Mission oak baseball rocker
 

So I have this listed in the BST and so far no one has been interested. Which I've very surprised by because you don't see them often. I know mine isn't in the greatest shape but I'm willing to work on price and stuff.

So with that said. One of the main negatives to it is the baseball scene is painted, which the others that have sold at auction for $3,500 plus are not painted. I've seen acouple with painted legs and arms, etc. So because it being painted affects the interest people have in it, should I just remove the paint???? I'm sure it can be soda or walnut blasted off without hurting the image.

I personally would like it better without the paint. Since the paint obviously isn't original to the piece (and since it appears on such a key area), it stands out like a sore thumb.

Others can chime in regarding the paint removal process... that's not my area of expertise. But as a collector of this type of thing, I definitely tend to opt for collectibles that appear more in their original state. I would bet that others agree... if there's a sure-fire way to remove the paint without compromising the carved/figural portion, I would do it. It's a high-end item, so your collector base will be more discriminating.

If you do decide to remove the paint, perhaps you can post a thread similar to your Stadium Seat progression. Either way, I hope this helps... it's a beautiful and important piece!

PS. REA's Fall event is looming, so maybe that's a better venue for this one. The B/S/T is great, but not always the best for mass exposure or high-end stuff :rolleyes:

Of course just my personal opinion but I like the painted look as it really "pops" and immediately draws ones attention straight to the scene. Normally I prefer items in more original state however.

That's a really nice looking piece of Mission furniture! Is it marked in any way? What do you know about it's age? If the baseball scene is original, there is NO WAY it should be removed. I love Mission furniture and have quite a few modern pieces. I would love to own your chair but it's really not in my budget. Good luck! The right buyer is out there somewhere!

I don't think it's marked and it might only be "Mission Oak style". I guess no one really knows but several times hunts has called them mission oak. But they say they're from 1910-15. The baseball scene is original but the paint ain't.

The scene is carved? :confused:

Yes engraved into the wood.

http://www.huntauctions.com/LIVE/ima...=468&lot_qual=

http://www.huntauctions.com/LIVE/ima...=280&lot_qual=

http://www.huntauctions.com/LIVE/ima...=281&lot_qual=

http://www.huntauctions.com/LIVE/ima...m=34&lot_qual=

Hi Brock -- Here are my thoughts for what they're worth.
First, I would definitely call it mission oak -- it's a style, not a brand name.

Normally I would agree with Mark that you want special pieces to be all original -- there's nothing I hate more than a beautiful flannel jersey that's been autographed -- I will never, ever understand that.

But in this case, I like the painting. As was said before, it really makes the scene pop. Below I am showing a couple of colorized photographs for comparison. Just like your chair, they started out as something else, and were painted. I believe that thanks to the colorization, they are much more valuable and desirable. I'd be all over your chair if I had the room and the finances right now. You mention there is damage and possible restoration -- that could be scaring people away.
Anyway, I think it's a cool piece!

Greg

Same here. I've passed on a few jerseys because I want to be able to wear them every now and then, and the signature ruins that...usually. All of my game-used unis are sans-sig. Modern signatures on vintage flannels are just plain wrong.

Brock, I agree with Greg - it looks good with the added paint. I wouldn't add paint to such a piece, but it's there now. I have no idea as to affect on value - it would be interesting to hear from someone who is in the market for such an item.

interesting question
 

after a good deal of thought I'd say you should remove the paint. Normally I believe in letting things remain in the condition I found them in unless they are degrading or aestetically unappealing.
Whether or not the added paint was contemporaneously applied by the original purchaser or later - it was not sold that way, the owner added nothing but an interpretation of the original scene usurping the manufacturer's and artist's intent as well, and leaving it as is makes it more likely to be percieved as a folk art piece. I suppose there's more to it but I'm working on a project. Just my nickle........

I thought that last post summed it up really well.

Most admirers might prefer it with the colorful (and very well executed) painted scene. But the small percentage of people likely to shell out for this piece would probably feel more comfortable buying it in its original state. It's all about identifying your target market (which, in this case is a tiny percentage of the collecting universe).

That said, I would ony remove the paint if an expert can assure removal with no ill effects. Someone did a wonderful job painting it, so it's sad to contemplate. Tough decisions tend to occur when we transition from collectors to sellers. And we all do at some point. :o