Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[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 drcy

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.

He can't control your monitor though. He could post 1,000 different images of it but if your monitor doesn't accurately convey colors (and most do not, FYI) then you'll never see it for what it is without holding it in person or getting a new monitor.

I'm using a Macbook Pro with a well-calibrated retina display to view the images. Colors on my screen are about as accurate as possible on a computer. However, it's only as accurate as the photo itself (I don't know how accurate those are vs holding it in hand). The mount looks like a beige or light tan color on my screen, definitely not gray. What the implications are of a beige mount though, I have no idea. But that's how the color comes across on mine.

[Snowman]

Adding proof to combat the inevitable nonsensical replies to follow... Here's a screenshot of the RGB color values and color code name for the screenshot of how the color of this image is conveyed on my screen. My color-picking eye-dropper app defines the color as shown attached below. It is clearly some version of a light brown, here described by the app as "rosybrown". See attached.

[Shoeless Moe]

Is there a known Knickerbocker photo also showing the 3 in the back row standing so you can compare their heights? Dude in the back middle is considerably shorter then the 2 next to him.

[bdk1976]

No way that guy is George Wright. Look at the closeup and you can easily see the bridge of their nose is completely different, with Wright's being much more flat/square (as seen in all of the other known pictures as well).

Also the grey haired version of Wright has MORE hair on the top of his head than the supposed pic of him when he was younger. And it doesn't appear as though he is wearing a toupee either.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by bdk1976

No way that guy is George Wright. Look at the closeup and you can easily see the bridge of their nose is completely different, with Wright's being much more flat/square (as seen in all of the other known pictures as well).

Also the grey haired version of Wright has MORE hair on the top of his head than the supposed pic of him when he was younger. And it doesn't appear as though he is wearing a toupee either.

So your theory is that the known photos of Wright in his older years show that he magically regrew some hair on top despite the other younger known photos of him clearly showing him as being completely bald up top in his middle-ages. Got it. Thanks for your input.

Now what was it you were saying about those identical noses being "completely different"?

You do realize that the light sources of the two close-up nose photos are in different locations, right?

[bdk1976]

Originally Posted by Snowman

So your theory is that the known photos of Wright in his older years show that he magically regrew some hair on top despite the other younger known photos of him clearly showing him as being completely bald up top in his middle-ages. Got it. Thanks for your input.

Now what was it you were saying about those identical noses being "completely different"?

You do realize that the light sources of the two close-up nose photos are in different locations, right?

I do realize the lighting is different. It still doesn't change the bridge of his nose significantly in either pic.

Either way I'm done here. I have better things to do than argue with delusional, self aggrandizing idiots who are trying to take random photographs from 150 years ago and turn them into something they are not and instantly start pumping out insults if you don't agree with their nonsensical conclusions.

If you're going to be a condescending dick when people contradict you, why ask/participate in the first place?

Confirmation bias at its finest.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by bdk1976

I do realize the lighting is different. It still doesn't change the bridge of his nose significantly in either pic.

Either way I'm done here. I have better things to do than argue with delusional, self aggrandizing idiots who are trying to take random photographs from 150 years ago and turn them into something they are not and instantly start pumping out insults if you don't agree with their nonsensical conclusions.

If you're going to be a condescending dick when people contradict you, why ask/participate in the first place?

Confirmation bias at its finest.

Ah yes, I'm the one who's biased here lol. You just want so badly for this to be someone other than who it so clearly is that you're magically seeing hair on the top of his head as a septuagenarian when he quite clearly lost it decades prior in the other photos. Those two noses in the close up are EXACTLY THE SAME. EXACTLY. Not similar. Not somewhat close. CLONES of one another.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Snowman

He can't control your monitor though. He could post 1,000 different images of it but if your monitor doesn't accurately convey colors (and most do not, FYI) then you'll never see it for what it is without holding it in person or getting a new monitor.

I'm using a Macbook Pro with a well-calibrated retina display to view the images. Colors on my screen are about as accurate as possible on a computer. However, it's only as accurate as the photo itself (I don't know how accurate those are vs holding it in hand). The mount looks like a beige or light tan color on my screen, definitely not gray. What the implications are of a beige mount though, I have no idea. But that's how the color comes across on mine.

In other words, even you, his biggest defender, are already preemptively saying he won't be able to post photos in this forum demonstrating that the mount is white or cream-colored. And, as some strange form of defense, post your own RGB color analysis that shows that the mount in the image isn't white or cream-colored.

Whatever. I'm done with this thread.

