27th December 2008, 10:06 PM
I think one of the things that some respondents to this thread have missed (and I am sure it is mentioned in the preamble to the Munsell table) is that the sample being compared should be at an optimum 'dampness' (in the old days we used to do the 'spit and smear' test). I seem to vaguely remember it should be 40% humidity (I think) or maybe 35%.
As the sample is compared to the colour match in the table, human variations in colour vision are irrelevant, providing your eyesight is good enough to distinguish variations in Munsell's hue, colour value and chroma.
As to why the system has taken a back seat in recent years...the spit and smear test is obviously one reason...the fact that many archaeologists memorised the Munsell coding for their local colour variations (dark earth, brickearth etc) and rarely referred to the Munsell table another...
As the sample is compared to the colour match in the table, human variations in colour vision are irrelevant, providing your eyesight is good enough to distinguish variations in Munsell's hue, colour value and chroma.
As to why the system has taken a back seat in recent years...the spit and smear test is obviously one reason...the fact that many archaeologists memorised the Munsell coding for their local colour variations (dark earth, brickearth etc) and rarely referred to the Munsell table another...