Nicely-done Ben.
What Ben said (which is fact by our hobby) also alludes to why collectors really need to consider why they are acquiring a photo. David Cycleback and I talk about this often, as we both appreciate the actual composition and quality of photos in terms of how they will look when hung on a wall. David has said that if the print looks like it's worth the price to hang on your wall then it doesn't matter if it's Type I, 2, 3, 4 or whatever. Such discussions make it seem absurd to even consider buying a photo that is encapsulated in plastic, or to buy a photo with such a thing in mind.
Photos aren't cards - cards are generally mass-produced pieces of cardboard with inferior-quality images affixed to them (exception being the late 1800's lithos), while photos can be things of absolute beauty. Two different animals - two different ways of thinking. For years I owned a beautiful 8x10 type I Burke photo of Ruth and Claire encased in plastic with a stupid-looking strip of identification at the top. I still kick myself in the butt for not removing it from the plastic and hanging it on my wall with a nice matt and frame. I really did that piece a disservice by selling it.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|