Circa 1846 Daguerreotype � Alexander Joy Cartwright debate

Abravefan11 · #1 10-14-2011, 11:05 PM

I have read the entire newsletter and the following are my thoughts. First and foremost I believe it's important to say that I respect that all parties involved showed a refreshing level of decorum even in spite of differing opinions with such an important item in question.

After reading and rereading all of the information presented by both sides I feel that Mark and Mr. Mancusi presented a great deal of information that shows there is a significant amount of doubt that the subject in question is Alexander Cartwright, much more doubt than probability. While Mr. Richard and the owner of the HPD did on several occasions disagree with the findings or call into question the credentials of the parties presenting this opinion they did not present enough or any evidence to show that the person in question was highly likely to be Cartwright. One can not simply prove that it is Cartwright by saying that it wasn't proven with certainty that it isn't Cartwright.

In my opinion after reading all of the findings by everyone involved that at best it could be said that it's unlikely to be Cartwright and until further evidence can be produced to back up the claim that it is Cartwright it shouldn't be considered to be him.

benjulmag · #2 10-15-2011, 12:50 AM

Mark, I will respond to your post in time. You do not mention Curry. Is that because you didn't focus on it or because you thought the comparison Currys matched up well?

The point I wish to respond to in this post is that of Abravefan11. First, thank you for taking the time to read the newsletter and provide your views. Regardless whether I agree with them or not, I appreciate your contribution to this discussion.

The point you raise is an important one -- who has the burden of proof? In many instances, where there is no provenance or other external evidence linking two comparison subjects, and all one has are the images alone, then clearly one can't establish that they are the same individual merely by showing they are not different individuals. In such an instance, to establish the identification, compelling reasons must be shown via resemblance and a matching of various facial features.

But that is not what we are dealing with here. In this instance the Cartwright family has identified Alexander Cartwright (AJC) as being in the image. This identification dates to the 1930's and comes from AJC's grandson Bruce, who was ten years old when AJC died. One would certainly think that Bruce's views on this issue would be identical to those of his father and his grandfather. It is my opinion, given such extraordinary provenance, supported too by other ancilliary information which I mention in the newsletter, that THE BURDEN OF PROOF HAS NOW SHIFTED SUCH THAT TO REFUTE THE CARTWRIGHT IDENTIFICATION IN THE HALF PLATE ONE MUST ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF EXCLUSIONARY DIFFERENCES (OR SOMETHING DARN CLOSE TO THAT). My expert, arguably as respected an expert in photographic facial examination as anyone in the field, opines quite emphatically that not only are there no exclusionary differences, but that the most photo ID can say in the negative about the ID is that AJC is possibly depicted in the half plate.

Or to say it another way, the evidence you say one must have to establish the ID needn't just be photographic evidence. It can also be extraordinary provenance, which exists here.

bmarlowe1 · #3 10-15-2011, 01:29 AM

Curry does not match, but the presentation is not so brief so I was thinking of saving that for the next newsletter. If I can't do it in a page or less I don't really want to do it here. We’ll see where this goes.

I’d rather stick to discussing my initial point before going into provenance, I would for now only say that, for reasons given in the newsletter and other reasons, in my view the provenance is less than perfect. Your all caps statement assumes that everyone will agree with you that the provenance is “rock solid”. They may not. It is not a law of physics that one must have an absolute exclusionary difference to overcome the provenance in this case. As people read and digest this there will be a range of views on how good or lacking the provenance is and how good or bad the facial ID is, and how much facial mismatch must be shown to overcome the provenance. My interpretation of Tim’s view is that given all that he has read, the facial differences demonstrated by myself and Mr. Mancusi were sufficient to overcome whatever probative value that he saw in the provenance. That is a valid view to take.

barrysloate · #4 10-15-2011, 05:44 AM

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but let me give it a shot. First, let me say that I have known about this project since its inception, and have been in contact with both Corey and Mark while the research was ongoing. I do want to congratulate them both for the comprehensive and exhaustive effort that went into this, and want to thank both for acknowledging me (though my work consisted primarily of cheerleading). And I also want to add that I will not let my longstanding friendship with Corey influence my opinion here. I sincerely hope he would want me to be objective.

