{ "dataset_version": "0.9", "dataset_date": "2026-08-12", "licence": { "metadata": "CC0 1.0 Universal (Public Domain Dedication)", "spdx": "CC0-1.0", "url": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "note": "Descriptive metadata and the census are dedicated to the public domain. Reuse them for anything, including commercially, without asking and without attribution — though a citation helps other people find the source. Written prose on the site is CC BY 4.0. Comparator photographs belong to the institutions that made them and carry the terms stated on each comparator record." }, "type": "questions", "count": 12, "by_status": { "open": 5, "partially_resolved": 1, "resolved": 4, "under_investigation": 2 }, "suitable_for_student": 5, "records": [ { "id": "RQ-01", "slug": "does-this-impression-carry-the-signature", "title": "Does this impression carry the signature “Rembrandt f. 1638”?", "status": "resolved", "opened": "2026-08-12", "updated": "2026-08-12", "difficulty": "low", "suitable_for_student": true, "why_it_matters": "The working record described the sheet as “without signature”, which reads oddly against a plate that is signed and dated in the plate from its first state. Establishing what the phrase refers to matters because it is one of the two grounds the auction house gave for its state determination.", "current_evidence": "The phrase comes from the catalogue entry, where it describes the state rather than the sheet: “New Hollstein 170, state III (of IV, without signature, diagonal scratch in plate at upper left only slightly visible).” The plate is signed from state I and the signature is redrawn in state IV. In the catalogue's reproductions it is legible in states I and IV and not clearly legible in either II or III — so an impression showing no signature is narrowed to state II or state III, and no further.", "hypotheses": [ { "statement": "The signature is present and the working record's phrase was copied from a description of a different lot.", "confidence": "rejected", "note": "Rejected 12 August 2026. The phrase came from this lot's own catalogue entry and describes the state correctly." }, { "statement": "The signature is physically present but lost to the trimming at the left margin.", "confidence": "rejected", "note": "Rejected. The signature sits at the upper left of the image, not in the margin, and the image area is intact." }, { "statement": "The signature had worn away or been burnished out by the third state.", "confidence": "strongly_supported", "note": "Supported by the catalogue's definition of state IV as the signature being redrawn, and by its reproduction of state III showing none." } ], "methods": [ "Photograph the recto and look. This is the whole method.", "If the signature area is damaged or ambiguous, examine under magnification and raking light.", "Compare the position of the signature against a high-resolution institutional impression before concluding that trimming removed it." ], "resolving_evidence": "Resolved by the catalogue entry and its reproductions, together with the auction house's photograph of the sheet.", "negative_findings": [], "resources": [ { "label": "Rijksmuseum RP-P-1961-989 (records the inscription)", "url": "https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/RP-P-1961-989" }, { "label": "Impression census — compare recorded inscriptions", "url": "/census" } ], "evidence_ids": [ "EV-LOT-182", "EV-NH-170", "EV-CONDITION-PHOTOS" ], "bibliography_ids": [], "related_questions": [ "RQ-02", "RQ-03" ], "contributions": [], "href": "https://theplatemark.com/research/questions/does-this-impression-carry-the-signature" }, { "id": "RQ-02", "slug": "which-of-the-four-states", "title": "Is this impression New Hollstein 170, state III?", "status": "under_investigation", "opened": "2026-08-12", "updated": "2026-08-12", "difficulty": "medium", "suitable_for_student": true, "why_it_matters": "State is the field that locates a sheet in the life of a plate. For this plate it does more than that: the catalogue is explicit that the work visible in the third state is not Rembrandt's. So the state determination decides whether this impression is a document of Rembrandt's workshop or of the plate's afterlife under other hands.", "current_evidence": "The catalogue entry is in hand and all four state descriptions are published on the state atlas. The auction cataloguer determined state III, citing two features: no signature, and a diagonal scratch in the plate at upper left only slightly visible. On closer reading the first of those does not discriminate — the catalogue's reproduction of state II does not show the signature clearly either, so an absent signature narrows the sheet to state II or III and no further. The determination therefore rests on the scratch and on the cataloguer's reading of the line-work. No specialist in Old Master prints has examined the sheet.", "hypotheses": [ { "statement": "The sheet is New Hollstein 170, state III — a posthumous rework of the plate.", "confidence": "possible", "note": "The