Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Young
Well of course but that has more to do with the image than the type classification.
Let's talk apples to apples here rather than random one offs.
If everything is equal, a type 1 is worth more than a type 2 for obvious reasons.
If you want to provide random examples where you have items that don't fit as below, fine. But to say the system is flawed or that it is nonsense is ridiculous.
At the end of the day, know what you are buying and make your own decision. The type system is great for those who have not put thousands of hours into educating themselves and provides direction/classification. It is what it is. If you don't need it, don't use it.
Hi btw Mark.. glad to see you back.
|
Yep.
And the same goes for Adam's comparison of a Type I to a promotional item - there is a collectibility of promotional items that is a different realm than for photos. And while you may not agree that promotional items SHOULD have the relative value that they do, again, "It is what it is".
I generally only collect original prints that were made near the time the photo was taken, for a variety of reasons: they are more likely to have been printed by the photographer, they are more likely to have the 'desirable' characteristics of aging such as silvering and vintage photographer notes and stamps, and they are more easily sold when it's time to do so. But if the image is ugly, I don't want it even if Conlon carried it around with him stuck in his pocket.