Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...

[Jim Nugent]

Only in America is the completely illogical (and rather confusing) month/day/year format - 10/9/14 - used.

Here's the logic: in America we typically say October 9, 2014.  So we write the date with numbers in that order as well.  If we said 9 October 2014, my guess is we would write the first two numbers in reverse, as people do in many other parts of the world. 

[Neil_Crafter]

David, as Phil said they compared the signatures in the diaries and the will with the drawing - meaning all were corroborated. I was surmising when I said the solicitors and authenticators probably had access to other signatures, and while I do not know that for a fact, there is a fair probability that was done. They were not assumptions as you allege, I used the word 'I suspect' which is a big distance away from assuming. Parsing words with a lawyer should not be that difficult.

I don't know why David, why can't you find it? Are you now suggesting the will is suspect too? Crikey, this conspiracy gets bigger by the moment.......

And while I'm at it, please do take another look at the signature on your find of the 1911 census form and tell me if you genuinely think it looks like the well practiced signature of a man aged 35 or thereabouts?

[DMoriarty]

Neil,

You just said that it was "laughable" to compare the signature on the drawing to the signature in the diaries.  Now you seem to be saying that that is exactly what they did.   Laughable indeed.

As for the will, the reason I cannot find it in the National Registry Index is because it is not there.

As for the signature on the Census form, the form itself indicates that it is the signature of "David Scott Taylor."  If you want to argue it isn't, that is certainly your prerogative. 

[Neil_Crafter]

David
Boy, you really like arguing and misrepresenting what others say. What I said was that they compared all three sets of signatures, INCLUDING THE KNOWN ONE FROM THE WILL. I did not say they only compared the drawing and the diaries by themselves. But while doing their work, I'm sure they checked to see that the signature on the drawing was by the same hand as in the diaries.

I asked you a question about the signature on the census form which you ignored, and I will ask it again - do you think the signature on the form is the well practiced signature of a professional man in his mid thirties? I realise that neither of us are handwriting experts, but just take a stab at it for me.

You also stated that the form itself indicates that it is the signature of "David Scott Taylor."

My reading is that someone has signed "David Scott-Taylor" on the line where it says Signature. The two are quite different, and you as a lawyer should well know that.

[DMoriarty]

Given you've indicated you won't discuss any of this with me, you sure seem intent on keeping this conversation going.  To try and address your post, hopefully for the last time . . .

I misrepresented nothing.  The signatures in the diaries cannot reasonably be used as a valid point of comparison, regardless of the will. Yet Phil tells us that this was done.  Doesn't matter what else they used for comparison, they cannot use the diaries.   And we don't know yet whether the will can reasonably be used as a point of comparison, either.  

I didn't ignore your question.  I told you that I take the census form at face value.  

What do you mean by "professional man?"  Are you saying that the signature doesn't look like that of a Doctor?  It wasn't.

Your last two sentences are gibberish.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Questions for Phil and Ian regarding the "report."

1.  Specifically, what sample specimens were used to authenticate the the "David Scott-Taylor" signature, and what was the source of these specimens.

2.  Was David Scott-Taylor a practicing medical doctor in 1911?

Thanks.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Only in America is the completely illogical (and rather confusing) month/day/year format - 10/9/14 - used.

Here's the logic: in America we typically say October 9, 2014.  So we write the date with numbers in that order as well.  If we said 9 October 2014, my guess is we would write the first two numbers in reverse, as people do in many other parts of the world.  

We too say "October the 9th 2014" as often as not. Where the logic comes on however, is when the date is expressed solely in digital form.

It is surely logical to express the date in order of magnitude; day/month/year or year/month/day  rather than flipping between.

This means that I can file my Word and Excel documents chronologically simply by adding the date as a title suffix.

Under the American format this is impossible.

[DMoriarty]

 I prefer yyyymmdd on anything digital for the reason you said. Works great for indexing and sorting.

[Neil_Crafter]

David you are fast alienating everyone on this thread. That's it for me.
Enjoy the echo.

[DMoriarty]

Thank goodness.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I prefer yyyymmdd on anything digital for the reason you said. Works great for indexing and sorting.

The most sense you've made all week, David!  

[Phil Young]

Mark,

You wrote: “I don't approve of the use of subterfuge.  But "terrified"?  Really?  By a call from the USA  that she seems to have handled with ease?  You aren't overstating things just a little?”

No Mark, and as I see has already posted, I am actually UNDERSTATING the incident in what I wrote. As Ian also stated the family has contacted the police.