auction cataloguer's determination. Lowered from probable on 12 August 2026 when one of its two stated grounds turned out not to discriminate between states II and III." }, { "statement": "The sheet is New Hollstein 170, state II — the plate as Rembrandt left it.", "confidence": "possible", "note": "State II is by far the most numerous state, it is the only state White & Boon recognised, and it is equally consistent with an impression showing no legible signature. It has not been excluded." } ], "methods": [ "Compare the sheet against the catalogue's diagnostic features for states II and III, feature by feature, recording each as present, absent or indeterminate.", "Compare against the catalogue's reproductions of 170/II and 170/III.", "Where a feature is indeterminate on the existing photographs, re-photograph that passage under raking light and magnification." ], "resolving_evidence": "A specialist comparing the sheet against the four features the catalogue uses to define state III: cross-hatching added at the base of the feather and along the brim of the cap above the eyes; the curved lines on the forehead extended over the brim; strong horizontal shading on the right ear; short diagonal lines in front of the left ear and on the beard at the right of the chin. Each is present or it is not, and the answer does not depend on anybody's opinion of the sheet.", "negative_findings": [], "resources": [ { "label": "British Museum collection online", "url": "https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection" }, { "label": "Rijksmuseum collection", "url": "https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection" }, { "label": "Impression census, filterable by state", "url": "/census" } ], "evidence_ids": [ "EV-NH-170", "EV-LOT-182", "EV-CONDITION-PHOTOS" ], "bibliography_ids": [], "related_questions": [ "RQ-01", "RQ-06", "RQ-09" ], "contributions": [], "href": "https://theplatemark.com/research/questions/which-of-the-four-states" }, { "id": "RQ-03", "slug": "plate-and-sheet-dimensions", "title": "What are the plate and sheet dimensions, and does a plate mark survive on any edge?", "status": "resolved", "opened": "2026-08-12", "updated": "2026-08-12", "difficulty": "low", "suitable_for_student": false, "why_it_matters": "Dimensions are how a census row is matched, and a figure whose convention is unstated cannot be compared with anything. The working record gives approximately 137 × 104 mm without saying whether that is the plate or the sheet, while also describing the sheet as roughly trimmed. The Rijksmuseum records 134 × 103 mm for its impression. A surviving plate mark on any edge also tells you how much of the original sheet is left, which bears on what evidence has been lost.", "current_evidence": "New Hollstein gives the plate as 13.4 × 10.3 cm. The auction cataloguer measured the sheet at 137 × 104 mm. The two figures measure different things, and both are on the record labelled with what they measure.", "hypotheses": [ { "statement": "The 137 × 104 mm figure is a sheet measurement including a margin beyond the plate mark on the untrimmed edges.", "confidence": "possible", "note": "Would be internally consistent: trimmed on one edge, margin retained on others." }, { "statement": "The figure was transcribed from a description of a different object.", "confidence": "possible", "note": "Shares a possible cause with RQ-01." } ], "methods": [ "Measure under a conservation protocol, recording plate mark and sheet separately, to the millimetre, stating the convention and the measuring instrument.", "Record which edges retain a plate mark and which are cut, edge by edge.", "Photograph with a scale bar in frame so the measurement is checkable from the image." ], "resolving_evidence": "Resolved by the catalogue's plate dimension. Remeasurement of the sheet under a conservation protocol, edge by edge, remains on the version 1.0 gate list as a matter of record quality rather than of doubt.", "negative_findings": [], "resources": [ { "label": "Rijksmuseum RP-P-1961-989", "url": "https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/RP-P-1961-989" }, { "label": "Bonhams 27424 lot 2 (comparator measurements)", "url": "https://www.bonhams.com/auction/27424/lot/2/" } ], "evidence_ids": [ "EV-NH-170", "EV-LOT-182" ], "bibliography_ids": [], "related_questions": [ "RQ-01", "RQ-07" ], "contributions": [], "href": "https://theplatemark.com/research/questions/plate-and-sheet-dimensions" }, { "id": "RQ-04", "slug": "watermark-identification", "title": "Does the sheet carry a watermark, and can it narrow the period in which this impression was printed?", "status": "open", "opened": "2026-08-12", "updated": "2026-08-12", "difficulty": "high", "suitable_for_student": false, "why_it_matters": "This is the question with the highest information value in the whole record. Rembrandt's plates were printed long after his death, and the image alone rarely settles when a given sheet was pulled. The paper can. Watermarks in the papers