>>That seems to be your modus operandi Mark, to directly attack a person's competence if he dares disagree you.

After what you have posted you’ve got to be kidding me. That is just what you did. Mancusi’s competence is the core of your argument. I have not said that Mr. Richards is not competent and his report certainly disagrees with me. Really, some of the things you say are simply amazing.

>>And you present technical arguments with fancy illustrations that I dare say very few people have the expertise to evaluate.

The majority of people that communicate with me on this understand them quite well. There are a lot of people on this board and within SABR that have some aptitude for this. The presentations make them think about what they are actually seeing in these photos and correlate well with their own experience. I also get a lot of very good questions. A small minority (of those that contact me) do not understand. I am quite convinced that you do not understand. Also, this is not to say I can't make a mistake with respect to some particular point, but I don't believe that is the case here.

>>you explicitly told me that photo ID is all science and no art,...

That is false, and if I thought that why would I seek out a forensic artist.

>> that photo ID should not take provenance and other external information into account…

No, in fact I specifically asked for you anything you had in that regard.

>> You explicitly told me that…..Cartwright couldn't be in the half plate because based on your analysis there were exclusionary differences between subject C and subject A1.

I did not think that C could be the same person as A, but I also said I needed professional validation and I entertained the possibility that such an expert might not agree with me.

My position was as stated on p. 6:
When I first compared subjects C and A1, I thought that they could not be the same person due to the described feature differences. I also thought that a forensic artist would likely come to the same conclusion, but I was not absolutely certain as to whether the C image was clear enough to yield that result.

>> As to the shots you take at my competence to do photo ID, at least I can admit I know my limitations and don't put myself out to be someone I am not.

Your newly found humbleness is refreshing. I never heard any of it when you insisted H and G were Curry and Adams. I was completely frank and honest about my limitations. From the beginning I told you I was an amateur. And in the newsletter from p.5:
“I am, to say the least, not a practicing forensic artist. Though not a “professional”, if you read this publication often you know that I have “tried this at home,” having studied the subject as best as I can in the available time. I have a good track record of applying sound principles within my limitations, but I certainly can’t do all the things that a trained practitioner can do and I lack the many hours of “face-time” one gets in a full-time job.”

In the end, people interested in this subject will have to make their own judgments as to my level of competence. Most importantly they will be completely uninterested in our debating your interpretation of what I said to you in private communications that I have not published.

Corey, do you know if any hallmark is stamped on the daguerreotype plate?

Assuming Henry Tiebout Anthony is pictured, it won't come as a surprise that this particular dag was taken in his (and brother Edward) studio or at least the plate shows a hallmark from their photo supply company (or possibly another ?)

If the dag was cleaned/resealed, there's a good chance a hallmark was brought to light after 160 years hiding behind the original paper seals.

Dag plates used/sold by the Anthony's have about 4 known (at least to me) plate hallmarks ranging from 1847 til 1855.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.