Restoring cards vs restoring photos

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

Hey Bill - a suggestion. If "I" start a thread, can I make rules regarding that particular thread? ...like, you can't mention the "K" photo in this thread?

Seriously, I'm really curious about how people feel about this topic, but I don't want to get back into a fight over a particular item, auction house integrity, etc.

Most collectors seem to be adamantly against card restoration, with the exception of the Darby Chocolates Cobb and Andy's "Just So" Burkett...remember, I said "most".

But what is the thought on non-slabbable cabinet card photos? I have seen some of you pay thousands for really beat-up team cabinets that I wouldn't own unless I could restore them for a reasonable amount, but you seem very pleased with the purchases. At least one of you said that you would display your cabinet with the beat-up border exposed. I'm not asking whether restoration should be divulged when selling (not looking for a fight), but rather your opinion as to whether or not it should even be done.

...late thought - I also remember discussing a Peck & Snyder Cincinnati team "card" that had been restored and sold at auction - was the price realized lower than if it had been left alone? If so, was that because there were several unrestored ones that are known to exist? i.e, would a restored "Just So" Burkett be worth less than an unrestored one if such multiple copies existed? ...yes, I'm basically off for the holidays, but I'll be good.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I will place my vote.

To me, a restored card is almost always worth less than an unrestored one. But I recognize that others may feel differently. Therefore, I support the existence of card restorers.

The above opinion is not universally applicable. That is, a shattered vase is worth more restored than a pile of rubble. An antique auto is worth more if it is in running condition; and when faced with a charging bear, Id like to have my gun in working condition rather than all original.

Similarly, if the item is unique, there is no comparison. Therefore, a card of which a single example exists can not be hurt in value by its condition, in my opinion. If the custodian of this unique historical object chooses to clean it or otherwise alter it, this action has no negative effect on its value, and may actually improve it. In this case I consider the card not unlike any other art object.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

There are cases where I think restoration would be desirable. For example, if the photo was torn in half, has lots of mouse bites to the mount or serious stains to the image. If the mount has become so decrepid (ala 35 percent is missing and the other 65 percent is stained black and green) and the photo is intended for display, I don't object to a new mount.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

One thing I have found objectionable in recent MastroNet auctions are news service photos of Gehrig, Ruth or such that have recently cut perfect razor sharp edges. MastroNet has detailed that they were recently cut, so I'm not objecting to the catalog's description. But there's no reason to crop the edges of a 1920s photo so it looks Minty. I find it distasteful, especially since the owner can matt out a ragged edge if he doesn't like it.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

I think a lot of people who are restoring items have no understanding or appreceation of the material.

For example, an old news service photo will was a 'behind the scenes' production item used in publishing. It originally would often have funny cut edges, and various cropping marks, ink highlights, production marks, stamps and tags put there by the photographer, editor and/or printer. It's a historical artifact, and all its imperfections are what it is and tell its story. If a large nice photo is torn in half or has coffee stains or housepaint on it, I understand that some restoration can be appropriate. But, if someone say about a 1917 Harry Hooper photo, "Let's crop the edges so they are sharp, and get someone to remove all that original production writing on back and crop marks on front," they have no business owning the thing much less restoring it. The photo isn't a kit car.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Another note. There will be cases where restoration is needed. For example, if a tear in a panorama is not mended, the tear may become larger and larger. Or if a cabinet image has mold on it, it may be essential to address the situation sooner rather than later before the mold ruins the photo.

So there are cases where restoration is not only reasonable, it is wise. A test for the importance of restoration can be the question "Will proper restoration prevent the photo from becoming more damaged and more damaged that it already is?" With the fixing of a tear, the answer often is yes.

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

I agree with David regarding not restoring, or in Mastro's doublespeak, stabilizing, old photos, to the extent of removing production information. I have sold literally 100,000's of photos in the past 5 years (primarily movie and TV press photos). Many of the older ones came from Dell Publishing and other magazine archives, most of which have some pen or pencil cropping borders, and all of them have writing or stamps on the back.

These markings help identify how the photo was published, oftimes, the magazine, issue, and page, it appeared on, and lends to the authenticity of the item.

I recently sold a photo of Rudolph Valentino and his wife for $125.00. If photos were graded (and let's hope they never are to be), this one would have received an authentic grade. Missing pieces, tears, and tape were some of the faults. However, I do not feel it would have sold for much more, or any more, if the condition was better. It was a unique image, and I'm sure the buyer liked because of that.

It is enjoyable as a dealer to find collectors that appreciate the value of an item for what it is, not solely based on condition. I like being a member of this board because there are so many collectors that feel this way.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

I think that's different - If a photo has tears or pieces have fallen off, I always use small strips of surgical tape to repair the tears or reattach the pieces, but from the back. I don't do anything to the front. I have mixed emotions about the cabinets with totally trashed back-matting - even though they are too ugly for me to buy but would look great if restored, I hate to touch the "effects of age", so I just don't buy them.