Cartwright Daguerreotype assessment ?? Question

[Directly]

Question for bigfanNY concerning the Cartwright Daguerreotype. What criteria did you use , Thanks in advance, Tom

[Directly]

Im very curious which perimeters you used to assess the Cartwright photo, which ears of which player did you use-thanks , Tom

[Directly]

Is photo matching a legit accepted method used to authenticate items, thanks, Tom

[Leon]

This was moved from another section as that photo (or one closely resembling it) has always been interesting to me..
.

[molenick]

I am not sure how long ago the image posted was first attributed to being a ca. 1846 daguerrotype of the Knickerbockers (with Cartwright back row center) but it was described as such on page five in the 1994 book Baseball: An Illustrated History by Ward and Burns (this was the book published as an accompaniment to the Ken Burns documentary).

It is unclear who first identified the photo and whether they used photo matching to another known Cartwright photo or whether they had other information about the photo (e.g., family provenance, original documentation, etc.).

Any other photo IDs of Cartwright based on this image would depend on whether you accept that this is Cartwright in the first place.

I am not saying it is or it isn't, but for what it's worth, Wikipedia says the identification is disputed and cites a 2011 SABR article https://sabr.box.com/shared/static/t...8u64tq5rtd.pdf

[Directly]

Can this forum and experts agree photo matching is acceptable for authentications of memorabilia . AH use this practice .
My question, because the subjects are wearing hats, obstructing matching the hair-lines. The ears are also covered. We assume some sort of Facial Recognition technology was primary used in this case.--thanks Tom

[Directly]

Photo matching use reference points of facial measurements as distance between eyes, shapes of nose and mouth, cross reference of several of different facial features to work. So to photo match a known photo of a person can to be used as reference. Facial recognition is being used everyday in places such as airports, for security, etc. Its accepted scientifically technology, correct Thanks , Tom

[Directly]

Question for photo bigfanNY expertise, do these 2 photos photo match to prove they are the same person?. I assume you used facial reignition of several different photos for your assessment of the Cartwright photo, wearing a hat and not etc.. I believe the photo showing a good image of the hairline and other facial features would be the best for my study of my 1881 Dubuque, Iowa photo, please advise. Thanks Tom

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Are hairlines actually useful??? I can't imagine a more variable feature on the human head.

[molenick]

Now I see that this is less about the Cartwright dag and more about whether or not Comiskey is on a specific cabinet.

If anyone wants any background, this has been discussed previously here https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=361271 and here https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163481.

[Directly]

Correct, is photo matching a accepted scientific method or not? a simple question-I ask this forum do you believe photo recognition is reliable. If bigfanNY cant answer, who on the forum can, thanks Tom

P/s --see the two photos--one cant be the same person--note one has round ears--LOL--could the expert made a miscalculation including bigfanNY==photo matching says YES

[Directly]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Are hairlines actually useful??? I can't imagine a more variable feature on the human head.

Yes, a Widow peak hair line is one very distinct feature for photo matching

[molenick]

At the risk of getting into the dispute about the cabinet in question:

1) I think most people agree that photo matching is a useful tool.

2) As per the earlier threads, not everyone agrees that the known photos of Comiskey match the player identified as Comiskey in the cabinet.

3) Experts can disagree. The 44-page analysis of the Cartwright dag is an example of this.

4) The fact that experts can disagree does not mean the player in the cabinet is or isn't Comiskey. It just means that there may be differing opinions.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by Directly

Question for bigfanNY concerning the Cartwright Daguerreotype. What criteria did you use , Thanks in advance, Tom

Since you continue to direct questions to me. I will respond once to this thread.
I did not use any criteria concerning the Disputed Cartwright photo. I dont recall responding to the thread discussing this photo. I read the Sabr article Michael posted and it seems to refute the claim that Cartwright is in the Photo. But I haven't done any research on my own on this subject. And I dont have any interest in taking up any research on the Cartwright Photo.

[Directly]

Originally Posted by molenick

At the risk of getting into the dispute about the cabinet in question:

1) I think most people agree that photo matching is a useful tool.

2) As per the earlier threads, not everyone agrees that the known photos of Comiskey match the player identified as Comiskey in the cabinet.

3) Experts can disagree. The 44-page analysis of the Cartwright dag is an example of this.

4) The fact that experts can disagree does not mean the player in the cabinet is or isn't Comiskey. It just means that there may be differing opinions.

Michael, thanks for your post. I agree, finally someone who made some sense. I'm good with it. This 1881 Dubuque Iowa Cabinet has much more evidence to go forward with my case, besides a Dead Ringer Comiskey photo match. I believe I'm going in the right direction. A few important facts I can add:

1) stamped "Dubuque" on the Cabinets Tab
2) Stamped "HW Jordan, The Artist" ( 1881 was in business)
3) a obscure date "81" added by the photographer
on the pedestal, by the ballplayer, maybe Joe Quinn.
4) Its a fact in 1881 Comiskey was getting a baseball team organized in Dubuque.
5) We know the team Ted Sullivan took to St Louis to play the Browns, was a new team, not the 1879 team. ( beside Tom Loftus, whom may also be in the 1881 photo, holding the baseball)


forward to SABR.

