Original vs. Restoration, any examples where we all might agree? (collector, paint)

[Tracysherm]

I was watching American Restoration last night, and I was appalled when a guy paid them to completely restore his grandfather's gunner's helmet from the Vietnam war. The helmet was in bad shape, and the man had played with it as a kid. It had painted "graffiti" on it from guys in the grandfather's squadron during the war.

The restorers traced the graffiti, then totally sandblasted the whole helmet to bare metal. They found original pieces to replace the missing parts, like the mask. Then they repainted the helmet and re-did the graffiti. The customer was happy, and planned to give it as a present to his still-living grandfather.
I was choking on my wine watching this. You stripped off the original writing from the soldiers and re-wrote it?????? To me, the whole point of this item is the memories of the grandfather and the men he served with. Now it's essentially a brand-new helmet with brand new graffiti done by an artist.

It got me thinking about the debate over original condition vs. restoration, which is often played out on these antique/collectible/historical item TV shows (Antiques Roadshow, American Pickers, Pawn Stars, American Restoration, Counting Cars, etc.)

I wonder if some people just prefer original across the board, and others prefer fully restored across the board? Or do people prefer some types of items to be original condition and others to be restored?

I'd have to say that if it's an "across the board" thing, I'm much more of an "original/historical condition" person. But as I think of more examples, I think my preferences are more scattered. How about you?

On one hand, with furniture, something like an 18th century chair, I understand the value of the original finish, even if the finish doesn't look so pretty. When I'm considering an item that's some 300 years old, it's a piece of history, and should be kept in original condition. But then you can look at an 18th century chair with a caned seat that's all busted out. Sure, it might be desirable to have the original caning even if it's broken and sticking out all over the place. But if the chair is unusable and unattractive, I couldn't make a place in my house or in my life for it. I guess if I had lots of disposable money and extra rooms that I could keep the cats out of, I could keep such items just for display, but when it comes to antique furniture, I want stuff that I can use, just as the people before me used it. I like writing on a desk that people have been writing on for hundreds of years, or sitting my butt in a chair that's had hundreds of years' worth of butts in it. I would have to have this chair re-caned.

I've learned lots about "mantiques" from American Pickers. These guys love old bicycles, motorcycles, gas pumps, and cars. Now, since I don't collect any of those things, my opinion is worth squat, but here's my gut instinct: If I were to have an antique car, I'd want it fully restored, to be like it was when brand-new (shiny chrome, etc). To me, the whole point of an old car is to appreciate it as it was when it was created, and to be able to actually drive it. If I were to have an antique bicycle, I kind of "get" the Pickers' attitude that it should be old and rusty, and NOT restored. So we're not talking "original condition" because to me that means "as it was when it was built." We're talking "original" in terms of it having the patina of years on it. But then again, unless I was a bicycle history enthusiast, I couldn't see why I would want an old broken rusty bike, even if it were from 1901. But I'm not a bike person. I guess this is more of a museum piece or display piece, but I don't think I'd want a rusty bike hanging on my wall. But I guess bike people would.

There seems to be dispute among people who collect old advertising. Some want signs to be "farm fresh" and love rust, bullet holes, etc. Others would take such a sign to the American Restoration guys and have it completely re-done to look brand-new. I don't collect advertising, and when I buy something antique, I prefer it to NOT have words or brand names on it, so I can't really form an opinion here. but the collectors seems to disagree deeply on this.

Another type of item that seems to create a lot of debate is old toys. When it comes to something like old cast-iron toys, I would want them to be totally original, with the original paint there, even if it's chipped, worn, and faded. But what about other toys, or what about non-antique but "vintage" toys? Some people on these shows want a toy that reminds them of one they had when they were a kid, some 40-60 years ago. So a man might pay for restoration on a vintage go-cart, pedal car, or sled to be exactly like it was when he got it under the Christmas tree when he was 7. But I'm sure some people watching that on TV are saddened to see an item lose its old patina and the weathering it received over the years. Which type are you?

But I had thought, at least until last night, that everyone could agree that a one-of-a-kind item with personal nostalgic/sentimental value should be kept in original condition and NOT restored. But this guy totally destroyed the history of this helmet that had sat on his grandfather's head during war, and had writing on it in the hand of actual soldiers he fought with.

What say you? Which kinds of items do you prefer to be old and beaten-up, and which do you prefer to be fully restored? Do other collectors of that kind of item seem to agree with you or no?

[mr bolo]

for militaria, I also prefer to keep it as found in original condition, even if it's salty and rusted, the poor condition is part of the history, removing markings and repainting destroys the history

and it becomes a reproduction in my opinion

I only believe in preserving the item like wiping a light coat of oil on a old gun to keep it from rusting

[PAhippo]

I guess for me, the general guideline is preservation of the piece. If it needs fixing in some way to keep it from totally disintegrating, do it. If you (generic you, not you specifically) want something that looks new, go buy new.

