View Single Post
  #9  
Old 01-24-2019, 02:32 PM
thecatspajamas's Avatar
thecatspajamas thecatspajamas is offline
L@nce Fit.tro
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 2,433
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason19th View Post
This post raises my concerns about the use of the current type system. I think we should change to focus on clarity of the image and the age of the print . This would force us to value photos based on the image quality and the relative rarity. This would also be way more objective of a standard rather then trying to figure out exactualy how the photo was made.
Your concern is only an issue if the value assigned to a photo is based strictly on its Type classification. PSA marketing team's assertions aside, a photo's "Type" (shorthand for when and how a print was produced) should NOT be the only factor considered in judging its value. Other factors, including clarity, theme, subject, date, photographer, condition, and even size also affect a photo's value. If you can't figure out when or how a photo was made, it is not rendered worthless. Nor does a photo being Type 1 automatically make it valuable. The Type designation is simply shorthand for some of the less-subjective factors.
__________________
Ebay Store and Weekly Auctions
Web Store with better selection and discounts
Polite corrections for unidentified and misidentified photos appreciated. Rude corrections also appreciated, but less so.
Reply With Quote