View Single Post
Old 11-20-2016, 09:57 AM   #61
effCup
Vintage Idiot
 
effCup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Dildo Baggins' backyard
Posts: 14,187
Thanks: 156,613
Thanked 161,731 Times in 14,028 Posts
effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+effCup 750000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highwayman274 View Post
Looks like this is one of those Mayfair stage-name situations; she only posed for them, and only under that name, and perhaps only two or three times.

I am having trouble finding any sources to confirm the name, except for this entry at creamcheese

Does anyone recognize her from other sources?
You're looking for a second mag. that used that same name, as opposed to simply looking for Mayfair scans that show the Pam Murgatroyd spelling?

I fear you're pushing the hurdle too high. Yes, a model name that's repeated across more than one separate publishing stable is better than one that's repeated only within one stable is better than one that's repeated only within one title is better than one that's not repeated, or one that's "contradicted" by alternatives. But, since when was the threshold for a 2-part model name/id more than one mag. pictorial?

If we've got more than one pictorial great, although it may pose the problem of competing names, but is that really the minimum requirement?

Most of the model names in Mayfair are, or seem likely to be, professional handles; that is, they're made-up. Sometimes they're the same professional handles as the models/photogs./mags. used elsewhere, sometimes not. Yes, we all agree on that when we think about it like that but when we write:
Quote:
Originally Posted by highwayman274 View Post
one of those Mayfair stage-name situations
that implies something rather different. Often folk here speak of model ids as if they're "real". Is Sandra Scream real? No, just her best-known-as handle. A best-known-as professional handle is neither a "real" name nor "real" in any other kind of sense. It's just we slip into thinking it has some reality, some permanence or fixity through the very process of vef model thread institutionalisation, through preferring Harriet Wilkinson over Andrea Nadler, or vice versa for that matter.

Beware constructing castles in the clouds; beware such reification.

One of the traps of big-plan up-front software development is "better get it right first time", i.e. the cost of errors. That cost is a constructed/invented one. Taking that approach makes errors cost more, it raises the price early and forces development into risk-averse behaviour patterns that can easily become stuck, unproductive, and organisationally pathological.

MIR seems to want to get model ids right first time. Well, that would be nice but sometimes it's not going to happen so easily. We can defer the decision, leave content stuck in MIR for years. That way we avoid making a mistake... or do we?

An alternate approach is to be prepared to revisit; to accept a more iterative and incremental approach. The only thing worse than a second or third plan is often a first one.

I agree, Pam Murgatroyd is an "obviously" made-up name, one of those "excessively English" handles Mayfair seemed to enjoy applying to the models of continental photographers like (in this case) Jean Rougeron. We know Rougeron's work was published in many other mags. including, for example, frequently in Tuk (Ned). Just because we so far haven't found her content anywhere else than Mayfair and a photo. CD doesn't mean we can't and won't tomorrow. If and when that additional content comes along we can decide whether we want to revise her id/best-known-as handle, but for now the Mayfair name, no matter how "obviously fake" it might seem, is her best-known-as professional handle.

Here's a thought: is an "obviously" fake name any worse or better than another that's less-obviously but still either known or presumed to be fake name? How? Why?

What I'm suggesting is that MIR already has enough difficulty agonising over models with collections of contradictory names. There's no need to also agonise over models with sparse/scant content and just a single two-part name. Just be thankful it's two-part and get on with the next one.

Last edited by effCup; 11-20-2016 at 10:30 AM.. Reason: typo.
effCup is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to effCup For This Useful Post: