To Clean or not to Clean

[MW1]

Not a fan of this type of "restoration." In fact, I wouldn't call it restoration at all. It's degradation and an unfortunate alteration of an original piece of artwork...which happens to be published in the form of a Sporting Life cabinet. Submersing a card or sports item in water (or other solvent) isn't always an inert process. Even distilled water can damage a card or unnecessarily alter its original integrity by loosening the paper fibers or diminishing the color/gloss.

[gemmint77]

The original card looks much better.

[packs]

I like the original too and for the same grade I'd prefer the natural look.

[PhillipAbbott79]

To disclose or not to disclose, that is the question.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by MW1

Not a fan of this type of "restoration." In fact, I wouldn't call it restoration at all. It's degradation and an unfortunate alteration of an original piece of artwork...which happens to be published in the form of a Sporting Life cabinet. Submersing a card or sports item in water (or other solvent) isn't always an inert process. Even distilled water can damage a card or unnecessarily alter its original integrity by loosening the paper fibers or diminishing the color/gloss.

+1

I'm 100% against card doctoring. However, restoration is different; I'm a fan of restoring cards to their former glory, purely for the purpose of honoring the card and the hobby. I am NOT a fan, however, of restoring a card for the purpose of profit. This seems to be a situation where someone thought they could turn a profit by "cleaning" the card. They ended up washing out the original color, and took away the staining that I personally like with Pre-War cards.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by MW1

Not a fan of this type of "restoration." In fact, I wouldn't call it restoration at all. It's degradation and an unfortunate alteration of an original piece of artwork...which happens to be published in the form of a Sporting Life cabinet. Submersing a card or sports item in water (or other solvent) isn't always an inert process. Even distilled water can damage a card or unnecessarily alter its original integrity by loosening the paper fibers or diminishing the color/gloss.

If it was a piece of artwork there would be no debate: proper cleaning and restoration is an accepted activity in the art world. It is in fact a mandate to cultural institutions across the world to preserve and conserve their holdings. Even the Sistine Chapel underwent significant cleaning and restoration efforts in the 1970s-1990s.

[MW1]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

If it was a piece of artwork there would be no debate: proper cleaning and restoration is an accepted activity in the art world. It is in fact a mandate to cultural institutions across the world to preserve and conserve their holdings. Even the Sistine Chapel underwent significant cleaning and restoration efforts in the 1970s-1990s.

The word "proper" is key. I see nothing proper about what was done here. And certainly, in the world of art, restoration is also a very controversial subject.

The color and pigmentation you see on the ceiling and walls of the Sistine Chapel, for instance, are not original. They have been altered (some intentionally, some not) and are only a pale approximation of what they once looked like when Michelangelo finished his masterpiece. The same is true of other famous works of art. Consider da Vinci's "Last Supper". Once "restoration" was done on it, much of the original color had been removed and the work appeared so faded that it was nothing like what you commonly see in prints, pictures, and reproductions.

If anything, I would maintain that the problems with the clumsy "restoration" of various sports cards and the difficulties produced by some of the controversial restoration work performed on famous works of art have many similarities.

[packs]

If restoration like this should be accepted, then why don't descriptions include the restoration? What would someone have to hide if something is accepted? Unless of course it isn't accepted.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

If restoration like this should be accepted, then why don't descriptions include the restoration? What would someone have to hide if something is accepted? Unless of course it isn't accepted.

I think they are hiding that info because they want to get a better bid price on the card. I am sure on most auctions there is extra things that can said about a card's condition that can lower what an item's maximum bid is

[packs]

Then it sounds like this type of restoration may not be accepted by the collecting community. People disclose other things like unseen creases in an effort to give an appropriate depiction of the card.

[drcy]

One thing to keep in mind about painting restoration is that the restoration has to be disclosed.

That it is is the "hobby standard" that certain types alterations are not disclosed neither automatically makes it ethical or legal. It could be reasonably argued that shilling is a hobby standard.

As was well said, if a there is nothing wrong or value-changing with a certain type of cleaning, then why is it not disclosed? The answer is because it will change the perceived value in some bidders and buyers minds? Of course an exact same looking card that has not been 'cleaned' will sell for more than one that has-- which is why the cleaning is not disclosed. Whether or not the cleaning or conservation itself is good, prudent and ethical (and in many cases it may be-- I find nothing unethical about removing foreign substances such as glue and scrap paper from a card), that its disclosure will effect sales prices is a reason (including legal) why it has to be disclosed. The ethics and law is alterations and conservation must be disclosed and the buyers and bidders get to decide if and how it effects the value.