Method
How we examine, and what we cannot say.
Seven principles that hold everywhere on the site
These seven sentences hold on every page; a conclusion that breaks one of them is not published.
- 01Claims and findings are written separately; repeating a claim is not verifying it.
- 02A test not performed is not the same as a finding not present; both appear as separate rows in the scope.
- 03Results are never given as percentages; the scale is verbal and comes from the vocabulary.
- 04Every conclusion has a ceiling; if the evidence at hand does not raise it, no expert may raise it either.
- 05A source grade states the kind of source, not the truth of the claim.
- 06Decisions are per component; a conclusion about the beads does not extend to the imame.
- 07The record is not a certificate; every version is verifiable and old versions are never deleted.
Decision flow
The verdict level is not picked by hand; it is the output of a versioned rule chain, in plain words:
- If the frames fail the quality gate, or the object falls outside the known hypotheses: not assessable.
- If the claim plainly contradicts the measurements: inconsistent with the claim. The measurement's own result is still written, not erased.
- If the scope is complete and the findings are consistent, the result can rise as far as the verdict ceiling of the policy in force. Under this policy version the ceiling is: Consistent findings.
- If the scope is incomplete the result drops to the scope ceiling — a missing instrument is not covered by optimism.
- If the next test would add much: further examination required. That is not a failure but a direction.
- Otherwise: inconclusive. That too is a valid outcome and is published as such.
Examination layers
An examination is layered by what it can see. The layer names are for explanation; what the record holds is the capture protocol and the verdict ceiling. No layer yields a percentage.
| Layer | What is examined | Capture protocol | Verdict ceiling |
|---|---|---|---|
| K0 | Published or screen imageA photograph taken by someone else: an auction lot, a listing image, a screenshot. Lighting, scale and colour are outside our control. | Outside the protocol | Inconclusive |
| K1 | Remote pre-assessmentThe owner shoots the prescribed frames on their own phone; scale is declared, not calibrated. | Remote captureCapture over chat | Consistent findings |
| K2 | Remote capture with a calibration card plannedThe same frames with a printed scale card in shot: size and colour become readable. | Remote capture | Consistent findings |
| K3 | Examination at the stationThe object is in our hands: weighing, calipers, microscope, UV, hydrostatic measurement; frames are shot under controlled light. | Station capture | Consistent findings |
| K4 | Station plus external laboratorySpectroscopic confirmation on top of the station examination; species and variety level opens only here, and requires separate consent. | Station capture | Consistent findings |
Seven conclusion levels
The scale has seven steps and its order comes from the vocabulary; colour is only a slot, never the source of order.
| Step | Level | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Verified | Scope complete, findings consistent, and one explanation clearly ahead of the rest. |
| 6 | High-confidence consistent | Scope complete; the leading explanation is strong but below the top threshold. |
| 5 | Consistent findings | The findings support an explanation; scope or evidence does not carry it higher. |
| 4 | Inconclusive | The findings fit more than one explanation; nothing decides between them. |
| 3 | Further examination required | Uncertainty remains, but a named test would largely close it. |
| 2 | Inconsistent with claim | The measurements do not support the claim that came with the object. |
| 1 | Not assessable | The frames or the object fall outside the limits within which the method works. |
Conclusion level and evidence strength are different things
The verdict level says what we conclude; evidential strength says on what basis. They are separate scales and neither substitutes for the other: strong evidence still does not open the top level when the scope is incomplete.
| Evidential strength | What it means |
|---|---|
| Extremely strong | The observations fit the proposed explanation almost to the exclusion of others. |
| Very strong | The observations are far more expected under the proposed explanation than its rivals. |
| Strong | The observations are markedly more expected under the proposed explanation. |
| Moderately strong | The difference is notable but not enough to carry a conclusion alone. |
| Moderate | There is a difference, but it must be read together with other findings. |
| Limited | The observation is barely discriminating; it points, it does not carry. |
| Against | The observation favours the alternative, not the proposed explanation. |
The scale is verbal; no numeric ratio or percentage is printed.
Maker attribution and its ceiling
Attribution to a maker is not a free opinion. For each maker we count how many first-hand and published reference works the archive holds; the qualifier stops where that count allows.
