Altering cards is bad but altering artwork is ok?

[drc]

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.

[LWMM]

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.

[drc]

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.

[SetBuilder]

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.