• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Restoration - Why is it such a no no?

Started by Lucky Baru,

52 posts in this topic

Lucky Baru

Lucky Baru

Posted
Posted

In the art world paintings are restored all the time. If they are done professional the values for the pieces generally increases. Many works have been restored in ways that it is impossible to tell if a piece has been restored in the past. If done properly it brings old art back to life.

 

 

I've collected comics and art for decades and have never asked just always wondered why is restoring comics and/or OA is a big no, no. Why is that the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Solar

Solar

Posted
Posted

I don't think restoration is a "big no no" especially on art. It just needs to be disclosed when selling the item. Even the comic book people are realizing that some books just won't make it without a little help. It's the shady dealers who try to pull off undisclosed color touch, etc. that give resto a bad name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
In the art world paintings are restored all the time. If they are done professional the values for the pieces generally increases. Many works have been restored in ways that it is impossible to tell if a piece has been restored in the past. If done properly it brings old art back to life.

 

 

I've collected comics and art for decades and have never asked just always wondered why is restoring comics and/or OA is a big no, no. Why is that the case?

 

 

That's a great question. It's a tough one too.

 

I always compare what we see in comics and artwork to classic cars. My family is in the automotive field and have have owned, rebuilt, restored and sold several classic/muscle cars over the years.

 

When dealing with a rare or desirable car, like a comic or piece of art, that ones that bring the most money are the untouched, unrestored, all original ones. The rarity and difficulty in finding something that survived the ravages of time, the elements, and use and still retained original beauty is appreciated by collectors. They are called "survivor" cars for a reason and they bring top dollar.

 

Next down the run are the ones where the paint and interior are pristine but it needed a little bit of mechanical work but is still indicative of an original car.

 

Then you've got the ones that need a full restoration inside and out. They look like the original, sound like it too, have all the right pieces and parts, but it's not truly in original condition. They bring good money, depending on rarity, but not as much as a pristine survivor and many times not a great deal more than a quality full restoration.

 

Then you've got the resto mods. The cars that are rebuilt or restored to look like the original, but might have a different engine, trans, suspension etc. They've deviated from original to a point where they don't bring much compared to the cost of acquisition, parts and labor. Fun to drive, but not collectible and will not really appreciate.

 

Comics and art are like that. The true survivors are the most rare. A NM gem from the 40's, or a piece of art that's clean and not creased or stained with all the pencils and inks still present will demand the most attention.

 

Next down are pieces or books that needed something minor that doesn't add parts or take away parts....like pressing, or (on art) removing mold or stains. Everything we love about the art and the artist is still there, untouched, just preserved and made to present better. In art this doesn't really impact value at all for me.

 

Then you've got the pieces that are reinked or retouched....now you get into the gray area. Much like cars, was it done numbers matching (getting the same inker to reink faded areas) or was it a resto mod (getting some random artist to redo pieces and patches or in one cases a whole head on a Silver Age cover). That will tell you how much it impacts price.

 

In the case of having the same inker who did the piece originally reink a piece, opinions are mixed, however given the proliferation of sharpies/markers for background and large black area in the field in the 70's-90's, there are some great pieces that have faded to lavender/beige/brown over the years and really turn people away for fear of it getting worse and not better. In that case, having the original inker reink those faded portions in india ink or similar light fast ink actually can make the piece more desirable to some (while killing it for others) but it does preserve what's left of the piece for the future before it entirely fades away.

 

So, there's a stigma to restoration only so far as it's not disclosed and so far as it alters or changes something unique about the piece/book that renders it not-original for all time.

 

Personally, I would never want a piece reinked, or materially altered, by someone who didn't work on it originally. However, having someone like Scott Williams reink backgrounds on a 90's x-men piece that might have faded over time isn't the end of the world for me personally. I wouldn't want main figures reinked through.

 

Solar is right about disclosure...it's key for the provenance of the piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJRome

DJRome

Posted
Posted

Well, restoring a comic is very different from restoring oa. I'm sure there are guys in the book forum who can explain why you don't restore a comic book.

 

With comic art it isn't such a deal deal, depending on what is done. I think adding stats is fine, as long as it is disclosed when the piece is presented to others. If possible, you should put the stats on an acetate sheet to lay on top of the original art. Adding stats to an acetate overlay is a great way to help a piece's presentation without messing with the art itself.

 

Cleaning paper often weakens it and leaves a thinner board that doesn't feel right when you hold it. It's sometimes worth the effort to remove glue stains, but I generally don't recommend cleaning art board unless it really looks bad.

 

Cleaning art on velum, however, is actually a big plus. Velum is mostly plastic, and as it dries out it causes yellowing and cracking. When it is cleaned, the plastic regains elasticity and returns to it's original color. Cleaning velum art will add years to it's lifespan.

 

The only thing that really is considered forbidden in oa restoration is messing with the actual art. Having an artist add to the original image or (gasp) coloring it in is very unappealing to most collectors and should be avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
Yup.

Restoration isn't always a no-no.

 

Fixing the damage done to the ASM # 6 pages that were chewed on by a dog is a good thing. :)

 

I doubt if many, or any, disagree.