[SteveS]

Snowman, thank you for your input on the color. Please let me know if you get any takers and how you will decide a winner.

bdk1976, take a look at the 1889 photo of Wright that I posted, and also the one of his bending over golfing that Snowman posted. He's bald on top.

Shoeless Moe, the 1862 photo shows some of them standing, but as I pointed out earlier it is a composite cut-and-paste, and I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that it can't be relied on to determine sizes. In the 1859 photo, which I've also posted, De Bost and Adams are standing next to each other and line up very well with the heights in my picture.

drcy, I find your MO interesting of editing your comments after people have already responded to them. It's happened pretty much every time. Very telling. I don't feel the need to post any more pictures of the stereoview. You already have an unretouched scan of both sides, and however it renders on your screen is not up to me. But what I will do is post a comparison of mine with a stereoview of a chess game that is known with 100% certainty to have been taken in 1858. It was a very famous match in its day, and the date cannot be disputed. However you see the color, you can't miss that it's very close to mine, it is flat with square corners like mine, and it has arched photos like mine. And in case you missed it from every single post that I've made, yes I absolutely stand by my contention that this photograph depicts Knickerbockers. So please keep your promise and take your ball and go home and be done with this "dumb thread," because every single thing you've said has proven to be grossly incorrect.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Snowman, thank you for your input on the color. Please let me know if you get any takers and how you will decide a winner.

bdk1976, take a look at the 1889 photo of Wright that I posted, and also the one of his bending over golfing that Snowman posted. He's bald on top.

Shoeless Moe, the 1862 photo shows some of them standing, but as I pointed out earlier it is a composite cut-and-paste, and I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that it can't be relied on to determine sizes. In the 1859 photo, which I've also posted, De Bost and Adams are standing next to each other and line up very well with the heights in my picture.

drcy, I find your MO interesting of editing your comments after people have already responded to them. It's happened pretty much every time. Very telling. I don't feel the need to post any more pictures of the stereoview. You already have an unretouched scan of both sides, and however it renders on your screen is not up to me. But what I will do is post a comparison of mine with a stereoview of a chess game that is known with 100% certainty to have been taken in 1858. It was a very famous match in its day, and the date cannot be disputed. However you see the color, you can't miss that it's very close to mine, it is flat with square corners like mine, and it has arched photos like mine. And in case you missed it from every single post that I've made, yes I absolutely stand by my contention that this photograph depicts Knickerbockers. So please keep your promise and take your ball and go home and be done with this "dumb thread," because every single thing you've said has proven to be grossly incorrect.

The 2 pictures shown show up as very different colors on my screen. The one on the left is a tan and the one on the right is greyish.

[SteveS]

bnorth, look more inside of the card portion, not the edges. The edges look as though they have stains from being handled a lot. But the card portion is pretty close. The squared corners and arched photos are also very important, as other posters within this thread have said that it's not possible for a stereoview from before the 1870s to have those features. I found a stereoview from the Met Museum that dates to 1856. To me, this one looks gray, especially next to mine. It also has squared corners and arched photos.

[SteveS]

And seeing as though one issue people seem to have is the age of the person I identified as Niebuhr, I debated with myself for a long time whether it could be Harry Wright. He was with the Knickerbockers from 1857-1863, ages 22-28, about 30 years younger than everyone else in this photo. There are a lot of pictures of him as an older man, but not a lot from this era. I am attaching a comparison with his picture from the 1859 Knickerbocker photo (using the photo from the left side of my stereoview). It's a pretty good match. But I ended up thinking that it's not him because it doesn't seem to match as well against pictures of older Harry. But after the discussion about his brother George and seeing how different he looks in various eras, maybe some of you will think that he's a better fit.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The 2 pictures shown show up as very different colors on my screen. The one on the left is a tan and the one on the right is greyish.

Originally Posted by SteveS

bnorth, look more inside of the card portion, not the edges. The edges look as though they have stains from being handled a lot. But the card portion is pretty close. The squared corners and arched photos are also very important, as other posters within this thread have said that it's not possible for a stereoview from before the 1870s to have those features. I found a stereoview from the Met Museum that dates to 1856. To me, this one looks gray, especially next to mine. It also has squared corners and arched photos.

This thread is starting to turn batshit crazy. Here are the screenshots of the two colors of from those two stereoviews. They're clearly both some hue of browns. One slightly deeper with a bit more reddish tone and the other lighter and more pale, but both are clearly browns.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by drcy

In other words, even you, his biggest defender, are already preemptively saying he won't be able to post photos in this forum demonstrating that the mount is white or cream-colored. And, as some strange form of defense, post your own RGB color analysis that shows that the mount in the image isn't white or cream-colored.

