I've refrained from chiming in on this thread for a while, but the genesis of this thread to me smacks of a shill. I'm not going to say Ryan had anything to do with it, but to me it seemed like something David Spivak would do to pump his magazine.
To answer the original poster's question, what you really need to look at is, do you like his work? does it have artistic merit in your eyes, and would you still like to look at it on your wall 20 years from now? If the answer to the above questions is yes, then you should by all means buy his work. If you are looking at it as purely an investment, you need to consider other factors, including the ones mentioned above.
Ultimately, you are the only person who can decide if buying the work of a given photographer is an investment you are willing to make. Frankly, buying any living artist's work is not an investment, it is a gamble. If you are looking at artwork as an investment, don't spend any more on the work than you are willing to lose/consume.
Don, you contradict yourself in your own statement. Neither one of us knows any more about this than the other, as you say. There is no conclusive link between the negatives and the prints other than what the thread originator claimed. And that claim cannot in any way be substantiated on what was reported nor by what is shown on the auction site. But there is no way I'm going to get in an argument about this with you. First, and most importantly, its just not worth it to us.
Originally Posted by Donald Miller
I was not going to make and posts in this thread, but I figured that I might as well.
First off, thank you to everyone for the sincere compliments on my work and to everyone who collects my prints. Without you, I would not be able to continue what I do. Photography is my living and my only source of income, so I value everyone who has contributed and supported my work. Again, thank you.
In regards to the posting on the LF forum nearly 3-4 years ago, that situation was completely settled and resolved and the thread was closed because of that. The situation with my possession of the old AA copy negative, and the prints for reproduction was resolved. The copy negative was sold and now in a permanent collection in NYC. The actual purpose of the prints were finally discovered, thanks to a serious Ansel Adams collector back East, and we tracked down the publication they were intended to be used for even.
My association with the CCP was completely settled and I'm on good terms with them. I'm actually taking a class with the curator of the museum this semester as we speak.
Anyway, I'm sorry any commotion was caused here, but I assure you that everything was settled and was completely resolved.
On another note, I still have several Adams prints in my personally collection and currently have one up on Ebay at this moment.
If any of you are interested in talking with me more about this matter or anything else, please feel free to contact me via email.
All the best,
Ryan, first, please understand that I'm not one of your critics and I don't have an opinion about any of this. I'm juts observing. In that light, I want to observe that the above quoted paragraph really doesn't answer any questions. The implication is there that the print you sold was not made by you from the copy negative that you purchased. If that's the case, can you just say so?
Originally Posted by Ryan McIntosh
No prints were made from the copy negative by myself or anyone else for that matter, as I had purchased it for it as a unique collectors item only. It was believed to have been made by Adams himself, as it had his stamp and handwriting on the outside and that was what interested me. A print could not have been made from it due it it being damaged and "silvered" I believe is the term, where all the silver was starting to come to the surface of the negative and could be wiped off with your finger. Not to mention scratches and other surface damage. The negative was also of a different size then the print I had in my collection, and would have required an 8x10 enlarger to make the same size of the print I sold.
Originally Posted by jstraw
The fellow who purchased the negative from me lives back in NY and is a collector of Adams related items. I believe he still owns the negative, but would never attempt to print it, as he wanted it for its unique collection value only.
Just spent all my cash on film. None left for prints. Dead or living. Whats the point of this thread?
Thanks, Ryan. That clears it up nicely, I believe.
Originally Posted by Ryan McIntosh