Altering cards is bad but altering artwork is ok?

[Tedw9]

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?

[drc]

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

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

[ullmandds]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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

Wasn't La Pieta restored after it was attacked?

[markf31]

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.

[Texxxx]

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.

[martyogelvie]

Originally Posted by markf31

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.

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.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Wasn't La Pieta restored after it was attacked?

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

[drc]

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.

[barrysloate]

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.