Whatever. I'm done with this thread.

Wow, you're brilliant. This is a big loss to this thread. I'm devastated. Toodle-oo.

[SteveS]

bdk1976, I'm the one who started the thread and asked in the first place, and in nowhere in this thread did I argue with you or insult you. My response to you was to take a look at pictures that have been posted that show George Wright's bald head. There was no reason for you to insult me for that, which is exactly what you are upset about that you say someone did to you.

Snowman, I can't fault someone because colors render differently on their screen. Maybe something like this will work better. It's the back of my stereoview on the left, and a swatch of cream color on the right. Mine is a hair darker, but it's 160+ years old. But no matter how the colors show up on different screens, I think it helps show that my stereoview is a shade of cream.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Wow, you're brilliant. This is a big loss to this thread. I'm devastated. Toodle-oo.

You are a being a clown and completely out of your depth. Your knowledge of this subject is zero and it shows.

David is one of the foremost experts in his field and has literally taught courses about photography. The lack of respect being shown to him is beyond the pale.

Simply put you are terrible at this. There is no need to combat any of the points in this thread put forth by you and Steve because YOU HAVE NO BASIS TO MAKE THE CLAIMS THAT YOU ARE. NONE.

ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD:
These are literally photographs of completely random men from the 19th Century. The facial structures of these men is not even close. You and Steve they seem close but again neither of you have any idea what the heck you are talking about.

The only things the subjects of these photos have in common with the men you are claiming they are is that they have faces (and some have mustaches)... that is it. Ears are off, facial structures are off, hairlines are way off, ages are off, etc., etc.

The logical problem people like you have about this subject is that you are treating this as if it is a 50:50 chance of the photos being the person that is being claimed. That is not how this works. THERE IS NO CONTEXT FOR THESE PHOTOS TO BE WHO IT IS BEING CLAIMED THAT THEY ARE... NONE!!! The burden of proof to prove that a random photo purchased off ebay is a famous person is on the claimant, and it is a heavy burden of proof. Close doesn't cut it, these aren't close. The odds of Steve being correct is infinitesimally small.


TO SNOWMAN:
I have no idea who you are as you started posting on this forum like 5 minutes ago. Each time in the past few weeks that I have seen you post in a thread it immediately goes down hill. My suggestion would be to sit down and listen for a minute. Making fun of respected people on this forum like David will not get you far.

CONCLUSION:
This discussion is not a serious debate and is not scientific.

[SteveS]

rhettyeakley, throughout this thread I have done my utmost to respond to every single person who posted in a full and respectful way. I have not made anything personal. But I have to say that when you, the person I believe is your brother, and drcy say that there's no way this stereoview can be from before the 1870s because of the color and arched photos, you immediately lose any right to call yourself an expert, no matter how many classes you've taught. It's such a basic thing, and I've posted numerous examples of such stereoviews that are confirmed to be from the 1850s. So frankly, everything you say after that carries little weight. But even people without any knowledge of photography or baseball history can render an opinion as to whether people look alike. As I go back and read through this thread, it's been the three people I mentioned above who have found it necessary not just to give their opinion, but to do so in the most condescending and dismissive way. Please understand that in no way am I a novice or an idiot. As I mentioned above, I have been collecting sports memorabilia for 54 years. But as I also mentioned, anyone with a working set of eyes can say whether or not two people are a match. The fact that the three people I mentioned above go well beyond giving an opinion and find it necessary to say how superior they are and ridicule those who disagree with them (despite their being proven incorrect on most everything they've said), shows that there must be some sort of agenda beyond just commenting on a chat board.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by steves

rhettyeakley, throughout this thread i have done my utmost to respond to every single person who posted in a full and respectful way. I have not made anything personal. But i have to say that when you, the person i believe is your brother, and drcy say that there's no way this stereoview can be from before the 1870s because of the color and arched photos, you immediately lose any right to call yourself an expert, no matter how many classes you've taught. It's such a basic thing, and i've posted numerous examples of such stereoviews that are confirmed to be from the 1850s. So frankly, everything you say after that carries little weight. But even people without any knowledge of photography or baseball history can render an opinion as to whether people look alike. As i go back and read through this thread, it's been the three people i mentioned above who have found it necessary not just to give their opinion, but to do so in the most condescending and dismissive way. Please understand that in no way am i a novice or an idiot. As i mentioned above, i have been collecting sports memorabilia for 54 years. But as i also mentioned, anyone with a working set of eyes can say whether or not two people are a match. The fact that the three people i mentioned above go well beyond giving an opinion and find it necessary to say how superior they are and ridicule those who disagree with them (despite their being proven incorrect on most everything they've said), shows that there must be some sort of agenda beyond just commenting on a chat board.