 

Oh yeah....those ASM 6 pages needed it and that was a mission of mercy. I had one of those pages (some were worse than others) and the restoration saved them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AKA Rick

AKA Rick

Posted
Posted

Restoration for preservation and a proactive attempt at staving off deterioration is not only acceptable, but recommended.

 

Restoration for aesthetic considerations that are somewhat subjective (such as "filling in the blacks") is not recommended, nor is "cleaning"

 

In the world of collectibles, having something in original condition with all of it's flaws is preferred. If you look at the neighboring categories of furniture and coins, what once was seen as a valiant effort to clean an item up and make it look better at a glance ends up devaluing a piece tremendously.

 

It's best to leave items "as is" if you're an investor or think one day you'll sell it.

 

If you're 110% sure you're keeping it, you can do what you want, even have your kids take a crayon to a B&W original piece of art that you paid for and own.

 

Personally, I'm a fan of the often overused cliche term "it is what it is" and take non-action on restoring any artwork, with the exception of if there's tape which is easy to remove, I usually do that to avoid future issues with the tape acid staining or tanning the paper. Also, if there's aftermarket alterations as some dealers write prices on the margins of the page, I may erase those since they're not part of the original process. I'd never reatttach stats, logos, ballons where the glue dried up and piece fell off. I'd never color in inks that either faded, chipped off or looks incomplete. I'd never retouch any white out that's flaked off. I do, do my best to preserve the artwork in archival quality mylars and poly bags 'tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ciorac

ciorac

Posted
Posted
Restoration for preservation and a proactive attempt at staving off deterioration is not only acceptable, but recommended.

 

Restoration for aesthetic considerations that are somewhat subjective (such as "filling in the blacks") is not recommended, nor is "cleaning"

 

In the world of collectibles, having something in original condition with all of it's flaws is preferred. If you look at the neighboring categories of furniture and coins, what once was seen as a valiant effort to clean an item up and make it look better at a glance ends up devaluing a piece tremendously.

 

It's best to leave items "as is" if you're an investor or think one day you'll sell it.

 

If you're 110% sure you're keeping it, you can do what you want, even have your kids take a crayon to a B&W original piece of art that you paid for and own.

 

Personally, I'm a fan of the often overused cliche term "it is what it is" and take non-action on restoring any artwork, with the exception of if there's tape which is easy to remove, I usually do that to avoid future issues with the tape acid staining or tanning the paper. Also, if there's aftermarket alterations as some dealers write prices on the margins of the page, I may erase those since they're not part of the original process. I'd never reatttach stats, logos, balloons where the glue dried up and piece fell off. I'd never color in inks that either faded, chipped off or looks incomplete. I'd never retouch any white out that's flaked off. I do, do my best to preserve the artwork in archival quality mylars and poly bags 'tho.

 

Why? (on the bold section). If you have the original word balloon, or whatever, and it simply fell off, what harm in re-gluing it on? It was glued on in the first place wasn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaybuck43

jaybuck43

Posted
Posted
Or better yet, an archival "rice" paste.

 

I like it, but my feeling is, if I use the same kind of paste the artist used, it's structurally the same. If I use a different paste than I've altered it. Not saying either way is right or wrong, just my own personal feeling on the matter :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dick O.

Dick O.

Posted
Posted

I agree that resto of OA, like in the larger art world, is not always a no-no. In fact it should probably be encouraged for OA that's damaged; instead of the general attitude that damaged OA is acceptable unless the actual artwork is affected.

 

For instance, this Larsen ASM page has water damage and/or foxing along the top edge and right side, along with general staining. It didn't affect the winning bid one bit though:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Amazing-Spider-Man-347-Page-6-Comic-Art-by-Erik-Larsen-/121868435648?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=IzmRTU1vKOp1OYgNCZjPKXCQhV0%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pemart1966

pemart1966

Posted
Posted

"Many works have been restored in ways that it is impossible to tell if a piece has been restored in the past."

 

Perhaps to the naked eye but there are other ways that will reveal restoration. It's never "impossible" to detect restoration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lucky Baru

Lucky Baru

Posted
  • Author
Posted
"Many works have been restored in ways that it is impossible to tell if a piece has been restored in the past."

 

Perhaps to the naked eye but there are other ways that will reveal restoration. It's never "impossible" to detect restoration.

 

I would agree with your statement. You can x-ray, use screens to tell what type of paints was used, yada, yada, yada. Forensically you can break down anything.

 

My point was that the art world allows for restoration. Generally, the OA market doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaybuck43

jaybuck43

Posted
Posted

Is it possible the distinction exists because of age? A rembrandt would be at least 350 years old. A Kirby page maybe 75 but realistically 40-50. The general consensus seems to be that of course after 350 years a piece is going to need some touching up. But after 50? With much improved materials (i.e. better paper techniques that make it last longer, higher quality inks and pigments etc.) and more conservation techniquesI guess some people might hold it to a higher standard? Then again I don't turn my nose up at restored art, depending on how much of it has been restored (i.e. if you ripped off the corner of Tec 27's original art and the rest was lost in a fire, attached it to new bristle board and then redrew everything, I'd have no interest in it. However, fixing a pasteup or having a small portion re inked if the inks have faded, I am fine with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing