Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[SteveS]

D. Begin, thank you for laying out specifics. Snowman has done the same in close-up views, which I appreciate greatly, and it's up to the viewer to decide.

drcy, I am not using Snowman or anybody else as expert support. Anyone is free to comment here either way. As far as I know, I don't know anyone here personally and I don't know their background other than what they purport to be in their posts. But I think in the time I've been involved with this stereoview, I've come to the conclusion that one's background really doesn't matter. Either you look at it and see resemblances or you don't. I've taken it further and pointed out specific unique matches, but I also know that I will never satisfy everyone. As I stated above, the purported 1847 daguerreotype was given to the HOF by Alexander Cartwright's grandson, yet there's a lengthy thread of disbelievers on this very board. As for the date of the photo, I post a statement about dating white/cream-colored stereoviews with squared corners from a website that I presume you'll take seriously. I also post a couple of stereoviews from museum and library collections that look very similar to mine (including the color, corners, and arched photos -- one is even taken outdoors) that have been dated conclusively to 1854-1857.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by SteveS

D. Begin, thank you for laying out specifics. Snowman has done the same in close-up views, which I appreciate greatly, and it's up to the viewer to decide.

I mean, it could very well be a cousin, uncle, nephew, brother or other family member of George Wright.........but it's not George Wright IMO.

I have a different opinion then Snowman obviously, but do thank him for posting all those other views and close-ups of Wright. It was that post that convinced me it's definitively not him.

That smaller c. 1889 photo that was hard to see the detail on, that you or somebody else posted, had me wondering long and hard for a minute or two.

[SteveS]

Thank you, Dave. I appreciate your opinion as I know you've taken a close look at it. Wright is difficult, as it's pretty clear that his appearance changed pretty drastically over the years. I think mine fits at the start of his "older adult look."

For the Knickerbocker photo, I want to include here another tool that I used. This one is very helpful, in that it lays one photo over another, so any differences would stand out pretty clearly. Here are the known photos of Doc Adams and Charles Birney placed directly over mine. The slider is right in the middle, so the result is half-known/half-mine. If I move the slider either way it would show more known or more mine, depending on which way. As you can see, they line up exactly. Ear placement and size, eyes, nose, everything. It even shows the shadow that obstructs Doc's hairline in the original. I get similar results with all six men. I think this provides another perspective as to how well the features match up.

[drcy]

The problem about the ages was pointed out by someone else, but I'll give just one example:

After pointing out that there weren't gray mounts in the 1860s and the stereoview necessarily is from after the 1860s, I'm curious how one explains how the man on the left is at least twenty years younger than the man 10+ years later on the right?

The initial post said that it "seems irrefutable" that it is the six Knickerbockers "Walter Avery, Doc Adams, Duncan Curry, Charles De Bost, Fraley Niebuhr, Charles Birney". However, it more than seems irrefutable, it is irrefutable that it is not.



As far as the "George Wright" photo goes, it should also be pointed out that their heads aren't even the same shape.

[molenick]

On a lighter note, when I was a kid I was convinced that Ken Berry (the outfielder) was the same person as Ken Berry (star of F-Troop). There could not be two famous (to me) people with the same odd name, plus they looked enough alike to my young self. It wasn't until several years later that I grudgingly had to admit that this was not the case.

[SteveS]

drcy, you raise an interesting issue. One thing I can tell you is that the mount is most definitely an off-white/cream color. Because of its age, I can't tell how white or cream it started, but it is absolutely 100% not gray. Yet you said that it's a gray mount and therefore has to be from the 1870s. When I first sent out pictures of this, people had trouble seeing them. I made sure to send out originals, with no sharpening at all. However, it really was quite difficult to make comparisons. So as I have a pretty good photo app on my phone, I sharpened the pictures. They look nice and clear on my phone. However, I never really thought that they may show up differently on other people's screens. The fact that you see gray when I see off-white/cream (and know that to be the case in person) tells me that I may need to go back to using the originals or fine-tune them on different types of screens.

That said, the rendering may also be affecting the clarity of the images. Also, there are blurs within the photo in key places that obscure some key features unless the picture is blown up and observed very closely. Yes, Niebuhr looks young. But when you blow up the comparison and look very closely, even to the point of following strands of hair, you can definitely see the resemblances.

As for clothing and grooming styles of the period, I post a pic of men's fashions from the 1850s. You can see that the jackets are very similar in style, including the dark band around the jacket collar and the length of the jacket (which can be seen draped over the chairs in which they're sitting in my pic). The ties are also the same. Another interesting thing is that several of the men have beards in the 1862 photo, but not not in mine. Beards came into fashion after the election of 1860 (for obvious reasons), and stayed in fashion through the 1870s (Garfield was the last of the bearded bunch). After that, fancy mustaches were the rage, as seen in the Old Judge set. So yes, the time frame and matches of unique features are consistent with these men being Knickerbockers.

Michael, I did too!! I also just figured that Bobby Valentine was somehow related to Karen Valentine of "Room 222."

[BobC]

Originally Posted by drcy

As far as the "George Wright" photo goes, it should also be pointed out that their heads aren't even the same shape.

