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.
|