Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[SteveS]

drcy, I guess I'm still confused as to how you can judge the generation of the photo and thickness of its mount with the 100% certainty you've been maintaining without having seen and held it in person? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that it appears to be something to you, rather than it is absolutely something? After all, through no fault of your own the color appears to be different to different people. I've posted it next to a gray sample and a cream sample to show the best that I can that it is a shade of cream. Also, I have owned stereoviews from the 1850s-the early-20th century. I posted earlier in this thread a few of my baseball-related ones from the 1860s (Leon posted the same one that he has). Believe me, I know the difference between a thicker mount with rounded corners and the manufacturer's/distributor's info versus a thinner, flat mount with squared corners.

D. Bergin, the word "expert" itself wasn't used derogatorially. It was used facetiously with regard to the people who claimed that the age of the stereoview could not be from before the mid-1870s because of the arched photos. That has been disproven enough times in this thread, and it's just a basic thing that someone calling himself an "expert" should know, that at least in my opinion it discredits everything that comes next. But you won't get any argument from me about the intelligence of the general population.

Scott, I don't know if Snowman said that and edited it later. I said it a couple times in here, and it's true. Up until a certain age, pretty much every extra cent I had went to baseball cards. After that certain age, and with the proliferation of fraud, it took a backseat to other things. Also, the reason I chose this board to post the stereoview is because I knew that it would be the toughest to convince. I'm really not sure that I will ever be able to convince everybody with 100% certainty. In fact, I have absolutely no idea what would be needed to tip that scale. However, I truly believe that by being well prepared and responding to every question and concern without cowering, that I've been able to sway some people to the maybe/plausible category. I do know that many people are loathe to jump into the fray on social media, especially when there's a fear of being ganged up on by people who claim to know everything and attack anyone who disagrees. So I feel that there are a decent number of people who see a resemblance (not necessarily agree that it's absolutely Knickerbockers), but won't say so for fear of being ridiculed by a handful of others.

Michael, I'm totally fine with the people who give their honest opinion either way. It's the ones who state it as fact rather than opinion and look down their noses at anyone who dares to disagree that I just tune out.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I guess I disagree with the idea that this board is the toughest place to convince people. I have seen a number of cool discoveries here, if the evidence is clear this board will champion your cause pretty quickly. I have not, and will not offer my opinion on your claims, because mine is about as valid as the moron's from WAWA but I really don't see this as a group of skeptics.

Anyway best of luck, I've managed to tiptoe through all of this without pissing anyone off, gonna quit while I'm ahead!

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I guess I disagree with the idea that this board is the toughest place to convince people. I have seen a number of cool discoveries here, if the evidence is clear this board will champion your cause pretty quickly. I have not, and will not offer my opinion on your claims, because mine is about as valid as the moron's from WAWA but I really don't see this as a group of skeptics.

Anyway best of luck, I've managed to tiptoe through all of this without pissing anyone off, gonna quit while I'm ahead!

People ask and people say things are authentic regularly on this board (as well saying things are reprints, fakes, etc.): trading cards, photographs, autographs and memorabilia.

[Directly]

Steve never mind I will contact Jacob Pomrenke to see about corresponding with John Thorn, the official historian for MLB or is Mr. Thorn a net54 member-thanks

[SteveS]

drcy, hey I'm throwing you guys a compliment when I say you're tough.

Directly, you can check out the posts above on this page for the answer to that.

[slightlyrounded]

The thing that isn't sitting right with me: You initially made several identifications and reached out for some professional opinions. When those were met with doubt you revised half of your identifications and reversed the image to more closely match the comparisons. Correct?

Several of the hairlines and facial similarities were enhanced when you flipped the image, which I assume is why you did this....but I think the kerchief issue is a problem. I don't understand how the kerchief is shown in 'Niebuhr's' left breast pocket in your stereoview, but you somehow thought this image should be flipped, placing it on the right. Especially when the salt print has him wearing a kerchief in his left, as is customary.

Further: if the Henry Anthony association is being proffered as a reason this may be an earlier, 'cutting-edge' photograph, then why are neither he nor his brother in the picture? I don't think it's credible to lean on this association.

I accept that you can't be talked out of your belief that you've uncovered a historically significant find, but you need to understand the skepticism here. You've provided no 'when', 'where', 'why', or 'how' for the origin of this stereoview...only a 'who' after multiple revisions and a very subjective framing.

[drcy]

Most old photos found on eBay and flea markets are of unknown people whose identities have been lost in time. Having antique photos of unidentified people is the norm, and you own two. There's nothing wrong with that.