There is and will be useful and important technology, including for identifying alterations, but humans will always be involved in assigning grades. One thing is the criterion for a grade is subjective and human-made (and different people, including here at Net54, have different views on what should be the criterion), and how to balance competing qualities likely requires human judgment. Aesthetics aspects can likely only be judged by humans. And you want a human to notice obvious errors in the technology's opinion.
The experienced human eye is a sophisticated tool. When you look at a T206 Honus Wagner and instantly know it's a reprint, that's sophistication a computer program can't do.
But new technologies and techniques for identifying alterations is a good idea.
In authenticating rare ancient artifacts, both the art historians and science are used. Each has an important viewpoint and knowledge, and double check each other-- and when they both agree, you are in good shape. Science can identify when the art history opinion is in error, but the art historian can identify thngs the science tests misses or doesn't test. The scientific tests are very specific-- testing one thing or aspect and often done on only one part of the item-- and the art historian gives a broader view. I think grading is similar, though these people are often trying to identify and date unique items.
Alterations are often a part of ancient artifact forgeries, so they are seasoned in identifying physical alterations of many kinds.
Last edited by drcy; 06-28-2019 at 12:33 PM.
|
06-28-2019, 12:12 PM
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