Ryan,

You wrote: “Stole my sentiments. It was a misguided golf anorak who rang up. Not Jack the Ripper.”

Sorry Ryan, but different people react differently. As I mentioned to Mark above I actually downplayed the incident. It didn’t happen to you, and more importantly, it didn’t happen to your wife or daughter (if you either or both). If one of them received a strange phone call asking for personal information, refused to identify themselves or the company they represented they work for and it shook them up, I think your attitude would be a bit different.

John Kavanaugh, thank you for understanding.

[Phil Young]

David,

You show that you don't even bother to READ what is contained in the essay where I quoted from the report. In the section where the Road hole drawing is discussed it CLEARLY states:

These signatures were compared with copies and originals of the four persons indicated on the drawing.

One of those four persons was David Scott-Taylor. The solicitors have a number of his original signatures in their own files including the one he used to sign his will. The family also supplied signatures from personal documents of the type that even a stupid burglar could find in any of our homes.

Those ORIGINALS were matched against both the signature on the Road hole drawing and the NUMEROUS times he signed the bottom of the pages in his diaries. THAT is how his signature was authenticated.

Now, for the VERY last time, YOU do what I have asked and demanded of you several times and which you CONSTANTLY avoid doing. I wrote:

"So please provide the proof that this is from an accepted copy of Ian’s grandfather’s signature since, during the first third of the 20th century during the time that his grandfather was alive, there were at least two other Dr. David Scott-Taylor’s that the various British medical societies have knowledge of, including the gentleman down in Australia that was mentioned in the first “discussion” and who most definitely was not Ian’s grandfather."

You have constantly demanded that others to provide proof and hound them until they do… It’s time for you to produce your proof that the signature you provided is that of Ian’s grandfather. You specifically stated that you believed that to be true. You wrote: “But I also have little doubt that the David Scott-Taylor described in that obituary is the same person who signed his name as I posted above. The facts described therein fit with the David Scott-Taylor whose signature I have found.  Here again is the signature, below the supposed signature from the Road Hole painting.”
 
You had the audacity to tell me that you would post the census page but ONLY after I answered your questions. Sorry, but I demanded that you provide proof that the signature you provided is that of Ian’s grandfather and to ALSO post the census page.

Again, to back up my statement that you demand that I answer YOUR questions BEFORE you will provide the proof, YOU wrote this: “Nonetheless, perhaps we can work out an amicable deal. Tell me about your David Scott-Taylor's first marriage, including his wife's name, when they were married, and the names of any children (if any) and in return I'll fill you in on "the exact details" relating to the signature.”

So, if you have any hope of me answering any question for you again you will post the proof of your claim so that it can be “vetted” here by all. Otherwise, don’t expect anything.

[Phil Young]

Ryan,

You wrote: "Surely the experts are paid to give their opinion in a professional capacity for interested party's consumption?" Correct. In this case the interested party is the solicitors for the estate of Mrs. Scott-Taylor who hired them for that specific purpose.

"Peer review and scrutiny is what they are being paid for." Incorrect. They were hired to authenticate and not to write a scholarly paper. Secondly, proper "peer review" is when a paper is directly presented to specific experts who are recognized and professionally accepted as being "peers" of those who wrote it. They didn't provide the initial report nor will they provide the final report for that purpose or to "Peers" of theirs for review of which I seriously doubt there are any on gca.

Also, it was not for "peer review and scrutiny." By that logic, every piece of art that gets authenticated through Christie's prior to the auction should have the entire details of the authentications made public to all. That doesn't happen.

"Anonymous verification or authentication is a complete contradiction in terms. Defies all logic. Would you pay an institution to verify something if they insisted that their verification remain anonymous?" Again, that is NOT what happened here. It was not done "anonymously." They signed the report with all of the names of the institutions and individuals attached. They will take phone calls from any and all to discuss their work but ONLY from those for whom they provided the authentication.

"Unless of course the owner doubts the material and wanted it verified for personal reasons." The owners never had doubts about the material and neither did anyone personally involved with them for the estate. This was specifically done for reasons, a few of which I mentioned in my essay, but the majority of which will remain private.

"Piss or get off the potty springs to mind. Put it all out there or put it back under the bed." Interesting comment, but so far almost every challenge to the essay involves not the authentications but rather of Ian's grandfather. The information as to the specific means of testing and authenticating each item is there. Point of fact is that there isn't a single person on gca or someone to whom they approach off gca that can definitively disprove the facts of the authentications and testings done because they have NEVER even seen the items in person nor conducted any sort of test on them.
  
