Charles, I really appreciate you attempting to present a concise definition to the term 'original', however, that usually does not serve those that prefer the rhetorical cachet of a term. This is especially true when it is involved in the marketing on an object. Accuracy in terminology is far more important to academics interested in finer historical and philosophical points.
you are using one strict definition to original. there is also original concept, original intent, by original 'maker' or 'done as' original execution. Then there are the subsets of reproduction, replica or copy, all of which are nuanced and words subject to an interesting analysis.
I think your concerns are laudable for a more scholarly approach to the discussion, i am not sure that this is the concern for others. I would
prefer this term qualified to 'honestly' contextualize it. I think that
the term 'original', without this qualification is pretty useless as we can see how it is bandied about by others.
The more general the term definition, the more useful it is to enhance percieved value on an ebay auction.
> My perception is that George has a completely different understanding o
f
> the meaning of the word *original,* than I do.
>
> I understand original to mean exactly that: the original finish. The
> one the bike/frame came out of the factory with when it was *first*
> made. That seems to me to be the usual definition of *original.*
>
> Anything else is a copy. If you like copies, or even prefer copies,
> then the distinction is unimportant.
>
> So, that frame Alberto Masi repainted is most definitely NOT original
> George. It's a copy. Or restoration, if you like. But it's not
> original.
--
gabriel l romeu
in a rainy chesterfield nj usa
± http://studiofurniture.com Ø http://journalphoto.org ±