I agree with your rationale for the removal of editorial marks. As I indicated I do it for the very same reasons. I often buy photos with those marks at discount because they are not as attractive. The editorial paint is water based and as such is easily removed with water. The reason I am asking about disclosing the restoration of such photos is that we really don’t know the long term impact of removing marks that have been there for years. Below is an 8X10 photo of Al Simmons I purchased for 14.99. As you can see it cleaned up very well and looks great for such a meagerly priced photo. At 14.99 I will take that risk but always disclose that I have restored the photo prior to selling it.
Although the paint is hardly visible on the front of the photo, if you look at the reverse you can still see the impression of where over the years the paint has changed the paper. My concern is that there is little information that I can find on the long term effects of adding water to vintage photo paper especially when it has already been changed by the editorial paint. In the future will the emulsion that was covered by the paint begin to bubble and flake off the surface?
Due to this uncertainty if I was to buy a Type 1 Joe Jackson that had been restored without the seller disclosing such work I think it would be unethical. My own attempts to remove these marks are amateur at best. There have been horror stories about what happens to antiques and art when they fall victim to unskilled amateur restoration. Often the damage does not become apparent for years. Food for thought?
|