I'm calling it a day...

[Tim_Cronin]

All this over two drawings? Or did I miss something here?

They're fine drawings. If they're Tilly's, great. If not, they're still fine drawings, but not really worth the dispute.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Phil,

your comparison to Christie's doesn't work for me at all.

I have never seen a reputable auctioneer (which would include Christie's and many others), who do not make the details of their authentications available to any and all who ask. It is also not true that the identity of an external expert doing the authentication is withheld - in fact their name and some details are always and automatically published in the auction catalog (be it on paper or online or both).

Again: external experts are automatically and always identified. Details of the authentication are not automatically published, but available to all who ask.

The reason why Christie's et. al. do it is extremely simple: the piece of art is worth a lot more money with an attached evaluation by an external expert.

Note that in the above I write "external expert". In the case of an "internal expert", i. e. an employee of Christie's, his name is not identified automatically, but again you just have to call and can even talk to them. I have done this many times and never been turned down.

Everything that you find in a Christie's auction catalog has been evaluated by one of their internal experts. There is no need to explicitly state that, as prospective buyers are well aware of that and in fact choose to buy at a reputable house like Christie's largely because of that.

Ulrich

[Bruce Wellmon]

I'd like to add one other thing the phone call came from the United States!

The police where notified and a report has been filed. 

One would think that in today's technologically advanced age that, if you already know the phone call came from the US, and the authorities have been notified, this should be a most rapid investigation.
Check the caller ID.
Or the authorities check the phone records.
Please notify us immediately the true identity of the culprit.

[Ryan Coles]

Mark,

You wrote: “I don't approve of the use of subterfuge.  But "terrified"?  Really?  By a call from the USA  that she seems to have handled with ease?  You aren't overstating things just a little?”

No Mark, and as I see has already posted, I am actually UNDERSTATING the incident in what I wrote. As Ian also stated the family has contacted the police.

Ryan,

You wrote: “Stole my sentiments. It was a misguided golf anorak who rang up. Not Jack the Ripper.”

Sorry Ryan, but different people react differently. As I mentioned to Mark above I actually downplayed the incident. It didn’t happen to you, and more importantly, it didn’t happen to your wife or daughter (if you either or both). If one of them received a strange phone call asking for personal information, refused to identify themselves or the company they represented they work for and it shook them up, I think your attitude would be a bit different.

John Kavanaugh, thank you for understanding.

Phil, if there was more too it, fair enough. I understand.

However your description complete with quotation marks gives the impression of being verbatim. Your outrage and apparent hyperbole are not commensurate with your quotations. That is all.

[DMoriarty]

Phil,

I think the fundamental conflict in this thread is that you expect us to take your word for everything.  To name just a few things . . .
 - You expect us to take your word that the unnamed experts are qualified.
 - You expect us to take your word that you have accurately and completely represented their findings.
 - You expect us to take your word that the information and materials you provided them was complete and accurate.
 - You expect us to take your word that the control samples were authentic.
 - You expect us to take your word that various unidentified british medical societies have records of not one, not two, but three David Scott-Taylor's practicing medicine in England and Wales at the same time, and that two of them were the same age and both acted as ship doctors!
I could go on, but really what it comes down to is that you expect us to take your word for EVERYTHING.

First, and most obviously, that is just not how critical analysis works.   Information needs to be verified.  Facts need to be vetted.  

Second, you and Ian have repeatedly proven that, in your case in particular, we most definitely should not take your word for anything, because you two have repeatedly mislead us regarding the source material.  Just a few of many examples:

1.  The St. Andrews Dinner.  Your amazingly detailed story of the supposed dinner between Tillinghast and the other three turned out to be a work of fiction.  But most importantly in this context you repeatedly misrepresented the source of the information in that story.  You told us again and again that you had relied on the diaries, and that all the information all came straight out of the diaries, and the diaries would back everything up.

This was simply not true.   And your representation that you and relied on the diaries was a flat out misrepresentation on your part.  You hadn't even seen the relevant diary pages.

2.  The "Scores Hotel" MacKenzie Note. You also repeated claimed that the alleged May 12, 1901 MacKenzie note was written on Scores Hotel Letterhead.  This was a key fact in your first Story.  But it turns out that this wasn't true at all.   Yet, again and again you had indicated that the letter was on Score's letterhead.  Didn't you even say that only reason the letterhead wasn't included in your first Story was because Ian's relative had mistakenly forgotten to copy it?  That wasn't true at all, was it?