And neither do all the heads on the Wright photos that are confirmed as him all look to be the same exact shape either. There are differences in angles, lighting, shadows, age, amount of hair, how it is or isn't combed, clarity of the image itself, and so on that can effect how a photo image is perceived by someone. The one common trait that all the George Wright photos do have (besides him being a man) is that you were told these were all confirmed Wright photos, which normally adds a bias to anyone's opinion, whether they will honestly admit it or not.

Quite frankly, I am not at all familiar with what George Wright really looked like before following this thread, and I honestly couldn't tell you whether all these supposedly confirmed photos of him are actually him or not. I'm relying solely on the word of the people posting them, but know absolutely zilch about the evidence and provenance that proves each of these so-called, confirmed Wright photos is actually him. For all I know, one or more of these Wright photos could be deemed him simply because someone very early on said it looked like other pictures of him, and therefore it was him. And with no other evidence or provenance than that and the passage of time, such a photo may have been accepted and regarded as a true George Wright photo today. I'm not saying that is the case, but it is possible, isn't it? Otherwise, can you tell me the evidence and provenance of each and every one of these supposed real Wright photos that you are comparing Steve's photo to in this thread?

And that is another thing, back when pictures of individuals like Wright weren't necessarily considered as valuable, would it be possible that the effort to prove the authenticity of such a photo wasn't as difficult and people more readily accepted such a photo as real merely due to the resemblance? Nowadays, a new real photo of Wright being discovered would prove quite valuable, agreed? And for that reason alone, if one suddenly did appear out of nowhere, like Steve's photo, the initial thinking by many would be that this is too good to be true, if this is real it would have been found long before now, or that the person claiming it as real is just trying to cash in, and so on. And because of that inherent thinking, there is an immediate added bias that will likely kick in with many so-called "experts" that will have them only accepting such a photo as real if there is an extraordinary amount of virtually irrefutable evidence and provenance to go along with it. Just human nature.

[SteveS]

Snowman, yes, I feel sorry for all those museums and libraries that will have to change all the dates in their collections because they've been wrong all these years. But what I'm wondering is how exactly would you be able to prove who wins the Wright bet? As you can see here, it's nearly impossible for everyone to agree, and the "experts" sometimes end up striking out.

Bob, you are a very wise man. I should point out that I won the auction for the Knickerbocker stereoview on 12/26/19. Almost two years ago. So it's not as though I haven't had time to research it six ways to Sunday. I posted here after I felt that I would be ready to answer any question or concern, which I believe I have. Of course whether my answers are accepted by the questioner is up to him. But I certainly haven't run away from anything. I think Snowman said it above, but it echoes my feelings that I can totally understand how someone can say that it's difficult to believe that a Knickerbocker photo could just be purchased on eBay without any provenance or history. But it's quite another, in my opinion, for someone to say that he sees absolutely no resemblances at all and not one of these people looks remotely like the comparison photo. I seriously question their motives.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by SteveS

I think Snowman said it above, but it echoes my feelings that I can totally understand how someone can say that it's difficult to believe that a Knickerbocker photo could just be purchased on eBay without any provenance or history. But it's quite another, in my opinion, for someone to say that he sees absolutely no resemblances at all and not one of these people looks remotely like the comparison photo. I seriously question their motives.

Exactly. I perfectly understand people wanting to see more evidence for the Knickerbockers photo. There's a lot of uncertainty surrounding it and questions regarding the ages of the players in question and when the photo was likely taken. But if someone wants to sit here and pretend like there aren't at least some strong resemblances among the subjects then they're clearly not here for an honest conversation and everything they have to say on the matter should be dismissed entirely.

I also find it interesting that people are still referencing prewarcards' posts and deferring to him as the "expert" here in when this photo was taken despite the fact that he has been proven wrong multiple times already in this very thread.

Note, he stated the following:

Originally Posted by prewarcards

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.
...
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.
...
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 no doubt that he is extremely knowledgeable about the history of photography in general and that he has handled countless photos from the 1800s. He seems to have a lot of knowledge about civil war photos as well. I'm confident that I could learn a lot from him. But his claims above that this photo couldn't possibly have been taken prior to the 1870s, let alone in the late 1850s based on the framing and arches used in the stereoview has been pretty clearly debunked in my opinion. Perhaps it was taken in the 1870s,and that it could still be demonstrated using some of the other characteristics he mentioned like the apparel worn by the subjects or the fact that it was outdoors or the technology used to develop the print. But he claims to have never seen one with arches like these prior to 1870 out of over the half a million that he's handled, yet somehow, 3 people in this very thread have posted images of theirs from the 1850s and 1860s with the very features he claims can't be found on photos from that time period. I'm not trying to throw him under the bus. We all learn something new every day, and I'm no stranger to discovering that something I had previously believed to be true simply wasn't. But I always adjust my views in the light of new evidence. I care deeply about what is and isn't true. I enjoy being proven wrong. It reminds me to always remain open minded and that learning/knowledge is a lifelong pursuit. Perhaps to the point of it being an obsession.