Reaching the reference target opens the “attributed to” step; half the target opens the “workshop of” step; below that, at most “style of” may be said. This ceiling binds the expert too; exceeding it requires a separate recorded decision and an audit trail.
| Qualifier | Rank | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| By | 8 | We conclude the work came from the maker's own hand. |
| Attributed to | 7 | The evidence points to the maker without settling that it is his own hand. |
| Workshop of | 6 | The work fits production from the maker's workshop; the hand cannot be separated. |
| Circle of | 5 | The work fits a hand working in the maker's circle. |
| Style of | 4 | Form and workmanship fit the maker's style; it cannot be tied to the person. |
| Influence of | 3 | The maker's influence is legible; no link to his production is established. |
| Unrelated | 2 | The available evidence does not establish any link to the maker. |
| Not by | 1 | The findings indicate the work is not the maker's. |
| Disputed | outside the ranking | Sources contradict each other; it sits outside the ranking and is shown as such. |
Tests: what they say, what they do not
The rows come from the vocabulary's list of test types; when a test is added the table grows on its own. Hot-needle, scratch and burn tests are not performed in the default scope.
| Test | What it says | What it does not say | Invasiveness | Consent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optical RGB imaging | Documents colour, surface texture and defects under controlled light. | Does not say what the material is; an image alone does not discriminate. | Non-contact | Not required |
| Raking light | Reveals surface topography: lathe marks, mould seams, wear. | Does not date the marks; artificial ageing leaves marks too. | Non-contact | Not required |
| Transmitted light | Shows internal structure: flow lines, bubbles, cracks, fills. | Does not tie the structure to a material name; similar traces occur in different resins. | Non-contact | Not required |
| UV 365 nm | Fluorescence colour and intensity; surface treatment, repairs and fills. | Gives no material identity on its own; similar fluorescence occurs across materials. | Non-contact | Not required |
| Microscope | Magnified surface and internal inspection: drill mouth, mould traces, crystal and bubble forms. | Gives no age and names no maker; similar workmanship recurs in different hands. | Non-contact | Not required |
| Weight | Records mass with its uncertainty; the input to the density calculation. | Weight alone names no material; without volume it is just a number. | Non-contact | Not required |
| Caliper measurement | Bead and component dimensions, repeated on at least five representative beads. | Size alone indicates neither period nor school. | Non-contact | Not required |
| Hydrostatic specific gravity | Density by underwater weighing; the strongest in-house measurement separating material families. | Does not separate materials sharing a density band; yields no species level. | Non-contact | Not required |
| Simichrome test | Transfer colour on a cotton swab; only a weak indication favouring the synthetic resin family. | Does not confirm amber and carries no conclusion alone; it needs contact and consent. | Limited contact | Consent required |
| Hot point testNot performed by default | Not performed in the default scope. It opens only with explicit consent and a written rationale. | It leaves a permanent mark; smell-based discrimination is not reliable. | Limited contact | Consent required |
| Magnet test | Whether the metal fittings show a ferromagnetic response. | Gives no karat or alloy; the absence of a response does not mean precious metal. | Limited contact | Consent required |
| Static electricity testNot discriminating | Records whether a rubbed bead holds a charge; for the record only. | Does not separate amber from resin: post-war phenolic resins behave the same way. | Non-contact | Not required |
| Acid touchstone test | Determines metal karat with acid. | It is destructive; never applied to beads or organic material. | Destructive | Consent required |
| Bead removalPreparation step | Not a test but a preparation: a single bead is taken off the string for density measurement. | It produces no finding of its own; without scope consent the measurement never opens. | Limited contact | Consent required |
| XRF elemental analysis | Elemental composition and karat in metal components. | Does not identify organic material and cannot see the body under a plating. | Non-contact | Not required |
| FTIR spectroscopyExternal laboratory | The spectral evidence that opens resin and amber discrimination at species level. | It is not at the station, requires separate shipping consent, and by its mere presence raises no level. | Non-contact | Consent required |
| External laboratory reportExternal laboratory | Records a third-party laboratory document and cites it. | Does not vouch for the document's accuracy and does not replace our own measurement. | Non-contact | Not required |
| Brine float (1.13 g/cm³)Not discriminating | In a 1.13 g/cm³ brine a bead that floats is a screening indication for amber, copal or a low-density resin/thermoplastic (PE/PP/PS), and a bead that sinks for phenolic resin, glass or a mineral. | The bath is NOT saturated: saturated brine is ≈1.20 g/cm³ and acrylic and epoxy float in it too. Floating does not mean amber — copal, polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene float as well. Does not separate phenolic resin from polyester, celluloid or galalith; on its own it yields no material conclusion; it does not replace a hydrostatic density measurement. | Non-contact | Not required |
| Rub smell | A resinous smell from a surface warmed by rubbing is a weak indication for fossil resin, and a phenolic (carbolic) smell for phenolic resin. | A scentless result excludes no material; polish and coating can suppress the smell; it is a subjective observation, only its class value is recorded, and on its own it produces no conclusion. | Non-contact | Not required |
