Something I didn't quite get when I only saw the prints on the computer screen is how much they actually differ in quality of execution - like night and day! Some are amazingly fine, while others are incredibly crude, and not in any kind of subtle way that you have to be an expert to notice, but really blatant. Thick lines, misregistered colors, really obvious. I guess it shouldn't be surprising at all, after all that's how it is with everything people make - some things are more fine than others - but photos somehow have a way of making them all look roughly similar. And another thing I didn't quite get: in comparison with the rest, Dave's stuff is ridiculously neat and carefully made. Like, so neat it kind of makes me wonder if it needed to be that neat. You notice some kind of tiny invisible gradation only visible the 10th time you look (that Dave decided to put there) and wonder: "was it really worth the effort? does it improve the design if it's so hard to see? Sometimes it pays off to be bold. Diminishing returns are a thing!" Well, that's the way Dave likes to cook. I guess it's better to err on the side of too much effort than of the side of not enough.