Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Grob
There continues to be some confusion with the information I have been providing. I am NOT advocating ANY sort of “point system” for the evaluation of photographs. To be perfectly honest, I have never been a fan of point systems or the assigning of numerical grades to artifacts and memorabilia. The graphic I provided on Facial Reference (FR) and Context Reference (CR) is nothing more than a tool that facilitates the visual representation of various degrees of certainty that a person might have in their opinion when using the screening criteria of FR and CR. It also serves the purposes of highlighting these two areas, thus permitting someone to see the particular strengths or weaknesses in any argument or counterargument on the subject at hand. Please notice that the graph shows ranges and degrees from Low to High.
The use of numbers only serves the purpose of allowing folks to have a discussion using a common vocabulary or point of reference as they discuss what quadrant they feel their analysis and assessment might best fit in and why.
It is and was NEVER intended to be used as some device or protocol that says if you get “x” number of points, then the photograph is what is purported to be. I simply offered a tool that I think has merit in allowing individuals make and defend objective and informed assessments. Nothing more than that. All I am attempting to do (and it appears not very well) is to share information and protocols that I have used or leveraged over the past 20+ years as an intelligence analyst that might have utility in the area of evaluating memorabilia and answering questions about artifacts.
I am also not the author of the forthcoming SABR article. In the future, when time permits, I do plan on writing a piece that details the use of a grid system to facilitate facial recognition.
Dave Grob
Dave Grob1@aol.com |
Dave,
To echo what Scott said, I don't think there is really any confusion about what you posted. I think it was very clear as to what your point is. I think even the OP understood it.
Though the OP didn't answer my question as to what he hopes to accomplish by continuing this conversation, I do have an idea. I think his goal is to twist the logic and rationale presented by the board to create the appearance that we agree with his assertions. He is hoping that we won't follow up with a comment clarifying our position so as to clearly state that we are not agreeing with him, like you did above, so that he can go to seller or AH using our words. I can see no other logical reason for him continuing this.