Seems somewhat “dumbed down”. I could have researched that stadium thing myself (had I cared.)
Hated the Parkman murder show (“Now I knew enough about them to start putting words in their mouths”), but this Thaw/White one is pretty good. And wasn’t Evelyn Nesbit the berries?
Hmm…maybe they could help with my SO’s sword.
I love the use of contemporary music, photos, drawings and film clips in the Thaw/White show. But I’m amazed they missed out on a great quote. Evelyn Nesbit said years later, “Stanny was the lucky one. I lived.”
boring, boring, boring. Solving the mystery of how the ball field got the name? the mystery? No real historians, but auctioneers, appraisers? give me a break.
Personally I like the homespun nature of the “mysteries” – though the ballpark business was quite weak.
I was disappointed by the production “tricks” and scripting. All that jump cutting, and flash framing is fine if the video is rockin’, but it’s downright gratuitous if you’re explaining how to spot a forged autograph.
And what’s with all the backpedalling in the script? They recapped the action of each case like four times before they get to the end. Guys, I can remember what happened, after all the show started, like, TEN MINUTES AGO! Shut up with the recap and get on with it!
Oh one more complaint. They do a lot of half-baked speculating to cover their holes. For example, they say the firehouse book signature is genuine but the date is bogus. Well, that’s one theory. What if Nast took the book to Washington and Grant signed it there on the Fourth of July? That – or a hundred other equally feasible theories – fit the facts too.
The ballpark segment was equally speculative. Okay the senator guy was a vote-hungry boss, but there could be thousand other more definative reasons he built the park.
OTOH, I thought the clay-head mystery lived up to the full potential of the show.
And the girl presenting that segment was cute too.
Come to think of it, I found an old British coin in Ireland once. I mentioned it in some other thread.
One teensy-weensy piece of constructive criticism, Eve, my sweet, regarding your last post. I think the word you want is “contemporaneous,” not “contemporary.” Big difference, especially if you write about historical topics, like some of us (cough, cough).
In their defense, sometimes auctioneers and appraisers can be true experts in their fields. After all, their monetary successes depend on them knowing their subject intimately, and they have an uncanny eye for fakes which can fool even respected historians.
I work in a museum, and I can tell you from personal experience how helpful these people can be. Southeby’s was kind enough to help us out with the identification and authentication of a painting in our collection. Antiques dealers who specialize in certain kinds of artifacts give us invaluable information when we’re stumped.
No historian is an expert in all areas. Often, when an artifact is somewhat obscure, it’s hard to find a “certified historian” who knows enough to be helpful in a given situation. Help can come from unusual sources. Just as an example, there’s an auto mechanic that we consult on occasion because the man is a true expert in flint-knapping techniques.
Some people may not have educational credentials, but they’ve spent a lifetime studying a particular area of history. It would be foolish to discount them and their insights simply because they don’t have a degree.
I liked it OK. The first two mysteries were not bad with the stone head being pretty interesting. But the baseball field was dull. And did anyone else get the impression that we were supposed to be outraged (outraged!) by the whole thing? Seems to me that the senator was smart enough to recognize a new political force in the city, so he built a park that the African-American community could be proud of.
Anyway, I’ll watch again tonight.
Also…
Ain’t it the truth. But what annoyed me even more was how they kept having these historians pop in to say: “You know, the worst thing a historian can do is put words in the mouths of his subjects.”
Hey guys! This does not absolve you of the fact that you are putting words in the mouths of your subjects! Cut it out! Me want facts!
Either “contemporary” or “contemporaneous” is correct in Eve’s sentence, BTW. Granted, “contemporary” has an additional potential meaning of “modern, current,” but it was clear in context which meaning was meant. At least if you’re paying attention (cough, cough). 
The local PBS station showed episode 2 tonight (tuesday). I had more personal connection–2 of the segments were Wisconsin related, the other had to do with Sears Homes. (I lived in a crescent http://architecture.about.com/library/nbungalowplan-s-3086-crescent.htm now my sister’s cottage)
Brian
OK, the MTV editing and Cool Theme Song are beginning to greate on me. I think the show would be much better at a half-hour, with two 15-minute segments.
After 2 nights of this show, I get the feeling it should be on cable. Don’t ask me to explain why but it just feels so cheezy. The bit about the Sears Houses was actually pretty interesting, but so far the rest have bored me. (I actually missed NOVA last night and wished PBS had put it on anyhow.) I’m waiting a segment that dosn’t feel like someone is showing off.
At this point it has nothing to do but get better.
I liked the Bonnie & Clyde segment (cool gory photos!). But the editing and direction are—well, you’re right, cheesy.
i liked the sears home and movie theatr parts last night. i turn the channel on the bonnie and clyde segment.
Enough with the Afro-pandering!
So far the two segments related to African-American history have been the lamest and most speculative in the series.
I can just see them at the production team meetings shoehorning those two in there because “We can’t ignore A-A history!”
“But,” says someone else, “those cases suck!”
“Too bad. They’ll cream us if we don’t include something related to A-A history. The segments stay.”
Good God, what a waste of videotape and my time.
3rd episode was the best of the lot. The bit on the whaling ship being the best of them all.
What is so uncon-frikkin’-ceviable about a bunch of gals getting together to play a good game of rugby? My Grandmother had 5 brothers, and I have no doubt she got in there and bashed them good. And how in the name of gawd, does a picture puzze become a statement about womens rights? Keep your speculation of modivations out of it, IMO ya lost alot of your credibility on that move
I knew from the moment I saw that jigsaw puzzle that it was a pin-up. Anything from that era showing that much leg was not going to be “feminist.”
My favorite is still the “historian” in the first ep. who saw the little face carving and thought it was a natural formation. It had lips, eyes and nostrils.
So far, there’s always been just one segment per ep. that interests me: the little face; Bonnie & Clyde; and the witch’s house. I still think the sbow would work better at a half-hour, with two 15-minute segments: and less MTV editing and Cool Music.