I don't understand why my comments are seen as an 'insult'. However dedicated and thorough authors might be, understanding improves, new information comes to light, thinking moves on, errors are identified and corrected by later researchers and authors. It would be a very sorry state of affairs if we just accepted whatever anyone wrote in the past without thinking any further about it.
Paul Hollister's book was published over 40 years ago, and his background work conducted before that: we know a lot more now than we did 50 years ago, so it is not a surprise that his book contains errors. He did the best he could at the time, and his book is still very useful. But that does not mean we should treat everything in the book as correct, or that it is some form of heresy to challenge any part. For example, he is wrong about the early life of William Gillinder: I have written articles for the PCA Bulletin and addressed the PCA Convention about William's true background, and for whom he worked in the UK, and when. But Paul did not have access to the genealogical records and Trades Union records that I have now examined, and nor could he contact living Gillinder descendants, as I have done. It is not an 'insult' to identify or to correct his factual errors.
Bob Hall's Old English Paperweight's book was published in 1998, based in part on studies that Bob carried out during the previous 20 years and in part on research by Anne Anderson starting somewhat earlier. Again, the information and thinking reflected in the book is now at least 20 years old, and some of it older. It is not an 'insult' to point out that some of the paperweights shown in the Bacchus chapter would now be attributed to other makers, or to point out that he shows the same image twice in the chapter, treating it as a different paperweight and giving slightly different dimensions. It is a mistake - and we all make them: but mistakes in reference books need to be identified, to prevent others who cannot or do not want to question the status quo from perpetuating myths. I know Bob very well, and before his illness we had talked about the errors that could and should be corrected if there were a second edition, and also whether all my work measuring densities of Old English weights, and what it showed, should be included. Sadly, a revised edition will now not happen.