Talk:Phantom (photograph)
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Inscrutable terminology[edit]
- Elite Edition: What does this mean?
- 950 Limited Edition and 45 Artist Proofs: Does this mean "an edition of 950 and 45 artist proofs", and if not, what does it mean?
- Lik produced the print on Digital Metallic Glossy Media: What does this mean? (Some sort of metallic inkjet print, maybe?)
- Elite Black Lacquer Frame: Is "Elite" a trademark, and if not, what does it mean? Does "Black Lacquer Frame" just mean "black lacquer frame"?
-- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hoary -- your points are well-taken. The "elite" stuff seems to be one of Lik's favorite terms, rather than industry terms. There's no such medium as "Digital Metallic Glossy Media"; it's almost certainly a C-print or giclee. And since no one has stepped forward in the year since you added the "vague" tags and provided clarification, I'm going to be bold and remove those problematic terms. Bricology (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
ALLEGED sale[edit]
It's important that this entire article be treated with the dubiousness it deserves. The media has been very skeptical in response to Lik's claim, as with the Sydney Morning Herald here: "...(Lik) is claiming, with no verification by his US lawyer, to have flogged another photo for more than the world's leading photographers command. Dubious? Let's consider the facts. The work was sold privately to an unknown buyer and no documentary proof beyond a press release of the sale appears to have been provided." -The Sydney Morning Herald, Dec. 12, 2014 Buyer beware: Treat Peter Lik photo sale with scepticism Since the alleged sale was handled privately (rather than through an auction house or a private dealer), no buyer has claimed to have purchased it, and there is no documentation -- indeed, no evidence beyond Lik's claim -- that the photo sold, much less for the amount claimed, it must be regarded as purely hearsay. And given the lack of anything like a resale market for Lik's work, as well as his history of self-promotion, the veracity of this "sale" is unlikely. This should be made abundantly clear in the article. Bricology (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)