Restoration - Why is it such a no no?

[JadeGiant]

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.

 

I agree with this as a guiding principle and would adhere to this in almost every situation. However, there is no fast rule (I agree with this as well) and there will always be scenarios where restoration would be the “right thing” to do on a piece. I think the difference of opinions come in where you draw the line between pure original preservation and some restoration. If I ran across the Kirby cover to Hulk 1 at an estate sale and grandma had let little Johnny fill it in crayon, you better be sure my first thought would be what type of restoration possibilities existed. I am not leaving that as is. I would love to see the ASM pages being referenced – sounds like a good read.

 

I also like Chris’ comparison to cars. As a car guy myself, I totally get this logic. Good stuff.

 

[JadeGiant]

I have a few Hulk annual pages with word balloons that have fallen off. Some of the balloons are in the mylar, some are not, and some are about to fall off. Curious to hear opinions of what you would do in this scenario?

[kav]

A comic book with a pencil dot of black CT should not lose like 60% of its value.

It just shouldn't.

[Bronty]

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.

 

I agree with this as a guiding principle and would adhere to this in almost every situation. However, there is no fast rule (I agree with this as well) and there will always be scenarios where restoration would be the “right thing” to do on a piece. I think the difference of opinions come in where you draw the line between pure original preservation and some restoration. If I ran across the Kirby cover to Hulk 1 at an estate sale and grandma had let little Johnny fill it in crayon, you better be sure my first thought would be what type of restoration possibilities existed. I am not leaving that as is. I would love to see the ASM pages being referenced – sounds like a good read.

 

I also like Chris’ comparison to cars. As a car guy myself, I totally get this logic. Good stuff.

 

Depends on whether little Johnny colored Hulk in green or grey?

[Bronty]

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.

 

That's definitely part of it, but there's also some differences in POV that arise because of the differing nature of the mediums ('old fine art' is typically a painting). A painting that was hanging over a wood-burning fireplace for a hundred years or in the home of a heavy smoker (and people smoked more heavily then) without being covered in glass is going to be grimy and dirty. A light clean will literally 'restore' the colors to what they were originally intended to be.

 

Obviously, with almost all comic OA, its black and white and modern. No ravages of age, no distortion of color from airborne particles, etc.

 

It typically doesn't NEED as much if any restoration and so it has to be viewed in a different light. And when you think of fine art restoration - you don't think of restoring drawings. You think of those as not needing any work!

 

The checkered history of resto in the related comics field doesn't help either.

 

For my taste personally, if there's nothing wrong with it, leave it alone. If there is something especially egregious that needs correcting then I'm ok with that personally, but I'd rather have a piece where it just wasn't an issue.

 

Typographic stuff like stat overlays and gluing things down archivally I don't have a problem with. The black lines themselves I wouldn't want touched, ever.

[JadeGiant]

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.

 

I agree with this as a guiding principle and would adhere to this in almost every situation. However, there is no fast rule (I agree with this as well) and there will always be scenarios where restoration would be the “right thing” to do on a piece. I think the difference of opinions come in where you draw the line between pure original preservation and some restoration. If I ran across the Kirby cover to Hulk 1 at an estate sale and grandma had let little Johnny fill it in crayon, you better be sure my first thought would be what type of restoration possibilities existed. I am not leaving that as is. I would love to see the ASM pages being referenced – sounds like a good read.

 

I also like Chris’ comparison to cars. As a car guy myself, I totally get this logic. Good stuff.

 

Depends on whether little Johnny colored Hulk in green or grey?

 

Good distinction but still getting it restored.

 

 

[Bronty]

it was a joke

[JadeGiant]

it was a joke

 

 

I got it - so was mine (sorry for lack of a good emoticon)

[Bronty]

[Rune]

 

Typographic stuff like stat overlays and gluing things down archivally I don't have a problem with. The black lines themselves I wouldn't want touched, ever.

 

+1

[Monkeyman]

I once bought a De Carlo Humorama cartoon from a dealer who had posted a scan showing it to be white. When it arrived it was tanned all over. I took it to a local framing place that works with an art conservation firm and had the paper deacidified. It's now white and conserved from future deterioration. I'd disclose that the work had been done if I ever sell, but I don't think it will affect the value.

 

Mike

[Dumur]

I actually just won a piece on ebay that went for a very low price due to the significant foxing and mildew damage on it. It's a piece I like and figured an art restorer could likely help it, seeing as how the piece isn't even that old.

 

Does anyone know what I might be expected to pay to have significant foxing or mildew removed?