| Refractive index (refractometer) | Measures how strongly the bead bends light, which pulls material families apart; acrylic and phenolic resin separate clearly on this reading. | It does not name the material: the amber, agate and ivory ranges overlap. On a curved bead only the spot method can be read, and birefringence stays invisible. | Non-contact | Not required |
| Polariscope | Classifies the bead's optical character: amorphous (glass, resin, plastic), single crystal, or an aggregate such as agate and jade. | It does not name the material, only the optical character of its family. An opaque bead gives no reading, and strain in cast resin cannot be told apart from strain in glass. Amber and cast resin routinely show anomalous double refraction (a strain pattern) between crossed polarisers; that observation is recorded as strain, not as doubly refractive. | Non-contact | Not required |
| Raman spectroscopyExternal laboratory | A molecular fingerprint taken at an external laboratory; used on dark and opaque beads and on resins that FTIR cannot separate. | There is no conclusion rule for it yet: the record and the peak list are kept, but the system draws no inference from this test. Shipping also needs your separate consent. | Non-contact | Consent required |
| Morphometry (form measurement)Not discriminating | Shape ratios (bead, head bead, hole) taken from a scale-card frame or with calipers; the input of the maker-fingerprint axis, recorded only with keys from the closed vocabulary. | On its own it attributes neither maker nor workshop; comparison against a distribution is a separate decision. | Non-contact | Not required |
Laboratory and station
Writing what we use binds us as much as writing what we do not. At the station:
- Controlled lighting cabinet and a colour reference chart
- Digital microscope with a 0.01 mm calibration slide
- 365 nm long-wave UV source
- Precision balance with class F1 reference weights
- Hydrostatic weighing rig with water temperature measurement
- Digital calipers and a gauge block
- Transmitted and raking light rigs
- Labelling and sample storage set for custody
There is no FTIR at the station; it is an external laboratory service and no examination stalls without it. Its absence limits not the conclusion but the level the conclusion may reach: without spectral evidence the material stays at family level and does not descend to species. Shipping a sample requires separate consent.
Who examines, who audits
The record carries no personal names; it carries the role, and which role decided.
- Examiner
- The role that measures and records findings. It enters findings; it cannot publish a conclusion alone.
- Auditor
- The role that independently reads scope, ceiling and rationale, and revisits conclusions by sampling.
- External laboratory
- The third party performing spectroscopic confirmation. Its document enters the record; the document's accuracy is theirs.
Every conclusion card carries a “decided by” field, filled at role level. A conclusion produced by automated evaluation shows as such; cases requiring human sign-off are marked separately.
What we cannot say
What follows are the record's own clauses, not marketing language, and they carry a version number.
Limitations text version 1.0
This document is an examination record: an expert opinion by DLINE LLC, based on an examination made on the date and with the methods, instruments and available references stated in it. It is not a certificate, a guarantee of authenticity, proof of ownership or origin, a legal trade permit, an insurance document or a binding valuation. Tests performed and not performed, and the levels of uncertainty, are shown in the "Scope" section. Rely only on the current version of the document, as verified at tesbihkar.com/k with the object number (TES) and the verification code printed on the card.
Read the full textScope levels
Three scopes are three depths of the same method. Each card reads its tests from the vocabulary; what a scope can and cannot say is stated separately.
Basic
Guided station capture, measurement and instrumented observation. The strand stays intact and no material is taken.
What it says
States the material family, the structure, the cut, assembly integrity and condition.
What it cannot say
Gives no species or variety name. Strung hydrostatic measurement is screening only: the cord absorbs water and air stays in the bead hole, so no numeric specific gravity is produced.
- Hydrostatic measurement
- Strung — screening only
- Material conclusion level
- Family level
- External laboratory
- No
- Material conclusion ceiling
- Consistent findings
Full
Everything in Basic, plus single-bead hydrostatic measurement, a consented surface test and consistency checks against the declaration.
What it says
Backs the family-level conclusion with a numeric specific gravity and names any conflict between declaration and measurement.
What it cannot say
Without sources, master attribution rises no higher than “in the style of”. No species name is written without spectral evidence.
- Hydrostatic measurement
- Single bead — numeric measurement, requires consent
- Material conclusion level
- Family level
- External laboratory
- No
- Material conclusion ceiling
- Consistent findings
Laboratory
Everything in Full, plus spectral analysis at an external laboratory (FTIR / Raman) and the laboratory report entered into the record.
What it says
If the spectral evidence genuinely contributes to the reported hypothesis, the material conclusion descends to species or variety level.
What it cannot say
The mere existence of a laboratory sheet buys no level. No scope grants trade, export or ownership clearance.
- Hydrostatic measurement
- Single bead — numeric measurement, requires consent
- Material conclusion level
- Species / variety level
- External laboratory
- Yes — fee included in the price
- Material conclusion ceiling
- Consistent findings
Tests requiring consent are asked one by one. Without consent the test is not performed and the report says “not performed”; the conclusion level is limited accordingly.
Record service