When selling a photo, you don't always have to give a "Type" label. Why are you required to say what "type" of photo is that Mel Blanc photo, when different people will have different interpretations? It's a matter of semantics and personal definition and ways of viewing the photo making process and the photo is part sketch design and part photographic image (Can a photo be 50% original? 75% original? Is a composite with half original images and half reprint images a 'Half a Type I?'). And, as you say, what type it is and who's semantics you use has no effect on your liking or valuation of the photo.
It's like with the George Burke photos. If you don't even know when the photo was printed, you literally can't say what type it is. In your eBay sales description, how can you label what type is a George Burke photo when you don't know what type it is? The answer is, you can't. The type system can't be applied and doesn't come into play.
As I said, focusing strictly on the type labels often involves missing the forrest for the trees. If the Mel Blanc was vintage, cool, unique and you loved it, you should have purchased it. And that's exactly what you did. Bravo! Sounds like you made a great purchase. If someone wants that vintage circa 1930s George Burke photo of Dizzy Dean even though he doesn't know what "type" it is and may never know, he should buy it. Is someone out there seriously never going to buy a 1930s George Burke photo because no one can tell what "type" it is?
Last edited by drcy; 09-25-2014 at 02:15 PM.
|