Now here is something that really concerns me about this project. Corey has hired whom he considers one of the top photo experts in the country, and Mark has used the services of one of the top forensic experts. And even though both of these experts come with impeccable credentials, they can't even agree on who is pictured in the back row of this daguerreotype. You would think if each has his field down to a science, both would surely agree. But they don't. So here is the first thing I know with absolute certainty: one of these guys is dead wrong! I just don't know which one. It either is or isn't Cartwright, it's not half Cartwright! So before I go any further my radar is up.

Getting back to business. I do agree with Corey that he does not have the burden of proof here, and that it is Mark's responsibillity to prove with pretty near certainty that it is not Cartwright. I think Mark has indeed made a very good case, with very detailed facial analysis, and it has raised some concerns with me. But Corey's expert has also built a strong case that those results are not exclusionary. Who is right? Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to be certain one way or the other. And because so much is at stake here, it would be irresponsible for me to just guess. There was an element of this study that was a bit too technical for me.

Another problem I have here is with regard to the issue of provenance. I fully understand that just because Bruce Cartwright said the guy in the back row is his grandfather, that doesn't prove he is right. But given that the family had numerous photos of AJC, it would seem extraordinary to me that when the Hall of Fame came calling for an image for Cartwright's plaque, that Bruce in fact picked the wrong person. Could have happened, but that's just as goofy as saying Abner Doubleday invented baseball.

What I have always had a problem with, however, is the identification of other people in this photo. I do not think the man with the beard and cigar is Doc Adams, and the Curry i.d. was always a bit shaky too. So in that respect I do see issues with this HPD. Yet who are these six friends who are all wearing the same straw hats? It's a mystery.

So what is my conclusion: I don't know. On a simple glance I have always felt that the man in the back row looked different than the man pictured in the quarter and sixth plate dags of Cartwright. I had many discussions with Corey and he seemed to feel that Cartwright's face changed somewhat over the years. And that's part of the problem. If you take a look at a picture of him as both a young and old man, it's easy to see that his face changed considerably. That makes this debate that much more difficult. So I have to say at this point I am on the fence. I cannot say with any certainty whether or not the man in the back row is Alexander Cartwright, and with so much on the line I choose not to speculate. And I sense this matter may never be sufficiently resolved.

benjulmag · #5 10-15-2011, 08:03 AM

Barry, thanks for your response. And yes, I would want you to be objective. I might add to what you said that Mark's expert also says the differences are not exclusionary.

It is not my intention to restate what I wrote in the newsletter. The only point I want to make here is that it is Mark's subjective opinion that the facial mismatches are signficant. Others, including recognized professional experts, not only may but in fact do vociferously differ not only as to their significance but whether they in fact even exist (being caused instead by photographic illusion or studio touch up).

Mark is correct about one thing -- I am not an expert in photographic facial comparison. I wasn't when I acquired the dag over 20 years ago, and I'm not now. Yes I know a thing or two, and I certainly know a lot more now than I did a year ago when Mark and I first began discussing this question, but nothing compared what a true expert knows. That was why I consulted with experts before I bought the dag, and why now I retained who I believed was the top photographic facial comparison expert in the country. Before Jerry Richards agreed to take on the project, he made it crystal clear to me that he was going to call it as he saw it and that if I expected otherwise he did not want to get involved. I also made it a point to not discuss the item's provenance with him until after he had completed his analysis as I did not want there to be any question that even subconsciously that information might have influenced him.