[benjulmag]

Photo matching is a negative test. It is typically used to show what something is not, not what something is. VERY RARELY can it be used to show what something is. I express no opinion as to whether the image in question depicts Comisky. But I would be very surprised if this is one of those rare instances where photo matching can establish it is.

[Directly]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Photo matching is a negative test. It is typically used to show what something is not, not what something is. VERY RARELY can it be used to show what something is. I express no opinion as to whether the image in question depicts Comisky. But I would be very surprised if this is one of those rare instances where photo matching can establish it is.

Thanks for your thoughts I believe AH use photo matching all the time--it seems to be accepted in our hobby. Buy either way I'm okay with it--

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by molenick

At the risk of getting into the dispute about the cabinet in question:

1) I think most people agree that photo matching is a useful tool.

2) As per the earlier threads, not everyone agrees that the known photos of Comiskey match the player identified as Comiskey in the cabinet.

3) Experts can disagree. The 44-page analysis of the Cartwright dag is an example of this.

4) The fact that experts can disagree does not mean the player in the cabinet is or isn't Comiskey. It just means that there may be differing opinions.

Michael In point 2 of your post you say that not everyone agrees on the Comiskey photo. I just re read both of the Posts where Directly claims that Comiskey is in this Photo and No One agrees with that statment. 12 years ago Everyone who comented said not Comiskey and this year the same result. NO ONE ON THE THREAD THINKS THAT CHARLES COMISKEY IS IN THE PICTURE.
Did you access some other source for your statment?
You dont need mine or anyone's permission to post an option here or anywhere. But in both of those threads clearly everyone agreed that it was not Charles Comiskey in that photo. It was clearly pointed out that his eye color and ears were different in the photos. So it seems very clear that the picture is Absolutely not Charles Comiskey. So I just wondering your source.

[molenick]

You are correct. I didn't read the full threads that closely and went with the weaker "not everyone agrees". As you pointed out, no one other than Directly felt that Comiskey was on the cabinet. I have no other source regarding the cabinet except the existing threads I referenced.

I also forgot point 5 which is that "there is a strong tendency to believe that the item you own features a famous player". In many cases, this is the most important factor that determines one's opinion.

I have personally fallen prey to this when I purchased the attached postcard thinking that Ty Cobb was fifth from the left in the back row. In fact, the postcard was sold to me by a dealer who said it was Cobb. Later I discovered that while, coincidentally, McGraw's Tigers was a Detroit-based amateur team, it was not Ty Cobb on the postcard.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by molenick

I have personally fallen prey to this when I purchased the attached postcard thinking that Ty Cobb was fifth from the left in the back row. In fact, the postcard was sold to me by a dealer who said it was Cobb. Later I discovered that while, coincidentally, McGraw's Tigers was a Detroit-based amateur team, it was not Ty Cobb on the postcard.

At least the fellow pictured resembles him - unlike the countless goofy
“photo matches” on eBay

[Directly]

Yup, I suppose we have all been duped--photo matching, facial recognition isn't a science its a joke and not reliable, spending big money on items claimed to be photo matched could still be fake--airports, government agencies paying money for computer software for facial recognitions which doesn't work is a waste of money, everyone agree/ opinions-thanks Tom

(when I purchased the cabinet photo at a Antique Mall , I wasn't told Comiskey was in the photo, I bought it because being a early nice baseball team Photo, put in my collection and forgot about it. Years later reading a article that Comiskey had played in Dubuque, I remembered the photo was stamped Dubuque--took me a few weeks to find it- LOL)

Opinions are just that. example: A collector had a German knife he thought was very special. He went to a military show in Louisville with the item. After showing it around and getting nothing but negative feedback, he sold the knife. All of sudden it was the rarest, one of the most valuable knifes they has ever seen, priceless, value can change depending who has possession.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by Directly

Yup, I suppose we have all been duped--photo matching, facial recognition isn't a science its a joke and not reliable, spending big money on items claimed to be photo matched could still be fake--airports, government agencies paying money for computer software for facial recognitions .

Yup, good point - modern scans of live people is exactly the same as blurry 100 year old photos .

[Yoda]

Comiskey was very fond of fedora hats like the one he is wearing in the photo.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Comiskey was very fond of fedora hats like the one he is wearing in the photo.

.... the fedoras don't cover the ears.

[Directly]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Yup, good point - modern scans of live people is exactly the same as blurry 100 year old photos .

Yup, so some photo matching of say old jerseys, or autographs, photograph's maybe not be 100 percent positive authentic--the way I read some posts, photo matching, is only a opinion not a fact.

I'm still curious how can any photo expert determine any positive ID only with the ears -- are ears shapes the only critical parameter for facial recognition, to say open your cell phones.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by Directly

Yup, so some photo matching of say old jerseys, or autographs, photograph's maybe not be 100 percent positive authentic--the way I read some posts, photo matching, is only a opinion not a fact.

I'm still curious how can any photo expert determine any positive ID only with the ears -- are ears shapes the only critical parameter for facial recognition, to say open your cell phones.