[MHoes]

I've never been in a position were it was an issue (so I may feel different if/when that actually happens). But I feel that 'minor' restoration wouldn't be an issue, and any additions and/or modifications of the actual art would. Balloon re-attachments if fallen off, foxing/browning reduced/removed (is such a thing even possible ?), and perhaps even re-applying small parts of the inks *IF* that part of the drawing had almost faded away completely (and preferably by the original artist, but that may not be possible), would all be acceptable to me personally. Also, the person/organization that did the actual restoration (well-known and generally respected restorer, or *shudder* the current owner him/herself) would make a lot of difference to me. Adding anything that was not on the original, would not be acceptable. But I guess that the most important part of it to me would be that it needs to be disclosed to the potential buyer that restoration (and what parts, and to what extent) has been done on the piece, so that the buyer can make up his/her own mind about it.

[comicwiz]

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.

 

This is a great comment, but I'm not sure the classic car market is always analogous to what happens in original art markets. In my experience as an appraiser, it really depends on the context and the piece in question. Art restoration may in fact enhance the value of a work of art, but we are speaking more on "cleaning", mending, or even retouching as they can greatly improve the aesthetic enjoyment of the art.

 

However it's a very fine line when you have to appraise a piece that has been restored and there are certainly instances (rare, but it does happen) where depreciated value formulas have to be applied (i.e. incorporating original restoration costs into the total value) to try to bring the piece to a replacement cost valuation where the owner isn't taking a bath.

 

One thing that does also vary with mileage is the fact that in some cases, especially fresh to market pieces of a highly desirable nature, where the market may respond more favourably to selling the piece as is, for reasons that the new owner would like to have their own people conserve it. I actually had this very thing happen with an estate I was handling, and I made it abundantly clear to the person in the waiting on one of the pieces that I wasn't going to allow the piece to be devalued to suit their buying preferences. I also knew the person who they were going to use to perform the restoration which made it easier for me to make the case that I wasn't going to devalue the piece as I was well aware where the piece was going to end up in terms of value post restoration.

 

That was a situation where the buyer would have done whatever it took to keep the sale private, but in a comparable situation where you're looking at an OA page or cover that is on it's last leg, I would not say every piece is going to take a hit if sold "as is" unless we are talking more serious issues like mold or extensive foxing. Disclosure is important because I do feel in situations where the page, stats/paste-ups are too uncharacteristically white for its age or show enough visible contrast from one element of the page to the other, that it may reflect in the final price for reasons people are apprehensive about stepping-up without knowing the pieces history.

 

I will say that I'm personally more sensitive/aware when it comes to pieces with a lot of stats/paste-ups, the amount of area they occupy and their general location/proximity to finished pencil/inks because I'm of the opinion those glues will eventually have an impact on the way the paper ages.

[MHoes]

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.

 

This is a great comment, but I'm not sure the classic car market is always analogous to what happens in original art markets. In my experience as an appraiser, it really depends on the context and the piece in question. Art restoration may in fact enhance the value of a work of art, but we are speaking more on "cleaning", mending, or even retouching as they can greatly improve the aesthetic enjoyment of the art.

 

However it's a very fine line when you have to appraise a piece that has been restored and there are certainly instances (rare, but it does happen) where depreciated value formulas have to be applied (i.e. incorporating original restoration costs into the total value) to try to bring the piece to a replacement cost valuation where the owner isn't taking a bath.

 

One thing that does also vary with mileage is the fact that in some cases, especially fresh to market pieces of a highly desirable nature, where the market may respond more favourably to selling the piece as is, for reasons that the new owner would like to have their own people conserve it. I actually had this very thing happen with an estate I was handling, and I made it abundantly clear to the person in the waiting on one of the pieces that I wasn't going to allow the piece to be devalued to suit their buying preferences. I also knew the person who they were going to use to perform the restoration which made it easier for me to make the case that I wasn't going to devalue the piece as I was well aware where the piece was going to end up in terms of value post restoration.

 

That was a situation where the buyer would have done whatever it took to keep the sale private, but in a comparable situation where you're looking at an OA page or cover that is on it's last leg, I would not say every piece is going to take a hit if sold "as is" unless we are talking more serious issues like mold or extensive foxing. I will say that I'm personally more sensitive/aware when it comes to pieces with a lot of stats/paste-ups, the amount of area they occupy and their general location/proximity to finished pencil/inks because I'm of the opinion those glues will eventually have an impact on the way the paper ages.

That certainly is a great point of view especially coming from an appraiser: I never really looked at it from that point of view. Certainly in the future, I'm sure to first consult my appraiser about the work I might be planning before actually having the conservation/restoration done.

 

By the way, totally off-topic (sorry for that), would you happen to know any good original comic art appraiser that's active in Europe (The Netherlands) ? I currently had the appraising done for insurance purposes by a company that was recommended by my insurance company, but the appraiser noted that although they were happy to do it, it wasn't the typical type of art they regularly appraised.

[alxjhnsn]

I've only had one piece restored and I'm glad that I did it.

