Are Composite photos by nature type 3 or 4?

[drcy]

As I've always said all along, it's just a convenient guide that has limits and looks at just certain aspects of photos. We all here understand that. But, as Scott said, many newbie collectors treat it as a bible and final arbiter of a photo's value, nature and intrinsic worth. Some collectors will say if something is not Type I it's not worth buying and overpay for an ugly photo of Lou Gehrig simply because it has a Type I label on the holder (I've that seen it happen). And, as Scott says, if someone says a photo (say a composite) can't be labelled by PSA type's system, there really are collectors out there who will assume that means there's something wrong with the photo-- in their mind equating it to PSA not authenticating an autograph. But Henry himself said there are Type IIIs that are valuable and very much worth collecting and there are perfectly good and valuable photos that can't be labelled by the type system.

In short, if you treat the system as a limited and narrow-viewed but convenient way to categorize photos, that's fine. The error, and what is the crux of my complaints all along, is when some people treat it as the final and entire arbiter of a photo's worth and nature-- which some do. I've seen it. If you treat the Type system as one of a combination five ways to judge a photo, that's fine. If you treat it as the only way, you're view of photos is limited and near sided.