Circa 1846 Daguerreotype – Alexander Joy Cartwright debate

[benjulmag]

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.