... But since the reviewers I am writing about, do not own a gallery, they are without a means to effect a remedy to your situation. They are doctors without a license to prescribe or fill a medication for your condition...
Again, this isn't necessarily as bad as it seems.
At the risk of boring everyone with the analogy: a doctor with
a license to prescribe a medication might select the one where he gets the most kickback from the pharmaceutical company (legally or not), not the one you might benefit from the most.
The same goes for a number of other advisors: investment ones for instance, might offer their services for free or for a flat fee. In the first case, you pay nothing, but they get a commission from the sale of securities. Meaning you are not sure if their advice is based on your best interest, or on where they would generate the most in commissions.
The same with portfolios and galleries: if they own a gallery, their advice might be geared toward getting you into their
gallery, which is not necessarily the best gallery for you.
As usual, caveat emptor
EDIT: Jerry, just noticed how my medical analogies turned out to be quite appropriate, given your own medical background
Also, checked out your web site and your Paper Work - brilliant and fascinating!