Rembrandt used have been studied and catalogued in enough depth that an identified mark can place a sheet within a range of years. A negative result — no watermark in the surviving area — is also a real result and would close the cheapest route to dating this impression.", "current_evidence": "Nothing. The sheet has not been examined in transmitted light. A comparator impression sold in 2022 carried a partial Strasbourg Lily watermark, which shows the kind of evidence that can survive on a trimmed sheet of this print.", "hypotheses": [ { "statement": "A watermark or watermark fragment survives in the sheet.", "confidence": "possible", "note": "Trimming reduces the odds. On a sheet of roughly this size the mark is as likely as not to fall outside what remains." }, { "statement": "If a mark is found and identified, it will indicate a printing later than Rembrandt's lifetime.", "confidence": "possible", "note": "Recorded as a hypothesis with no evidence behind it, so that it is on the board and cannot quietly become an assumption. The project has no finding on this." } ], "methods": [ "Transmitted-light photography, by a method a paper conservator approves in writing, capturing the full sheet.", "If a mark is present, record it to the standard descriptive conventions and measure it against the chain lines.", "Compare against the published corpora of watermarks in Rembrandt's papers.", "If no mark is visible, record the null result with the method used, so that the negative is as citable as a positive would be." ], "resolving_evidence": "A transmitted-light image, and either an identification against a published watermark corpus or a documented null result.", "negative_findings": [], "resources": [ { "label": "Conservation and material studies — imaging methods under consideration", "url": "/conservation" }, { "label": "Bibliography — watermark literature", "url": "/bibliography" } ], "evidence_ids": [ "EV-NO-CONSERVATOR" ], "bibliography_ids": [], "related_questions": [ "RQ-05", "RQ-06" ], "contributions": [], "href": "https://theplatemark.com/research/questions/watermark-identification" }, { "id": "RQ-05", "slug": "chain-line-spacing", "title": "What is the chain-line spacing, and does it match any impression already recorded in the census?", "status": "open", "opened": "2026-08-12", "updated": "2026-08-12", "difficulty": "medium", "suitable_for_student": true, "why_it_matters": "Chain lines are the widely spaced lines left in laid paper by the mould's supporting wires. Their spacing is a property of the individual mould, so it is a fingerprint of a batch of paper in a way that “laid paper” is not. Where a watermark is missing or fragmentary, chain-line spacing is sometimes the only measurable feature of the sheet — and unlike a watermark, it is present across the whole sheet, so trimming rarely removes it entirely. It is also a good student project: the measurement is straightforward once the image exists.", "current_evidence": "None. Laid structure has not been observed; even the claim that the support is laid paper is currently an assumption rather than an observation.", "hypotheses": [], "methods": [ "Measure chain-line intervals from the transmitted-light image, at several points, recording the range rather than a single figure.", "Record the laid-line density in the same image.", "Publish the measurements in a standard form so other holders of impressions can compare theirs — the value of this measurement is entirely in its comparability." ], "resolving_evidence": "Measurements taken from a transmitted-light image, published in a comparable format.", "negative_findings": [], "resources": [ { "label": "Paper fingerprint template", "url": "/conservation#paper-fingerprint" } ], "evidence_ids": [ "EV-NO-CONSERVATOR" ], "bibliography_ids": [], "related_questions": [ "RQ-04" ], "contributions": [], "href": "https://theplatemark.com/research/questions/chain-line-spacing" }, { "id": "RQ-06", "slug": "lifetime-or-posthumous", "title": "Was this impression printed during Rembrandt's lifetime, or later?", "status": "partially_resolved", "opened": "2026-08-12", "updated": "2026-08-12", "difficulty": "high", "suitable_for_student": false, "why_it_matters": "This is the question everything else feeds. Rembrandt's copper plates survived him and were printed, reworked and reprinted for a very long time afterwards. An impression pulled in the seventeenth century and one pulled in the nineteenth are the same image and are not the same object: they differ in what they record about the plate, in what they can be used to study, and in where they sit in the history of the print's transmission. The honest position today is that the project does not know, and no part of this record assumes an answer.", "current_evidence": "Substantially answered, and the answer follows from the state rather than from anything observed in the sheet. New Hollstein describes the work visible in state III as “Probably rebitten … Not by Rembrandt.” An impression in that state was pulled