Jerry opines that the facial mismatches Mark and Mr. Mancusi speak of, besides not being exclusionary, are not even close to being exclusionary. The single most important "difference" to Mr. Mancusi, iris size, doesn't even exist. At this point, I don't even know what Mr. Mancusi's conclusion would be today if he eliminated the irises, nose and scar from his analysis. Those were three differences he put tremendous emphasis on and I believe Jerry Richards has completely shattered the validity of all of them.

I might also add, that as to the question of who a true photo ID expert is, a point Mark devotes a section of his report to, I still am having great difficulty with Mr. Mancusi's falilure to understand that in order to compare an image to another image, one must do a direct comparison. It is not sufficient to compare image #1 to image #2, conclude they probably are of the same person (a conclusion which in this instance Mr. Richards disagrees), and then say the conclusions one draws from comparing image #1 to the image in question would be identical to the conclusions one would draw from comparing image #2 to the image in question. That something so basic as to go to the core of how one undertakes a photographic facial comparison, is consistent with every notion of common sense, and the fact that Mr. Mancusi doesn't understand it I find very troubling.

Leon · #6 10-15-2011, 08:45 AM

In order for this very important document to be read and responded to I have "stuck" it to the top of the page. It will remain here for a few days or so.....

For folks only casually reading this thread, or who may not have the level of interest as some, the importance of this photo and ensuing debate can not be overstated. The next oldest "baseball" (with characters in any type/part of a uniform ie... hats, bats, balls etc..) photo is believed to be in the 1856-1858 era. That would make this the oldest baseball photo by approximately 10+ years. A fairly significant situation, even for a novice or less interested baseball hobbyist.

barrysloate · #7 10-15-2011, 08:55 AM

I just read through the entire report again this morning- that is now three times for Corey's and twice for Mark's- just to keep the information fresh for the basis of a discussion. One point I want to make is with regard to the credibility of Bruce Cartwright. I know that he undoubtedly exaggerated the accomplishments of his grandfather, and his belief that it was AJC who invented baseball has of course been disproved. But as far as the photograph he submitted to the Hall of Fame, it was not the only one the family saved. They had at least three dags, one ambro, one CdV, and possibly others that they could have chosen from. So while this of course in no way proves that AJC is the man in the back row, there is no reason to believe that Bruce deliberately sent the wrong image to the Hall of Fame. Of course he could have been mistaken, but I have to believe there was a very good chance he knew who his grandfather was.

I know this proves nothing, but I wanted to bring it up.

terjung · #8 10-15-2011, 10:06 AM

First, I am really enjoying this discussion and am particulary thrilled to see how civil it is - so thank you for all who are involved for not letting emotions get in the way - as so often can happen for these things that we care so much about.

Second, after reading the entire article and the discussion too, I'd prefer not to speculate as to whether or not it is truly him. I only wanted to add what amounts to a bit of an interesting corollary. A few months ago, I was at an annual family reunion where 5 siblings (my father and his 4 brothers and sisters) were puzzling over something very similar. It has nothing to do with baseball, but does relate. They were all looking over quite old pictures and were trying to figure out who was pictured in them. I only bring this up because there was difference of opinion (3 to 2) as to whether certain pictures were of their grandfather (my great-grandfather). They all knew their grandfather (since he was alive during their lifetimes), but in a similar situation, at least 2 of them would have misidentified their grandfather in a picture. The importance of that discussion is nowhere near the same plane as this one and I have no idea in our case as to whether my aunts and uncles would be certain enough in their opinion to select it as a representative picture, but I felt it pertinent enough to share that I have seen firsthand where people misidentified their own grandparent in a photograph. (In our case, I still don't know whether it was him in the photograph or not, but I do know that at least 2 (and maybe 3) of the siblings are wrong. As Barry said, it either is or it isn't.)

Abravefan11 · #9 10-15-2011, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate

...there is no reason to believe that Bruce deliberately sent the wrong image to the Hall of Fame. Of course he could have been mistaken, but I have to believe there was a very good chance he knew who his grandfather was.