 

Original..................Restored

 

The original was dirty and worse than that the glue used to hold the overlay at the top and the pasted on doll clothes was attacking the paper.

 

The scan of the cleaned piece shows too much contrast versus what is on my wall, but the comparison shows what was done. Click the images to learn more.

[zhamlau]

When you have an old painting cleaned, removing the dark residue on the varnish or redoing the frame for the canvas...does that reduce the price substantially?

 

If it does, it should effect comic art cleaning off dirt the same way. If it does not hurt the price, cleaning/stain removal shouldn't effect comic art.

[comicwiz]

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.

 

This is a great comment, but I'm not sure the classic car market is always analogous to what happens in original art markets. In my experience as an appraiser, it really depends on the context and the piece in question. Art restoration may in fact enhance the value of a work of art, but we are speaking more on "cleaning", mending, or even retouching as they can greatly improve the aesthetic enjoyment of the art.

 

However it's a very fine line when you have to appraise a piece that has been restored and there are certainly instances (rare, but it does happen) where depreciated value formulas have to be applied (i.e. incorporating original restoration costs into the total value) to try to bring the piece to a replacement cost valuation where the owner isn't taking a bath.

 

One thing that does also vary with mileage is the fact that in some cases, especially fresh to market pieces of a highly desirable nature, where the market may respond more favourably to selling the piece as is, for reasons that the new owner would like to have their own people conserve it. I actually had this very thing happen with an estate I was handling, and I made it abundantly clear to the person in the waiting on one of the pieces that I wasn't going to allow the piece to be devalued to suit their buying preferences. I also knew the person who they were going to use to perform the restoration which made it easier for me to make the case that I wasn't going to devalue the piece as I was well aware where the piece was going to end up in terms of value post restoration.

 

That was a situation where the buyer would have done whatever it took to keep the sale private, but in a comparable situation where you're looking at an OA page or cover that is on it's last leg, I would not say every piece is going to take a hit if sold "as is" unless we are talking more serious issues like mold or extensive foxing. I will say that I'm personally more sensitive/aware when it comes to pieces with a lot of stats/paste-ups, the amount of area they occupy and their general location/proximity to finished pencil/inks because I'm of the opinion those glues will eventually have an impact on the way the paper ages.

That certainly is a great point of view especially coming from an appraiser: I never really looked at it from that point of view. Certainly in the future, I'm sure to first consult my appraiser about the work I might be planning before actually having the conservation/restoration done.

 

By the way, totally off-topic (sorry for that), would you happen to know any good original comic art appraiser that's active in Europe (The Netherlands) ? I currently had the appraising done for insurance purposes by a company that was recommended by my insurance company, but the appraiser noted that although they were happy to do it, it wasn't the typical type of art they regularly appraised.

 

Generally, insurers recommend using an accredited appraiser for their impartiality, and because they have been taught to use uniform standards and practices to valuate personal property. There are certainly other reasons, but these are the two primary ones. I do receive a fair amount of referral assignments from insurers in North America but that's due to the range of items I cover - some requiring on-site visual inspection. In your case, good scans, and disclosure on pieces where it pertains are all that is required to perform what is referred to as a restricted appraisal.

 

It is standard practice for an appraiser to inform a client that they may not be as familiar in a specific area, however they still would need to apply the same standards of practice to provide the service as someone who is more familiar appraising such items. The only related concern with this is if they need to spend more time to perform the work of someone who is more proficient in the area, although that is something you would be well within your rights to ask of the person assigned to the job of appraising your collection.

 

Unfortunately, I wouldn't be in a position to refer you to anyone in Europe, but if it comes to not feeling entirely comfortable with the options you are given by your insurance company, please feel free to reach out and I'll see if I can be of any assistance.

[comicwiz]

When you have an old painting cleaned, removing the dark residue on the varnish or redoing the frame for the canvas...does that reduce the price substantially?

 

If it does, it should effect comic art cleaning off dirt the same way. If it does not hurt the price, cleaning/stain removal shouldn't effect comic art.

 

Cleaning is more commonly used to return art that has been in a smokers home for many years to a state showing as close to the paintings original vibrant colours as possible. There are certainly other situations where cleaning may be necessary, but a good conservator ought to know where to draw the line. Assuming proper conservation methods are used in cleaning the art, the process would in fact enhance the value. The media used is also important to note, as oils or acrylics on canvas tend to stand up better to cleaning methods than lines on paper. I think it's also far more common to see works of art that are hundreds of years old stand up to time better than comic art paper/boards that are more prone to yellowing after 30 years. I think context is king when trying to draw a parallel to tolerance towards restoration in other collectible markets, and the only certainty is that comic art restoration will be both an emerging trend and continuing topic for discussion and debate.

[Bill C]

Got a DPS getting resto treatment right now. The (pre-resto) piece is on CAF now but I'll repost there with new pics and details when it's back in my hands.