I made my first observation of the season of the odd INT/FU Ori star V1057 Cyg last evening and after submitting it to the database, called up the star's recent data via the Light Curve Generator. To my surprise there was a most obvious dichotomy between the reported visual and V data. The V data was found to be consistently running about 0.7 magnitudes brighter than the visual estimates. In a re-plotting, this time spanning of some thousands of days, I noted that this has been an ongoing situation of considerable duration.
Now I've been following V1057 Cyg visually for decades, in fact since its discovery. If we are to consider the visual sequence as reasonably accurate, then V1057 hasn't been seen in the mid 12's suggested by the V data in nearly two decades! One, or the other, of the sequences being employed by the two groups of observers has to be decidedly in error. I appreciate that there are a troubling number of such instances to be found in the AAVSO database and that efforts to meld observations obtaining by the two differing methods is being attempted by HQ. I also understand that these days many in the professional community would likely prefer the V data. However, considering the very long run of consistent visual observations available for this star documenting its fluctuations, currently spanning a number of decades, it is obvious that not only the V data and sequence are the ones in serious need of re-evaluation and a downward adjustment, but that the problem with this star's light curve is long overdue to have the situation addressed. If not, than those eventually utilizing or even just looking over a plotting of the data will be significantly misled regarding this rare object's long-term odd behavior.