[Tracysherm]

I guess I lean more toward the idea of preserving history. But I guess if a collectible is very plentiful, then I'm okay when people restore it. Like vintage Coke machines: there are tons of them and they're everywhere. So when people pay to have one fully restored and made all new & shiny, it doesn't bother me. But if something is rare, and/or has historical significance (like militaria) I would be very much against restoration.

[Bulldogdad]

On this issue I say to each his own.

[pknopp]

I would have never restored that helmet. I agree with that.

I have a 1963 Honda Dream that I ride fairly regularly (not long distances or anything). It's in nice original condition. I far prefer it that way. The paint is weathered some, there are various dings, the chrome is less than perfect but I go with the idea that it's only original once.

If something isn't particularly super rare and it's in really bad shape I see no harm in restoring something if that is what you want to do.

I am happy with a less than perfect original piece over a completely restored one every time.

[CraigCreek]

The rule of thumb is to do nothing which cannot be undone. So - fabrics can be gently cleaned, wrapped in 100% cotton or acid free paper for storage, antique dolls can be restrung, redressed in the styles and fabrics available when they were new - ideally using vintage fabrics (if the original or vintage clothing is missing), have their wigs cleaned and have their eyes reset, china and glassware can be washed and glued if broken (but if broken, their value will be lost in all but the rarest cases), rust can be removed from ironware, chairs can be re-caned, reupholstered or recovered - OVER the original upholstery, if it's still there - cleaning can be done, gently and with environmentally safe materials, of almost anything.

Wooden furniture should not be refinished if it's at all avoidable. Valuable furniture which survived flooding and suffered water damage might be an exception.

Broken things can be carefully re-glued - with water-soluble glue, possibly, if there's any foreseeable reason to think that someone, sometime in the future would want to examine the item in pieces. Missing parts can be replaced, severely worn parts can be replicated - but the original pieces should be kept with the item and labeled as such, if the item has any value at all.

As for that poor helmet, gentle cleaning would have been quite sufficient. As it is - well, I hope the original owner appreciated the intent more than the action, which destroyed almost all but the sentimental value (and it may well have impacted that negatively as well).

[Tracysherm]

They probably should have just replaced everything with the helmet, even the helmet itself. They could have traced the graffiti and then reproduced it on the replacement helmet, without altering the original helmet at all. Then the guy would have the original helmet and a copy of it, with all vintage parts, and a nice copy of the graffiti, AND still have the original, unaltered helmet.

[BlackRosebat]

Howdy;
Was just reading all of the excellent comments about the debate between restoration and historic condition of collectible objects. Fascinating!
I have been collecting, on and off, all of my life but, have only become interested in the 'state' of said collectibles in the last few years. Over the last ten years my life has finally become stable enough to allow a more directed and earnest attempt to collect. I have chosen 'action figures' and many of their associate toys. I understand (albeit, an understanding gleaned from ebay) that these items are usually more desirable in 'mint in box' condition, i.e.; the item unopened and in near store shelf condition.
Therein lies the tangle. I have noticed that certain items, notably those that have both hard plastic and rubber components, ted to take a certain different aging. As example; Walmart's 'Stealth launch Bat-pod Batmobile', the hard plastic seems to remain stable but, the rubber wheels of the Bat-pod and the action figure of the Batman have begun to oxidize turning them a most unattractive 'fuzzy' grey.
So, would it be better to open the package and restore the rubber parts to a better appearance, thus losing the honest classification of MIB or leave the item in unopened but aged condition?
I do look forward to hearing from y'all and thank you for your time.

[James1202]

Originally Posted by BlackRosebat

Howdy;
Was just reading all of the excellent comments about the debate between restoration and historic condition of collectible objects. Fascinating!
I have been collecting, on and off, all of my life but, have only become interested in the 'state' of said collectibles in the last few years. Over the last ten years my life has finally become stable enough to allow a more directed and earnest attempt to collect. I have chosen 'action figures' and many of their associate toys. I understand (albeit, an understanding gleaned from ebay) that these items are usually more desirable in 'mint in box' condition, i.e.; the item unopened and in near store shelf condition.
Therein lies the tangle. I have noticed that certain items, notably those that have both hard plastic and rubber components, ted to take a certain different aging. As example; Walmart's 'Stealth launch Bat-pod Batmobile', the hard plastic seems to remain stable but, the rubber wheels of the Bat-pod and the action figure of the Batman have begun to oxidize turning them a most unattractive 'fuzzy' grey.
So, would it be better to open the package and restore the rubber parts to a better appearance, thus losing the honest classification of MIB or leave the item in unopened but aged condition?
I do look forward to hearing from y'all and thank you for your time.

Part of the "proof" of a collectible's authenticity is the unique nature of its "patina of age". While the natural aging process of an item can be approximately simulated in a reproduction it's often, if not always, difficult to "age" a piece perfectly. Your 'mint in box' is probably expected to take on the patina of age in a certain way that serious collectors will value as proof of its authenticity as a 'mint in box' (vs. a piece that was later resealed in a found mint box). But I think 'never opened' is different than 'mint in box'.