[Clint_69]

Although my opinion may not matter, I would like to give my .02 worth. When I read the ad for the mentioned auction, it was clear to me. I think the fact that the ad mentions photo quality paper, implies that the picture is a reprint. When you have an original, the term "photo quality paper" would not need to be mentioned as all originals come on photo paper. Also, there is no mention of the picture being an original. If someone was selling an original, don't you think that the seller would mention that it was an original photo? Wouldn't that be a selling point? I doubt anyone would leave out that little detail if it was an original. Finally, if anyone here collects this memorbilia or any other related items, don't you think that an original photo would hit you for more that $20? There are several members on this board that would not bat an eye at $300+ for one of these pictures if they were originals. I am not trying to rehash the ad but it was clear IMO. Classic case of varying perception. I ordered one of each from Tim. I appreciate getting them so quickly. Thanks Tim, there nice prints.