after the plate had been reworked by another hand, and therefore after it left Rembrandt's control. The catalogue also lists no watermarks for states III and IV, while listing nine for states I and II — consistent with the later states belonging to a period the catalogue's paper research does not cover. What keeps this at partially resolved rather than resolved is that it rests entirely on the state attribution, which is one cataloguer's reading.", "hypotheses": [ { "statement": "This is a later impression rather than a lifetime one.", "confidence": "probable", "note": "Now supported by the catalogue's own characterisation of state III as not Rembrandt's work, rather than being a prior about the population." } ], "methods": [ "Resolve the watermark question (RQ-04) — the strongest single line of evidence.", "Resolve the state question (RQ-02) against the catalogue.", "Assess plate wear against securely dated impressions (RQ-09, RQ-12).", "Examine the ink and printing character alongside comparator impressions, with a specialist." ], "resolving_evidence": "Confirmation or rejection of the state III attribution by a specialist. If state III holds, the sheet is posthumous. If it is a late state II, the question reopens completely.", "negative_findings": [], "resources": [ { "label": "Impression census", "url": "/census" } ], "evidence_ids": [ "EV-NH-170", "EV-LOT-182" ], "bibliography_ids": [], "related_questions": [ "RQ-02", "RQ-04", "RQ-09", "RQ-12" ], "contributions": [], "href": "https://theplatemark.com/research/questions/lifetime-or-posthumous" }, { "id": "RQ-07", "slug": "verso-marks-and-inscriptions", "title": "Does the verso carry collector marks, dealer codes or inscriptions?", "status": "resolved", "opened": "2026-08-12", "updated": "2026-08-12", "difficulty": "low", "suitable_for_student": true, "why_it_matters": "The back of a print is where its ownership history is usually written: collectors' stamps, dealers' stock numbers, pencil annotations, mount and hinge remnants. This is the most likely single route into the undocumented interval in the provenance. The Rijksmuseum's impression carries two identified collector marks; there is no reason in principle this sheet could not carry one.", "current_evidence": "Resolved, negatively. The verso has been photographed. It carries no collector's mark, no stamp, no pencil inscription, no dealer's code and no mount or hinge remnant — only a diagonal tideline across the lower half and general handling marks. The sheet has no marks on the recto either beyond the printed image.", "hypotheses": [ { "statement": "The verso is blank.", "confidence": "strongly_supported", "note": "Confirmed in plain light. This is a real finding: it closes the most likely route into the sheet's ownership before 2023." } ], "methods": [ "Verso photography under the same documentation discipline as the recto.", "Any mark found is compared against the standard reference for collectors' marks and cited by its Lugt number.", "Pencil inscriptions are transcribed exactly, including anything illegible, marked as such." ], "resolving_evidence": "Resolved by direct photographic evidence. Examination under ultraviolet or raking light could still reveal a faded stamp or an erased inscription, and would be worth doing during the conservator visit, but the plain-light answer is settled.", "negative_findings": [ { "finding": "No collector's mark of any kind is present. For a sheet that passed through the market for two centuries or more, that is unusual enough to be worth recording, and it means provenance research on this impression cannot start from a Lugt number.", "date": "2026-08-12", "by": null } ], "resources": [ { "label": "Marques de collections (Lugt database)", "url": "https://www.marquesdecollections.fr/" }, { "label": "Fondation Custodia — collectors' marks", "url": "https://www.fondationcustodia.fr/" } ], "evidence_ids": [ "EV-CONDITION-PHOTOS" ], "bibliography_ids": [], "related_questions": [ "RQ-11" ], "contributions": [], "href": "https://theplatemark.com/research/questions/verso-marks-and-inscriptions" }, { "id": "RQ-08", "slug": "locating-the-2023-lot", "title": "Which sale and lot was this sheet bought as in 2023?", "status": "resolved", "opened": "2026-08-12", "updated": "2026-08-12", "difficulty": "low", "suitable_for_student": false, "why_it_matters": "The auction catalogue entry is the most recent independent description of the object by someone who had it in their hands. It would give a professional cataloguer's reading of the state, the dimensions and the condition, and it may name a consignor or state a prior provenance. It is the shortest path to a second opinion on almost every open field.", "current_evidence": "Resolved. Bonhams, Fine Books and Manuscripts, sale 28358, lot 182, New York, online only, 24 April to 4 May 2023; receipt dated 17 May 2023. The lot page is publicly reachable at the URL recorded against EV-LOT-182. The catalogue entry gives the medium, the sheet dimensions, the condition and the state