's more likely Chris Cornell or his great grandfather.