Barry - I agree there is no reason to believe that Bruce deliberately sent the wrong photo, but it's not hard to believe that he would think given the close resemblance that the person in the photo was AJC. I don't believe he's anymore of a photo identification expert than you or I and given the HPD was in his families collection he would be even more quick to assume that it was AJC.

bmarlowe1 · #10 10-15-2011, 11:19 AM

Corey: Others, including recognized professional experts, not only may but in fact do vociferously differ not only as to their significance but whether they in fact even exist (being caused instead by photographic illusion or studio touch up)....Jerry opines that the facial mismatches Mark and Mr. Mancusi speak of, besides not being exclusionary, are not even close to being exclusionary.

I challenged Corey several times in the newsletter to produce known photos of the same early ballplayers that exhibit multiple feature differences as do Cartwright and subject C. Corey has not been able to do so. Even if one wants to limit it to dags, we have multiple dags of famous people such as Dolley Madison, Edgar Allen Poe, Lincoln, etc. If what Corey says is true, we should be able to compare dags for these people and find such feature differences. If you go through this exercise you cannot find such differences. We should easily be able to find photos of the same 19thC ballplayer that exhibit such differences. Again, you cannot.

There over 800 dags in the online Library of Congress collection. There are quite a few cases of multiple dags of the same person taken at different times. Again, you cannot find such feature differences due to the hand-tinting, “photographic illusion”, or whatever it is that Corey speaks of.

Corey:I still am having great difficulty with Mr. Mancusi's falilure to understand that in order to compare an image to another image, one must do a direct comparison. It is not sufficient to compare image #1 to image #2,....

This is simply not logical. I answered it more than adequately in the newsletter:
“Mr. Richards states,"each ‘known’ image should be independently compared with the questioned image.” He asserts that it is necessary to not only compare A4 directly to C, but to also individually compare A1, A2, and A3 to C. But he does not state what difference he thinks that would make - what features of A1, A2 or A3 would compare more favorably to C? All the A's have virtually the same forehead width, so it suffices to then compare only one of them directly to C. The same can be said for the particular characteristics of the eyelid, lips/philtrum, and nose.

barrysloate · #11 10-15-2011, 11:21 AM

Same here Leon. I apologize, just responded to David.

Runscott · #12 10-16-2011, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I have read the entire newsletter and the following are my thoughts. First and foremost I believe it's important to say that I respect that all parties involved showed a refreshing level of decorum even in spite of differing opinions with such an important item in question.

I thought it was good hearing/sharing the opinions of those not directly involved - those posts seemed to be stand-alone, but still valid.

bmarlowe1 · #13 10-16-2011, 12:50 PM

I find that in general people interested in this subject are highly intelligent. Based on quite a few emails, I know that they fully understand that two competent experts can publish highly conflicting opinions, and they understand the reasons why. Certainly attorneys should understand this quite well. To say that either one of the experts doesn�t know how to compare faces in photographs is beyond ludicrous. I never said that about Mr. Richards.

barrysloate · #14 10-16-2011, 01:10 PM

I feel the same way Mark. I believe that both you and Corey each picked an expert with great skills to work on this project. In no way do I feel that either of the experts is incompetent, and I think that's a bad direction to take this. Perhaps both sides should agree that Mr. Richards and Mr. Mancusi simply have come up with different conclusions, and the issue may in fact remain unresolved. We could have a survey where everyone who has read both articles votes on this, but I'm going to guess nearly all of them will vote they are not sure. I would be very surprised to see too many "definitely is/definitely isn't" votes. And I don't have a solution on how both you and Corey will ever agree here. It won't happen. That's a disappointment.

oldjudge · #15 10-16-2011, 01:34 PM

Nonetheless Barry, I hope we have the vote. There are probably quite a few people who have read the article but have chosen not to enter the debate.

barrysloate · #16 10-16-2011, 01:53 PM

That's up to Corey, Mark, and Leon. They can decide whether or not a vote has merits.

