I just think that Paul's back catalogue is underrated. Many compare his solo work to his Beatle's work, why I ask? Why would he want to do the same thing again and again and again? His work is forever fresh as is all of The Beatles solo work, in my opinion.
^ Thats the nail in the head really. What do you rank them against. The Beatles? Other solo efforts? What else was contempory at the time? Music in general?
Not many use the first.
Using the second definately pushes the value up, is the most fun, and is probably how I should do it.
But I don't, I put them against what was contempory. And they generally don't rate well.
Then again I'm probably being a pompous prat, and should just rate them as I hear them. In which case, unfortunately, I don't rate many of them highly at all.
My acid test is "if I wasn't a Beatles freak would I buy it."
I have to mention that I stopped seriously listening to solo stuff after 1980.