Altering cards is bad but altering artwork is ok?
 

The thread Leon started about alterations reminded me of a question I've often wondered about.

As we all agree, altering cards is a huge hobby no no. Cleaning, adding to, coloring, building up corners, you name it, it's considered altering the card.

But in the high end art world, cleaning, touching up or even repairing is ok.

So if I bought a 53 Mantle and fixed it up to look new, it's now considered worthless. But if I bought the painting used to make that same card, had it cleaned and fixed up, it would probably be worth more.

Can anyone explain why that is? :confused:

In all cases, the seller is required to say the item was altered or restored. How it's valued after that is a second issue.

I don't mind some restoration, but it depends on the type and extent of the damage. If you have a house paint stain across a 1952 Topps Mantle, I have no issue with it being cleaned up.

Also realize that T206 collectors idiosyncratically pay more for bad miscuts, horrible registration, blank backs and other printing errors. A Chagall or Rembrandt collector might say "Why would you pay more for ugly printing errors? Were you dropped on your head as a child?" So a T206 collector's view of things might not be a universally shared view.

I may be wrong, but I think it has something to do with the fact that damage to a painting is usually due to the environment is which it is displayed/stored and damage to a card is usually due to abuse.

Nobody abused the painting, it deteriorated over time. However, pinholes, writing, creases, paper loss, etc. on a card is usually due to abuse.

It's not acceptable to repair abuse, it's acceptable to repair natural deterioration. At last that's my $.02

I would guess it has more to do with the fact the paintings are one of a kind pieces of art...unlike bb cards...and their values can be a lot higher than bb cards.

I believe for this reason it is more accepted to restore old paintings...whereas there is usually another card to choose from...not so with paintings.

Wasn't La Pieta restored after it was attacked?

There are far more collectibles that lose significant value when they are cleaned or modified than not. In fact, I think maybe art work is the exception. Things such as coins, firearms, knives, swords and military collectible all lose value when they are cleaned or modified to improve their appearance.

Most alterations to fine art are for the purpose of preservation not to increase the value of the piece. As far as if it increases the value of the art, I would say no. If the piece was in excellent shape with no preservation work it would bring more money than a piece that has been restored. That is hard to show examples of since art is one of a kind. In 300-400 years we may think that restoring high end cards so they don't disappear for ever is acceptable also.

As was his (Michelangelo's) David after it was damaged by rioters in 1527.

My movie collector brother in law told me that an old movie poster grade Fair that is restored to visually Near Mint condition is worth more than unrestored Fair but less than unrestored Near Mint condition. So even in the world of oft restored movie posters, the unrestored Near Mint version would be worth the most.

Picasso's Guernica and Rembrandt's The Night Watch were also attacked and damaged and subsequently repaired.

Different areas of antique collecting have different threshholds when it comes to restoration. Furniture and vintage cars are typically restored, and while original examples are more valuable, restoration is expected.

Collectors of coins and baseball cards have a lower tolerance and don't accept restoration of any kind without the object taking a huge hit in value.

It's also worth noting that even among art historians there is much debate as to whether or not restoration is an acceptable practice. The controversial restoration of the Sistine Chapel in the 70s and 80s is an excellent example; the restoration was heavily criticized and many frescoes were damaged and in some cases erased altogether during the process. Of course, not all forms of restorations are equally controversial (both in the art world and the card world), but I would actually wager that the reaction to alterations to a painting and to a baseball card would be pretty similar among experts/collectors in their respective fields.

I can pretty much guarantee I won't :)

It's also encouraged to mount posters on linen backs for preservation and display possibilites.

I'd like to see that sweep the Pre-War Card hobby. Instead of soaking cards out of scrapbooks, we begin to see an epidemic of collectors breaking cards out of slabs and gluing them back into scrapbooks to increase value. :D

My brother in law gave me an unrestored 1947 movie poster as a present and you can see why they get back. The paper seemed thinner than typing paper and I can see how it would easily be torn. It's not like baseball card stock.

He also told me the easiest way to tell if a movie poster is to see if it's linen backed. As they back it in linen before the do restoration. And I suspect that he would consider linen backing itself restoration.

A huge difference between art pieces and other collectibles such as cards, movie posters and coins is with art (at least, the kind we're talking about here) there is frequently only one example. Cards are judged relatively. For example, a 1952 Topps Mantle is held against other examples, with a PSA 8 worth more than a PSA 7, and so on. With so many copies, one can afford to be picky; and frankly, as the PSA registry shows, a lot of collecting is about the quantitative assessment of cards, not their visual appeal. When dealing with cards (or other collectibles) for which only a handful of examples exist, their condition becomes less important. If only one example were to exist, I think one could make the case much more easily that it ought to be restored, so that one could appreciate what the card looked like when it was produced, kinda like Texxxx said.

A second important difference is that art (and its collection) is, theoretically, about the visual aesthetic. A painting is not appreciated because it is the first one ever off an artist's easel (or else we might be seeing a lot of kindergarten stick figure drawings selling for millions), or the last. Van Gogh's last paintings are considered so fascinating largely because of how evocative and moody they are, not simply because they are his last.

Obviously art sales don't always seem to make sense, which is why I say that the point of art collecting is theoretically about the visual aesthetic. Yet even though Monet's ubiquitous paintings of a bunch of water sell for more than seems reasonable, the justification is that it's great art, whereas the justification for an ugly, beat up Baltimore News Ruth selling for so much is because the card is his first. The Monet is seen as a visual object, the Ruth as an existential one; restoring the Ruth calls into question it's essence, while restoring a damaged Monet brings back its essence.

Another big example between art and a T206 is, art is intended for display while baseball cards are often stored in a drawer. It makes more sense that public presentation next to your dining room table of a 3x2 movie poster is more essential than a card in a box.

I'll tell you why cards aren't restored in greater numbers: cost.

The cost of restoriation outweights any potential value boost by having it restored. The only cards you can think of that have been restored are the very expensive Wagners and Planks of the world.

It's a no brainer to some collectors to restore a 7-figure Wagner if it makes it easier to sell at auction. No one however, is going to restore a $1,000 T206 Cy Young unless you didn't care about the cost of restoration.

If all of a sudden cards were worth millions of dollars like pieces of art, I bet restoration would be rampant in this hobby. We'd have paper restoration experts overloaded with business from flippers/scammers wanting to boost the value of their cards for quick profit.

Furniture is also a good example.. wear is far more valued than a recent cleaning... Things that are handled should not be restored but things that are NOT handled, like paintings.. can be restored.. i guess.

About 10 years ago, I decided to start collecting trimmed cards as a way of getting cards I couldn't afford otherwise. Early on, it was easy to pick up great cards at cheap prices — I bought T206 HOFers with sharp corners for as low as $50 each. Now those same cards go for twice as much or more. The other day, I was outbid on eBay for a trimmed T206 Walsh that went for about $180. I saw it a week later at a card show for $400. As far as I can tell, altered cards are gaining more acceptance ...

One thing you have to keep in this discussion is people are stupid.

Someone also told me people strange, but I don't see that.

Strange-ish perhaps.

For the record, I was mostly thinking of people who pay more for trimmed cards.

I was also being irreverent.

I was also thinking of people who watch Real Housewives of New Jersey.