You used the word "interesting" but didn't go into detail. I can't know what you meant.
I'm not "schooling" you. You can't, on this forum, just make a statement like "Hoffstätter was the only maker" and not expect someone who has looked into the matter previously to ask whether you have proof. We have had a few people over the years (not you) who came on here thinking they could use bluster and volume and everyone would say "yeah, that sounds convincing, it must be true" but all eventually hit the wall when it came time to provide proof for what they were saying. Ailsby was a good example of this. By the way, I'm not agreeing with you. I said that I "tend" to agree because I personally do not know of any unequivocal proof for the assumption that Hoffstätter was the only maker. Neither do you apparently but you made the statement nonetheless and now it's somehow my fault.
The ethos of this forum has always been that proof is fundamental. Otherwise it's just a chat forum open to abuse like many others where the discussion is often settled by a moderator siding with his mate and banning people or dealers coming to the aid of other dealers even when it is obvious that the item is only being discussed in that way because nobody has any proof. This is why I and others on this forum, including Jo, have spent years doing our best to provide that proof. Anecdotes, collector experience, hands-on experience etc are all vital in building up a more complete picture but if you state that "item A was always 14cm wide and made of black cloth" and I show you period evidence to the contrary surely that is helpful information? You in your turn then show why you believe what you do and the conversation, the research, is developed.
No, I don't know what you have read or researched but you clearly didn't read the thread in its entirety. If you had, you would perhaps have found the issue of Hoffstätter being the only maker having been discussed here years ago. It's up to you what you do here. The forum is not behind a paywall, it is free to use and you have better access than most members which I hope you are finding useful.
I don't have a clue what you have been reading on the forum and I don't really care. If you find the forum useful then it has fulfilled its purpose. I and others on here will sometimes spend two or three hours researching an answer to a question and it might get three views, maybe a thumbs-up and no comments but in my case, I have had fun and hope that someone, someday will find that post and get use out of it. It doesn't always work out that way of course and that information might end up being regurgitated on another forum after having been posted by someone who doesn't any longer know where he read it (or by someone who does know but who chooses not to say). It used to annoy me but now I just say whatever. I don't care about other forums, I'm not a member of any and so whenever I can help I do it here.
You have no need to defend Jo. I know how much he knew about HJ items because he was here for many years and I know that he learned a lot on this forum (as did many from him in his own area of expertise). The research started and developed on this forum, that was my point.
I'm not "schooling" you. You can't, on this forum, just make a statement like "Hoffstätter was the only maker" and not expect someone who has looked into the matter previously to ask whether you have proof. We have had a few people over the years (not you) who came on here thinking they could use bluster and volume and everyone would say "yeah, that sounds convincing, it must be true" but all eventually hit the wall when it came time to provide proof for what they were saying. Ailsby was a good example of this. By the way, I'm not agreeing with you. I said that I "tend" to agree because I personally do not know of any unequivocal proof for the assumption that Hoffstätter was the only maker. Neither do you apparently but you made the statement nonetheless and now it's somehow my fault.
The ethos of this forum has always been that proof is fundamental. Otherwise it's just a chat forum open to abuse like many others where the discussion is often settled by a moderator siding with his mate and banning people or dealers coming to the aid of other dealers even when it is obvious that the item is only being discussed in that way because nobody has any proof. This is why I and others on this forum, including Jo, have spent years doing our best to provide that proof. Anecdotes, collector experience, hands-on experience etc are all vital in building up a more complete picture but if you state that "item A was always 14cm wide and made of black cloth" and I show you period evidence to the contrary surely that is helpful information? You in your turn then show why you believe what you do and the conversation, the research, is developed.
No, I don't know what you have read or researched but you clearly didn't read the thread in its entirety. If you had, you would perhaps have found the issue of Hoffstätter being the only maker having been discussed here years ago. It's up to you what you do here. The forum is not behind a paywall, it is free to use and you have better access than most members which I hope you are finding useful.
I don't have a clue what you have been reading on the forum and I don't really care. If you find the forum useful then it has fulfilled its purpose. I and others on here will sometimes spend two or three hours researching an answer to a question and it might get three views, maybe a thumbs-up and no comments but in my case, I have had fun and hope that someone, someday will find that post and get use out of it. It doesn't always work out that way of course and that information might end up being regurgitated on another forum after having been posted by someone who doesn't any longer know where he read it (or by someone who does know but who chooses not to say). It used to annoy me but now I just say whatever. I don't care about other forums, I'm not a member of any and so whenever I can help I do it here.
You have no need to defend Jo. I know how much he knew about HJ items because he was here for many years and I know that he learned a lot on this forum (as did many from him in his own area of expertise). The research started and developed on this forum, that was my point.
