![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Extremely pleased with the way this turned out. Work was done by Tom at The Art of Restoration in Chicago. Tom is a true artist in every sense of the word. Super cool guy who is more passionate about his work than words can describe. I've always leaned towards keeping original original. Tom, along with his work that I can now see firsthand, has shown me that restoration can be a positive. Some pieces practically beg for it! This is one such piece and as far as I am aware, the only complete version of the sign
![]() |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Well... It's not exactly complete, is it?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In what sense do you mean David?
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I mean the corners are missing. If this is considered "complete," than there is no such thing as an incomplete sign. All signs, no matter how much--or little--original material remains, are "proto-complete." Just send them to Tom.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I look at it like this: The corners were missing. Tom added corners back to it. I never said the sign was 100% original. I used the word "complete" in the sense it now presents as it did when it was originally displayed.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
But you didn't say "Now it is complete"; you said it was the ONLY complete example. A statement like that should have an invariant meaning. That is, unless another complete example is discovered--discovered, not constructed--than yours is the only one. But if I can make a complete example any time I want to (I being the owner of an incomplete piece, as yours was) than your statement may sound impressive, but really has very little meaning.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
So it would make you happy if I would change the word "complete" to "completed"?
".....and as far as I am aware, the only completed version of this sign?" ![]() |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Awesome sign! I'd be curious to see the back...
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks guys and I will post a picture of the complete back later this evening.
Hey Joe, yes I was thinking Carlton owned the football version. He had posted a previous National photo of the baseball sign that he believed to be from Spalding but wasn't sure because the "Spalding" had been trimmed away. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Unbelievable work!
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Back
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Beautiful sign and amazing work.
For those of us who have items that we are considering conserving/repairing, could you share how much this cost to restore and how the price was calculated. I mean is it based on item size or just an individual estimate he came up with?
__________________
My signed 1934 Goudey set(in progress). https://flic.kr/s/aHsjFuyogy Other interests/sets/collectibles. https://www.flickr.com/photos/96571220@N08/albums My for sale or trade photobucket album https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7c1SRL |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
68 Topps Nolan Ryan RC with water damage | jjcollects | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 10-10-2013 06:54 PM |
D304 Cobb with back damage on ebay -- back damage not shown | calvindog | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 24 | 11-26-2010 05:51 PM |
should dealers disclose paper loss, writing and water damage? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 20 | 02-09-2009 02:21 PM |
A favor --- explaining the impact of water damage | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 10-05-2007 06:11 PM |
Cards and water don't mix | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 11-10-2003 12:31 PM |