A question I often find myself asking with photos is "what about just re-printing it from the neg" but the point is there is an ineffable "not the original" aro

A question I often find myself asking with photos is "what about just re-printing it from the neg" but the point is there is an ineffable "not the original" around prints, and who makes them. Karsh probably made hundreds of prints from this neg but supervised and approved a small set (one imagines) as his AP and numbered copies. Just like Jeff Koons and Andy did, with their respective factories. If you have number #32,221 it's just different to having number #10 for many people. That aside, if Karsh didn't document how he dodged the neg making the print, and why he chose when to stop developing it, "reproducing" the print might be very very hard. Rembrantshuis Museum in Amsterdam sells prints from the original copper etching plates. They aren't valuable. Nor would reprints from the negative be innately valuable. Daguerrotypes, Calotypes & Tintypes can't be reproduced AFAIK but cartes de visite and things onward from there could be? So there might be e.g. thousands of Nadar copies floating around but there really are only the D.O.Hill/Adamson prints we know, as "originals" (would like to know if thats not the case)