Personal anecdote is not considered to be a 'study'. The parameters for conclusive studies, that set standards of testing specified variables, are well known to engineer and science types, so they may wish to comment.
What we hobbiests tend to accept as conclusive proof, is far from 'testing'. I suppose that therein lies the problem of human behavior, in that we all like to think we're pretty smart observant guys, capable of 'dealing'. Consequently, we tend to select answers that reinforce our original intent, since we could hardly be wrong in our assesments. Women, cars, horses, dogs, cards, guns and whiskey -- whose opinion is better than that of our own, eh?
My contribution is this. I know that studies and the conclusions accepted for publication regarding conservation procedures, require rigorous peer review. Said reviews may even be genteely hostile, should there be a real conflict of conclusions. No knife cuts so deep and keenly as that of an academic affronted. ;~`)However, the ground rules are pretty clear for 'proving' ones discoveries.
On one thing I will agree. The casual 'using up' of originals has pretty much ceased among the muzzleloading rifleman and shotgunners. For good reason: it became difficult to find good shooters. In fact collectors began paying good money for a plain shooter in good condition. As well, many of us began to have a bit of remorse at so cheerfully having used up a good bit of a non-renewable resource. Old wood and old steel -- where ya gonna finds it, when ya rilly need it?
