Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

I'd be extremely surprised if Ms. Iremonger didn't examine the originals, Gareth. That's all.

Hi Mike,

I'm afraid I can't answer those questions. I do not examine documents professionally. I've only noted that those who do are strongly of the opinion that original documents are necessary for conducting a proper analysis, and that computerized images aren't nearly as suitable for the job. Crystal and others can weigh in on the particulars, although I have a feeling she has done so already.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

Sam Flynn, light of my posting life, I want you to explain something to me: I detect that you are less than enthusiastic about an examination of the originals - how curious! Surely you want the real answer here...or is it just yours that interests you? Michael: if you got your head out of your posterior for one bleedin second, you'd see that the answers to your questions are right here, on the thread from Hell. Ben: You are, as always, entirely correct. As for Miss Iremonger looking at copies: Please, stop being so bloody silly, and Flynn - put your toys back in the pram?

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn, light of my posting life, I want you to explain something to me: I detect that you are less than enthusiastic about an examination of the originals - how curious!

I resent and refute that shoddy implication.

Surely you want the real answer here...or is it just yours that interests you?

I am, by training, inclination and vocation, a scientist. I am only interested in the facts - be they the facts surrounding Ms Iremonger's examination (was it at Kew? did she use originals or photocopies?), or the facts concerning the value of comparing originals versus scanned images in the context of signature comparison. I'm not in the least bit interested in speculation, personal wish-fulfillment nor in championing the merits, or otherwise, of experts.

Flynn - put your toys back in the pram

I went from infancy almost directly to middle-age, so I gave up toys long, long ago.

[The Good Michael]

Crystal,

If the answer is right here, how come both Ben and I can't see it? Let's say you find the originals and look at them. With me so far? I know it's challenging for you, but stay with me. Then you post your opinions. What does that tell us? It tells us your opinions. Suppose you then created an image of the documents and posted it to corroborate your opinions. Still there? Good. How do your copies of the originals become more important than the copies we have? If you can't send us all the originals to look at, then anything you do is invalid... unless copies can be good representations of the originals. And we're back to my question, aren't we. Now remove your head from your nether regions and explain yourself.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

It tells us your opinions. Suppose you then created an image of the documents and posted it to corroborate your opinions

Not sure why'd she do that, Mike (?).

Document examiners assess original documents. They wouldn't send anything to "us" unless we were in a position to pass critical assessment on their findings, and we'd only be in that position if we were document examiners ourselves, which we're not. So sending us copies to "corroborate (Crystal's) opinion" (assessing her assessment, in other words) would be an exercise in futility. Nobody's suggsting that copies are completely useless. It has simply been observed that they aren't nearly as suitable for the task as the originals.

Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

You're a broken record. I want to know why they are infinitely better, so much better in fact, that I will do a 180 when I find out the answers. Let Crystal answer. I know you two are entwined, but she's a big girl.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

I want to know why they are infinitely better, so much better in fact, that I will do a 180 when I find out the answers. Let Crystal answer.

Rather, let those adherents of the "originals are better than scans" school of thought point to some empirical research which shows what the differences are, and in which specific contexts do the differences become relevant?

If that can't be easily done, then at least will someone finally confirm precisely which materials Iremonger had at her disposal when she made her comparison?

Until and unless both questions are answered, we will be stuck with an eternal game of "opinion ping-pong", I fear.

[Crystal]

I have explained myself Mike, several times. I know this will mean an immense effort for you but just go back a couple of pages - where I set out exactly what I'm doing. If that is beyond you, I'm sorry. You seem to be missing the point by several hundred miles. We don't need more bloody copies: who cares who makes them? We have already gone as far as we can with bloody copies - that's the point. As for the difference, it's immense. If it wasn't, I wouldn't waste valuable time doing it. What other reason do you think I might have? Do tell.

[The Good Michael]

As for the difference, it's immense.

Well, that answers it all. You know that the originals are immensely different. I'm sold. Toppy isn't Hutch everyone!

Mike

[Stephen Thomas]

Crystal,

Don't forget to buy a loaf of bread to feed the ducks if you're going to visit Kew Gardens. I used to go there all the time in the 1960s and 1970s when it cost one (token) penny to get in. A wonderful place

[Crystal]

Mike, your hysterical tone is quite astonishing - are we all going to hear exactly how I've earned this emnity from you, or would you prefer to keep it to yourself? I fail to see what a hypothetical'entwinement' with Ben has to do with anything. I call it a cheap shot. As to my 'opinion': when did empirical data become a matter of opinion, exactly? In case you care, much of what I will do at Kew will involve measurements. My methodology will be included in the outcme. I have no wish or intention of obscuring anything - indeed, that is rather the point. Or did you think I'd be doing my nails and writing 'Crystal 'n' Ben 4 Eva' in my heart-filled notebook? Hmm?

[Sam Flynn]

As to my 'opinion': when did empirical data become a matter of opinion, exactly?

Where are the empirical data that prove that viewing originals makes a significant difference to the specific matter of signature analysis, compared to viewing scanned images?

[Crystal]

What? I trust you're not entirely dense, Flynn? I had you down as an intelligent man - in all seriousness. If you really can't work this out for yourself, I'll be surprised.

[Sam Flynn]

What? I trust you're not entirely dense, Flynn? I had you down as an intelligent man - in all seriousness.

Thank you - and you're right. I'm not entirely dense.

If you really can't work this out for yourself, I'll be surprised.

I don't want to work it out, though, Crystal - I want to see proof. For anyone to claim that "originals are best" then I presume there must be existing studies that demonstrate as much; if not, it would be simplicity itself to devise an experiment to test it. For example:

One group of document examiners are given original documents containing signatures to compare (Group A), and another group (Group B) are given scanned images of signatures. Their accuracy of both groups in matching the signatures is scored and the results compared. A simple statistical test will show whether there's a significant difference in the accuracy of Group A compared to Group B.

Not rocket science, but science nonetheless.

[Ben]

Hi Crystal,

It's more than enough for me that the individuals with actual experience and background in this topic are those who recognise that it is far more desirable to study original documents than scanned copies, and that number naturally includes Dr. Leander, whose opinion we've already discussed. I wonder what the alternative is supposed to be? That document examiners the world over all conspired to create a grand "pretense" that the originals are preferable to scans?

And as you say, you will be including your methodology in the results.

Best regards,
Ben