Abravefan11 · #17 10-16-2011, 01:59 PM

I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this, but I'm not in favor of a poll or vote. I don't think the results, whatever they may be, would add anything beneficial to the conversation. I do appreciate the newsletter being posted so that all sides and opinions can be discussed and anyone that wants to weigh in has the opportunity to do so.

barrysloate · #18 10-16-2011, 02:27 PM

I was thinking the same thing Tim, especially if nearly everyone votes they aren't sure. But we'll see what happens.

Runscott · #19 10-16-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this, but I'm not in favor of a poll or vote. I don't think the results, whatever they may be, would add anything beneficial to the conversation. I do appreciate the newsletter being posted so that all sides and opinions can be discussed and anyone that wants to weigh in has the opportunity to do so.

I agree with you regarding the vote.

benjulmag · #20 10-16-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I find that in general people interested in this subject are highly intelligent. Based on quite a few emails, I know that they fully understand that two competent experts can publish highly conflicting opinions, and they understand the reasons why. Certainly attorneys should understand this quite well. To say that either one of the experts doesn�t know how to compare faces in photographs is beyond ludicrous. I never said that about Mr. Richards.

The issue here is not competency to compare faces. The issue is knowing what differences are real or illusionary, caused by photographic illusion or studio touch up. And the issue also pertains to methodology. I believe I have the right to point out that Mr. Mancusi is an artist, not a photography expert. That distinction is crucial here as Mr. Richards questions the existence of a number of the differences Mr. Mancusi discusses. I make it quite clear in the newsletter supplement that I intend no disrespect by stating that Mr. Mancusi is being asked to opine on a matter that requires expertise from another field. Since you mention attorneys, that would be akin to a tax attorney being asked to opine on a matter of matrimonial law. Yes, in both instances law is involved, but the skill set and training needed are much different. I believe the iris analysis bears out my point. Having said that, I will also say that had Mr. Mancusi had (i) access to the same resolution image that Mr. Richards and (ii) the same knowledge about emulsion type in conjunction with studio lighting as Mr. Richards, I have no doubt Mr. Mancusi's analysis would have been quite competent.

As to methodology, Mr. Mancusi's belief that individual comparison of each of the A Subjects to Subject C is not necessary, that one can apply the Subject C to Subject A4 comparison conclusion to a Subject C to Subject A1, A2 or A3 comparison, is simply incorrect. I believe I have every right to point that out and the impact that has on his conclusions.

As to negativity, the only one taking what I believe are uncalled for shots at competency is you against me, and you know quite well the comments I'm talking about.

At the end of the day, as Barry points out, you came to me with this project. I cooperated fully knowing that your intended objective is to have the HOF change the Cartwright bronze. The half plate is one of the most significant photographs in the hobby. You, as you have a right to do, are making a full scale attack on what it represents. I believe I have the right to vigorously respond to what you bring up, and in the process bring to bear relevant issues as to the area of speciality of your chosen expert. And that is all I have done.

Leon · #21 10-16-2011, 02:40 PM

There has not been a definite decision made as to having a poll or not. I want to be very fair to both Mark and Corey and will look to both of them, privately, for their comments on that matter. regards

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1928 Fro Joy Babe Ruth - Authentic?	Clutch-Hitter	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	27	07-05-2011 11:30 PM
- SOLD - Alexander Cartwright Letter	aaroncc	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	2	04-27-2010 08:41 AM
FS: 1923 V100 Willard Chocolate Grover Cleveland Alexander PSA 3 (mk) but clean	packs	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	04-04-2010 01:31 AM
PRICE REDUCED - 1944-45 Albertype HOF Postcard - Alexander Cartwright (SGC 80)	bcbgcbrcb	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	2	10-07-2009 09:59 AM
Cartwright Documents: Signature Question	Archive	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	2	11-14-2008 01:08 PM