Ear shapes cannot be used to 100% identify a person. But since ears are fully formed at birth they can be used to 100% rule out a person. if in their known photos they are of one ear shape and you compare a photo of a person with another ear type.
And you are not trying to open a cell phone. You are trying to open someone's wallet to the tune of Fifty Thousand Dollars. I get it, you see some guy on Ebay posting old photos that he claims are famous ballplayers and you want in. So you have been posting for over a decade looking for someone to swindle. Despite having ample proof that your photo is not the 1881 Dabuque team and that it is not Charles Comiskey.
Eyes colors do not match
Ear shapes do not Match
Height doesn't match
Uniforms from known 1879 team don't match.
And to come here and cry about how all these facts stacked up are some how unfair to you is simply wrong.
You claimed in your previous thread that you were taking it to the 2025 National to sell / consign. Please tell us how many auction houses dealers and collectors turned you down? Let me guess, 100% of them. But you know it doesn't matter. All you need is one person to believe your lies and you cash in.

[Directly]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Ear shapes cannot be used to 100% identify a person. But since ears are fully formed at birth they can be used to 100% rule out a person. if in their known photos they are of one ear shape and you compare a photo of a person with another ear type.
And you are not trying to open a cell phone. You are trying to open someone's wallet to the tune of Fifty Thousand Dollars. I get it, you see some guy on Ebay posting old photos that he claims are famous ballplayers and you want in. So you have been posting for over a decade looking for someone to swindle. Despite having ample proof that your photo is not the 1881 Dabuque team and that it is not Charles Comiskey.
Eyes colors do not match
Ear shapes do not Match
Height doesn't match
Uniforms from known 1879 team don't match.
And to come here and cry about how all these facts stacked up are some how unfair to you is simply wrong.
You claimed in your previous thread that you were taking it to the 2025 National to sell / consign. Please tell us how many auction houses dealers and collectors turned you down? Let me guess, 100% of them. But you know it doesn't matter. All you need is one person to believe your lies and you cash in.

Everything this want-a-be expert wrote is pure B/S-- we do have one thing in common, we age, look in a mirror.
Ill stick to my relevant facts

The only thing this discussion has established is "Photo Matching" is purely just a opinion not a science, nothing more nothing less. A 50/50 pig in a poke

[Beercan collector]

I really don’t care I made a silly response to a silly agenda driven thread .
But Yeah it’s all a matter of opinion,
- There’s high probability opinions were many people agree likely true, buyers make the jump of faith and spend good money to obtain .
- There’s low probability opinions that no one agrees with and no one‘s willing to waste money to obtain.
Anyway good luck with your “Comiskey” photo, you might take it to that airport with the expensive equipment and have it verified, Perhaps one day it’ll be the rarest and most valuable knife in the world

[Directly]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

I really don’t care I made a silly response to a silly agenda driven thread .
But Yeah it’s all a matter of opinion,
- There’s high probability opinions were many people agree likely true, buyers make the jump of faith and spend good money to obtain .
- There’s low probability opinions that no one agrees with and no one‘s willing to waste money to obtain.
Anyway good luck with your “Comiskey” photo, you might take it to that airport with the expensive equipment and have it verified, Perhaps one day it’ll be the rarest and most valuable knife in the world

Yup, Probably will be just my legacy after where all gone. I know the deck is stacked against me, maybe not being in the click, buts that's okay with me. The wise folks posts understand if they lean one way or another, better to stay quite if afraid of negative repercussions. My opinion of bigfanNY opinions doesn't bother me in the least, a terrible comparisons between disbanded a 1879 team versus a later 1881 team. I'm imagine there is some correspondence between members to throw my opinion under the bus, but to the little collector folks here, never give up the ship if you think your right--fight-fight-fight--thank Tom

[Directly]

(All you need is one person to believe your lies and you cash in)


I've begun to sell my collection due to not getting any younger, more importantly my daughter has zero interest, she recommend I sell. I've already sold a few cards for a fair price. I will be receiving a offer on my " many hundreds" of unopened Sport card boxes inventory --bigfanNY I sleep very well at night, no dept that I couldn't pay off.

Just for the record--bigfanNY Im okay with you bashing my photo, but to say I'm looking to rip someone off and lie could be slanderous.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by Directly

(All you need is one person to believe your lies and you cash in)


I've begun to sell my collection due to not getting any younger, more importantly my daughter has zero interest, she recommend I sell. I've already sold a few cards for a fair price. I will be receiving a offer on my " many hundreds" of unopened Sport card boxes inventory --bigfanNY I sleep very well at night, no dept that I couldn't pay off.

Just for the record--bigfanNY Im okay with you bashing my photo, but to say I'm looking to rip someone off and lie could be slanderous.

It could be. It could also be that the veiled threat behind your quote is designed to shut me up so that there is one less person shining a light under the rock this crap is oozing from. Could be..

[Directly]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

It could be. It could also be that the veiled threat behind your quote is designed to shut me up so that there is one less person shining a light under the rock this crap is oozing from. Could be..

No, quite the contrary not a threat. I'm not familiar with the law or the legal definition. thanks Tom