determination, and cites Bartsch 20 and New Hollstein 170. The consignor is not named.", "hypotheses": [ { "statement": "The lot was sold through a regional or online-only sale whose lot pages are not surfaced by the house's public keyword search.", "confidence": "probable", "note": "The search established that the house's public search returns forthcoming lots rather than past ones, and that past lots are reachable only by direct URL. A lot can therefore exist in the archive and be effectively unfindable by search." }, { "statement": "The sale was not held in New York, and “New York” in the working record refers to something else — the buyer's shipping route, or the house generally.", "confidence": "possible", "note": null } ], "methods": [ "Read the sale number and lot number off the invoice. One document settles this.", "Failing that, request the catalogue entry from the auction house directly, citing the invoice." ], "resolving_evidence": "Resolved by the payment receipt, confirmed against the published lot page.", "negative_findings": [ { "finding": "The auction house's public keyword search does not return past lots; it returns forthcoming consignments. Past lots are reachable only through direct sale-and-lot URLs, which are indexed externally but not by the house's own search. A negative result from that search therefore does not establish that a lot does not exist — and in this case it did not: the lot page was public throughout the search that failed to find it.", "date": "2026-08-12", "by": null }, { "finding": "Sale index pages render only a partial sample of lots to an unauthenticated request. Any negative finding drawn from a sale index page is unsafe.", "date": "2026-08-12", "by": null }, { "finding": "The major aggregators gate realised prices behind a login or a subscription. None of them can be used to establish a negative.", "date": "2026-08-12", "by": null } ], "resources": [ { "label": "Bonhams 27424 lot 2 — the impression that is not this one", "url": "https://www.bonhams.com/auction/27424/lot/2/" } ], "evidence_ids": [ "EV-ACQ-INVOICE", "EV-LOT-182" ], "bibliography_ids": [], "related_questions": [ "RQ-11" ], "contributions": [], "href": "https://theplatemark.com/research/questions/locating-the-2023-lot" }, { "id": "RQ-09", "slug": "drypoint-burr-and-plate-wear", "title": "Does any drypoint burr survive in this impression, and what does the plate wear indicate?", "status": "open", "opened": "2026-08-12", "updated": "2026-08-12", "difficulty": "medium", "suitable_for_student": false, "why_it_matters": "Drypoint burr — the ridge of metal thrown up by the needle — holds ink and prints as a soft, velvety black. It is also fragile: it collapses within a few dozen impressions. Where burr is present the sheet is early; where the same passages print thin and grey, it is late. Since the Rijksmuseum catalogues this composition as etching and drypoint, the print has burr to lose, which makes it a usable wear indicator for this plate specifically.", "current_evidence": "The Rijksmuseum records the technique of this composition as etching and drypoint. Whether drypoint passages exist in this impression, and in what condition, has not been examined.", "hypotheses": [], "methods": [ "Examine the drypoint passages under magnification and raking light.", "Compare the same passages against high-resolution images of impressions whose state is securely catalogued.", "Record the assessment passage by passage rather than as a single verdict on the sheet." ], "resolving_evidence": "A specialist's assessment against comparator impressions, with the passages compared identified.", "negative_findings": [], "resources": [ { "label": "Impression census", "url": "/census" } ], "evidence_ids": [], "bibliography_ids": [], "related_questions": [ "RQ-06", "RQ-12" ], "contributions": [], "href": "https://theplatemark.com/research/questions/drypoint-burr-and-plate-wear" }, { "id": "RQ-10", "slug": "dampstaining-cause-and-stability", "title": "What caused the dampstaining, and is it stable?", "status": "open", "opened": "2026-08-12", "updated": "2026-08-12", "difficulty": "medium", "suitable_for_student": false, "why_it_matters": "Two distinct things are being asked. The conservation question is whether the staining is active and threatens the support — that determines whether anything should be done. The historical question is what the staining records: water damage is an event in the sheet's life, and its pattern can indicate how the print was stored, whether it was once bound or mounted, and whether it shares a history with other sheets bearing the same pattern. The project will not commission treatment to improve appearance. It will act on a stability finding.", "current_evidence": "A sale-catalogue description of wrinkling and dampstaining at the lower left extending partly into the image. No examination, no assessment of activity, no pH measurement.", "hypotheses": [ { "statement": "The staining is historic and stable.", "confidence": "possible", "note": "The