You and Ian repeatedly mislead us about this key fact, and then you just dropped it from your narrative with no explanation whatsoever.

3.  MacKenzie's Presence in St. Andrews.  Here is one not yet discussed . . .  Back when you were trying to convince me offline that the St. Andrews dinner had most definitely taken place exactly as you had described (this of course was false),  you claimed that your MacKenzie "expert" could verify that Alistair MacKenzie was definitely in St. Andrews on the date of the dinner.   Here is exactly what you wrote:

"In addition, Neil Crafter, probably the foremost MacKenzie expert, has been able to prove that MacKenzie was at St. Andrews at this time as part of the authentication process."

This is simply false. Neil has confirmed it is false.  Neil has done no such thing. You knew or should have known it was false.

There is plenty more, but hopefully you and others get the point here.   You and Ian cannot be trusted when it comes to accurately presenting facts in this case.  Everything must be verified.   Everything should be verified regardless of your past record, but given your past record it becomes all that much more important.

I'll address the rest of your post later.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here is the 1911 Census record for a "David Scott-Taylor" that David has been putting forth as the showing the signature of the David Scott-Taylor under discussion.  Is this really the guy - a Sargent in the Royal Marines born in Perthshire in 1876 and living in southern England in 1911?

You can click through to get a larger image.

[Sean_A]

Ulrich

You are treating the items in questions as if they were in an auction...of course, they are not.  So why would the authentication process be made public?  I have had items valued for personal reasons and I wouldn't expect that information to be made public.  If the items in question were in an auction, then of course, prospective buyers should have access to information which validates the merchandise.  It is in the seller's interest to make this info available.  I can see no proper reason why people think they should have access to this private info unless the sketches were for sale.  The issue you have is with the person who wrote the story.  If he wants his story to be more plausible it is in his interest to find a way for the info to be disclosed. Phil doesn't seem willing to do this.  So you are left with what is written...take it or leave it...its that simple.  Whatever the case may be, there isn't much point in treating the sketches if they were in a public auction when they are not.  Remember, this is a story.  If you don't buy it and the issue means that much to you, its up to you to disprove it. Its not up to Phil to provide every scrap of detail and fact that is demanded of him.  

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

Thank You Bryan.  Finally.

To begin to answer your question, I believe this is "really the guy."

Look more closely at his place of origin. "Alyth." 

Earlier in this thread Phil stated that Ian's grandfather studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh in 1894.  Phil's proof was an entry in the 1894 Edinburgh Medical Journal.  Here is that entry:



"David Scott Taylor,  Alyth."

So either there were two David Scott-Taylors from "Alyth" studying medicine at University of Edinburgh in 1894, or that is our guy.   

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean,

the auction idea was not mine, I merely responded to Phil bringing it into the discussion. He drew a comparsion between the authentication process as it has taken place in this case to one that would ordinarily take place in the case of a reputable auctioneer like Christie's (his example, not mine).

The point of my posting is just that IMHO he cannot maintain "Christie's does it that way as well", because they precisely don't.

Ulrich

[DMoriarty]

For further explanation . . .

The Royal Marines is a branch of the Royal Navy, so technically DST was in the Royal Navy.  But he was neither an officer nor a medical officer in the Royal Navy as Ian and Phil have claimed.  He seems to have become a doctor in 1916, at which point he was discharged from the Royal Navy when he volunteer for the Royal Army Medical Corp.  

Below is David Scott-Taylor's WWI Military Index Card:




Also, note in the snippet from the Edinburgh Medical Journal that that no actual medical degree was conferred on DST at Edinburgh in 1894. David Scott Taylor had just passed the first exam.

[DMoriarty]

Now comes the interesting part.  Will Ian and Phil acknowledge that this is the right guy?  Or will they insist that this must be another David Scott-Taylor . . .  . also of Alyth  . . . who joined a branch of the the Royal Navy . . . was also discharged from the Royal Navy in 1916 . . . who also then volunteered for the Royal Army Medical core that same year . . . who also served as a ship's doctor.

If so, I'd like to know Ian's grandfather's Regiment No.  And his wife's name and children's (if any) name and vitals.  And his address in 1911.

[Jonathan Mallard]

So far, to me anyway, the two threads containing all the back and forth are at least as interesting as the underlying items being discussed.