this this this. 1000% this

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by SteveS

rhettyeakley, throughout this thread I have done my utmost to respond to every single person who posted in a full and respectful way. I have not made anything personal. But I have to say that when you, the person I believe is your brother, and drcy say that there's no way this stereoview can be from before the 1870s because of the color and arched photos, you immediately lose any right to call yourself an expert, no matter how many classes you've taught. It's such a basic thing, and I've posted numerous examples of such stereoviews that are confirmed to be from the 1850s. So frankly, everything you say after that carries little weight. But even people without any knowledge of photography or baseball history can render an opinion as to whether people look alike. As I go back and read through this thread, it's been the three people I mentioned above who have found it necessary not just to give their opinion, but to do so in the most condescending and dismissive way. Please understand that in no way am I a novice or an idiot. As I mentioned above, I have been collecting sports memorabilia for 54 years. But as I also mentioned, anyone with a working set of eyes can say whether or not two people are a match. The fact that the three people I mentioned above go well beyond giving an opinion and find it necessary to say how superior they are and ridicule those who disagree with them (despite their being proven incorrect on most everything they've said), shows that there must be some sort of agenda beyond just commenting on a chat board.

I tried. Not sure why I let myself engage sometimes.

Steve you are going to continue to see what you want and continue to confirm your own bias. I wish you well with your endeavor.

Snowman you add nothing.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

You are a being a clown and completely out of your depth. Your knowledge of this subject is zero and it shows.

David is one of the foremost experts in his field and has literally taught courses about photography. The lack of respect being shown to him is beyond the pale.

Simply put you are terrible at this. There is no need to combat any of the points in this thread put forth by you and Steve because YOU HAVE NO BASIS TO MAKE THE CLAIMS THAT YOU ARE. NONE.

ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD:
These are literally photographs of completely random men from the 19th Century. The facial structures of these men is not even close. You and Steve they seem close but again neither of you have any idea what the heck you are talking about.

The only things the subjects of these photos have in common with the men you are claiming they are is that they have faces (and some have mustaches)... that is it. Ears are off, facial structures are off, hairlines are way off, ages are off, etc., etc.

The logical problem people like you have about this subject is that you are treating this as if it is a 50:50 chance of the photos being the person that is being claimed. That is not how this works. THERE IS NO CONTEXT FOR THESE PHOTOS TO BE WHO IT IS BEING CLAIMED THAT THEY ARE... NONE!!! The burden of proof to prove that a random photo purchased off ebay is a famous person is on the claimant, and it is a heavy burden of proof. Close doesn't cut it, these aren't close. The odds of Steve being correct is infinitesimally small.


TO SNOWMAN:
I have no idea who you are as you started posting on this forum like 5 minutes ago. Each time in the past few weeks that I have seen you post in a thread it immediately goes down hill. My suggestion would be to sit down and listen for a minute. Making fun of respected people on this forum like David will not get you far.

CONCLUSION:
This discussion is not a serious debate and is not scientific.

The idea that one needs to be an expert in photography or the history of photography or that it is even remotely helpful in a discussion regarding whether or not two people look similar is ridiculous. The fact that people here demand that their "expertise" be somehow respected is the problem here. No one has earned the right to identify facial features better than someone else because they have a dark room at home or because they have a collection of stereoviews.

As far as lending even an iota of respect to David is concerned, I'll gladly pass on that offer. Go back and read his nonsense in this thread. Every post is complete an utter nonsense. Brown is gray, bald is a full head of hair, etc. All he's done is shit on everyone else's arguments with every post while offering nothing of substance despite being asked politely numerous times by the OP to explain his positions. He's just trolling this thread. I don't offer respect to trolls.

Again, at I've said repeatedly. If you want to argue that the photos are not who Steve thinks they are, that's fine. Bring your arguments as to why. But if you're going to sit there and pretend like there's no similarity whatsoever between the purported George Wright photos, then you're clearly just here to be a prick. Go take those photos to 100 random people off the street who aren't vintage cards collectors and at least 90 of them will say, "ya they definitely look similar and might be the same person". The only thing causing people here to see otherwise is their bias.