most common finding for damage of this kind, and the project's working assumption for handling purposes — which is to say, it is treated as unknown and handled carefully." } ], "methods": [ "Conservator examination, including examination under ultraviolet light for the extent of the staining and any previous treatment.", "Assessment of whether tidelines are defined and whether there is any evidence of mould.", "Documentation of the pattern in raking light, which sometimes shows the fold or stacking that produced it." ], "resolving_evidence": "A baseline condition report by a qualified paper conservator.", "negative_findings": [], "resources": [ { "label": "Conservation and material studies", "url": "/conservation" } ], "evidence_ids": [ "EV-WORKING-RECORD" ], "bibliography_ids": [], "related_questions": [], "contributions": [], "href": "https://theplatemark.com/research/questions/dampstaining-cause-and-stability" }, { "id": "RQ-11", "slug": "ownership-before-2023", "title": "Can any owner of this sheet before 2023 be identified?", "status": "open", "opened": "2026-08-12", "updated": "2026-08-12", "difficulty": "high", "suitable_for_student": false, "why_it_matters": "The sheet's own provenance is blank for roughly 177 years before 2023. Any evidenced point inside that blank is a substantive addition — not because it makes the object more valuable, but because a print with a traceable history is a different research object from one without. Impressions with recorded provenance can be placed in collections, and collections can be dated, which loops back to when the sheet was printed.", "current_evidence": "No owner of this sheet before 2023 has been identified, and one route to finding one is now closed: the verso is blank, so there is no collector's mark to trace. What has been added is the descent of the copper plate itself, which New Hollstein records in full from possibly Clement de Jonghe in 1679 through the Basan workshop and four subsequent owners to a private collection in the United States. If this impression is state III it was pulled somewhere inside that chain — most likely in the Basan period, since two of the seven recorded state III impressions are bound into Basan albums.", "hypotheses": [], "methods": [ "Examine the verso under ultraviolet and raking light for a faded stamp or erased inscription that plain light will not show.", "Trace the Basan-period printing: the catalogue lists state III impressions in Amsterdam, Berlin, Budapest, Cracow, Florence, St Petersburg and Vevey, two of them in Basan albums. A sheet matching one of those albums in paper and trimming would place this one.", "Ask the auction house whether the consignor consents to be named." ], "resolving_evidence": "A collector's mark, a dealer's stock number, or an entry in an earlier sale catalogue that can be matched on measurements and condition features.", "negative_findings": [], "resources": [ { "label": "Getty Provenance Index", "url": "https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/provenance/" }, { "label": "Marques de collections", "url": "https://www.marquesdecollections.fr/" } ], "evidence_ids": [ "EV-NH-170", "EV-CONDITION-PHOTOS" ], "bibliography_ids": [], "related_questions": [ "RQ-07", "RQ-08" ], "contributions": [], "href": "https://theplatemark.com/research/questions/ownership-before-2023" }, { "id": "RQ-12", "slug": "comparator-impressions-for-wear", "title": "Which institutional impressions are the right comparators for assessing wear in this one?", "status": "under_investigation", "opened": "2026-08-12", "updated": "2026-08-12", "difficulty": "medium", "suitable_for_student": true, "why_it_matters": "Every wear judgement is a comparison, and the comparison is only as good as the comparators. Building a short list of impressions that are securely catalogued by state, openly imaged at high resolution, and reusable under an open licence is a piece of work that helps anyone studying this plate, not only this project. It is the part of the census that is useful to scholars who have no interest in a privately held sheet.", "current_evidence": "The census has been opened and is being populated from institutional collection records. Coverage by state is currently uneven.", "hypotheses": [], "methods": [ "Populate the census from institutional collection records, recording each institution's own cataloguing verbatim.", "Flag which records state a state, which expose an openly licensed image, and which expose a IIIF manifest that can be compared side by side.", "Identify gaps by state and approach the institutions holding relevant impressions." ], "resolving_evidence": "A census with at least one openly imaged, securely catalogued impression per state.", "negative_findings": [], "resources": [ { "label": "Impression census", "url": "/census" } ], "evidence_ids": [], "bibliography_ids": [], "related_questions": [ "RQ-02", "RQ-09" ], "contributions": [], "href": "https://theplatemark.com/research/questions/comparator-impressions-for-wear" } ] }