First I want to say this is a general point of discussion. I know that many people are passionate about what they collect and the meaning of their autographs.

If an older piece has seen its better days, would you rather "cut it" or send it off for restoration?

I know there are phenomenal things certain paper restorations can do to a piece. Take wrinkles out and even put paper back where it has torn or ripped. However this changes the history and can also could affect value.

That being said the same is true for cutting a piece and losing its history. I was curious what everyones feelings were on this topic?

I personally do not enjoy cuts. When framed they do look nice, I however think restoration is interesting as long as it is simply to preserve the item and not to add and remove.

Your thoughts?

Views: 283

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Restoration for preservation is fine in my opinion. I tend to believe many autographs with have to be restored one day because after all its an organic matter.
Cutting isn't really preserving anything. With paper it can be restored fortunately, with signed guitars and pick guards, i really have no idea whats going to happen to the autographs after a hslf century or more and will you be able to restore them if need be?

There is cutting out, conservation and restoration. Stabilisation and consolidation...cutting might fit here under those terms at times...I have on rare occasion cut something out of an environment that would harm it. Generally speaking, I don't like cut or restored items.

Re restoration - permanence of materials and stability are key.

I've seen that in the art world, restoring paintings back to the way the original artist had painted.

The question is what is in need of restoration?

I personally enjoy seeing a vintage piece look worn...Warts and all. However preservation is key. It will all turn to dust one way or another some day.

That is not proper - any restoration on valuable artwork, inpainting especially, should be obvious and remain reversible. Something like a Rembrandt portrait C. 1650-1660, with its severe darkening, ready-made often low-quality materials and so on can never be restored to its original appearance. We only know what was there because of neutron activation radiographs etc. which allow you to see previous layers based on absorption (and subsequent release) of radioactivity by the different pigments onto sheets of film.

Hakiman had his Lennon, ono photo restored, they did a fantastic job. Lizzie bravo's, sgt pepper was restored. I like the show called, Fake or fortune, it probably bore most people to death, but they trace the provenance of the art and then restore it sometimes.

Hi Paul, ,

Was the photo the b/w vertical SP? I recall the Pepper. Those were well done. But they are not works by Vermeer or Rembrandt. I still think restoration should remain obvious up close even with graphs, and should always be disclosed of course. Sometimes though, the last bit is...forgotten, so keeping any restoration visible is a good idea IMHO. 

Yes indeed it was!

Yes, that was very well done and still "visible" as I recall so certainly a big thumbs up from me. That is the kind of thing where restoration is called for and the result is very acceptable. I also echo Adam's words regarding the appearance of age. 

Here is the picture Paul is talking about.im happy i decided to restore the tear.You can still clearly see it,but from a short distance,the tear is hardly noticable.Had the tear been on the signatures,i wouldnt have even considered a restoration.here is the before and after.
Attachments:
After
Attachments:

RSS

Real Autograph News: Keep up on what's going down in autographs

Subscribe to our newsletter, Real Autograph News 

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2009-2017   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Community Manager.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service