I'd be curious to hear from prewarcards now in how he responds to the evidence posted in this thread that appears to refute his claims about the arched framing of the photos and the corresponding dates assigned to them. Do you stick to your guns, claiming that those dates are all wrong, or do you make adjustments to your previous understanding? I'm not asking him to suddenly arrive at the conclusion that these are the Knickerbockers, but can we at least all agree now that the arches used in the stereoview do not preclude it from having been made prior to the 1870s?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by SteveS

D. Begin, thank you for laying out specifics. Snowman has done the same in close-up views, which I appreciate greatly, and it's up to the viewer to decide.

drcy, I am not using Snowman or anybody else as expert support. Anyone is free to comment here either way. As far as I know, I don't know anyone here personally and I don't know their background other than what they purport to be in their posts. But I think in the time I've been involved with this stereoview, I've come to the conclusion that one's background really doesn't matter. Either you look at it and see resemblances or you don't. I've taken it further and pointed out specific unique matches, but I also know that I will never satisfy everyone. As I stated above, the purported 1847 daguerreotype was given to the HOF by Alexander Cartwright's grandson, yet there's a lengthy thread of disbelievers on this very board. As for the date of the photo, I post a statement about dating white/cream-colored stereoviews with squared corners from a website that I presume you'll take seriously. I also post a couple of stereoviews from museum and library collections that look very similar to mine (including the color, corners, and arched photos -- one is even taken outdoors) that have been dated conclusively to 1854-1857.

But but but, the "expert" in this thread who has handled a million of these said its not possible! That has to be from 1870s or later because of the arches!

[Snowman]

Just to clarify my stance on both issues, as some people seem to either hand mistaken or intentionally distorted it, I don't believe we have enough evidence to state that the purported Knickerbocker's photo is indeed a photo of them. I would want to see more photos of the players and understand more of the history before making that determination, and unfortunately, we may never get that. For now, I just see some pretty remarkable resemblances and have pointed out the fact that having several of the subjects all with high resemblances to Knickerbockers make it statistically more likely that it is a photo of them. But that does not mean it is and I wouldn't wager money on it unless I were getting style extremely compelling odds.

With the George Wright photo, I would say that I'm 98% confident that this is indeed a photo of George Wright and I would be happy to wager good money on it. The resemblances of numerous unique features is just far too similar and situationally, everything lines up perfectly; timeline wise, location wise, and even the fact that the photographer himself was well known for taking photos of the players. This photographer almost certainly took a photo of Wright at some point given their respective backgrounds and locations. And the resemblances are simply uncanny.

I'm dead serious about accepting bets on the Wright photo. If you want to put your money where your mouth is, send me a PM and we'll work out the terms.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I'm dead serious about accepting bets on the Wright photo. If you want to put your money where your mouth is, send me a PM and we'll work out the terms.

Out of curiosity, what this the proof needed to win this bet?

[GaryPassamonte]

I haven't read every line of every post in this thread, so forgive me if this comment is redundant. At this point my sole interest in this thread is regarding the possible dates this stereoview was made. I still contend this stereoview may have been made earlier than 1870. There were gray colored mounts used circa 1860, although they are uncommon. I have seen them, although not with the arched top photograph style, which also can date circa 1860. I have also seen both light and dark gray mounts on many later stereoviews, particularly from the 1890s and beyond. These later gray mount stereoviews are of the curved variety which post date the stereoview in question here since it does not appear to be a curved mount. I do respect the opinions of others on this thread, but I think this point needs to be made. I'm not defending any other arguments being made in this thread regarding the identity of the six men in the image. I'll leave that to everyone else.

[SteveS]

Gary, thank you! I wouldn't expect anyone to read every post in this thread, but I pointed out a few posts above that this mount is definitely an off-white/cream color. I don't know if it is showing up gray on others' screens, but there's no doubt about the color in person. And from everything I've read (some of which I've posted here), the earliest albumen stereoviews are on white or cream-colored mounts with squared corners, just as mine is.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Gary, thank you! I wouldn't expect anyone to read every post in this thread, but I pointed out a few posts above that this mount is definitely an off-white/cream color. I don't know if it is showing up gray on others' screens, but there's no doubt about the color in person. And from everything I've read (some of which I've posted here), the earliest albumen stereoviews are on white or cream-colored mounts with squared corners, just as mine is.

The above and back image do not show a white or cream-colored mount.

Take as many photos as needed, and post images here showing it that it is white or cream-colored. If it is white or cream-colored, certainly you can post images showing so.

I'm not sure what is SteveS's contention this far along into the thread. However, at this point, even the #2 biggest defender of the photo, snowman, does not claim that it's the Knickerbockers and says "There's a lot of uncertainty surrounding it."

At this point, excluding the OP, I don't know that anyone is saying it is those six Knickerbockers. I'm not even sure that the OP is still claiming it is those six Knickerbockers.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

Out of curiosity, what this the proof needed to win this bet?

If I get any takers, we'll have to figure that out. I'm open to suggestions though. I'd prefer to handle those conversations via PM as I don't want to derail this thread into being about side bets.