I thought this made for a good debate:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersu...oying-history/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersu...oying-history/
-
-
A completely restored item is to me less desirable, a sympathetically restored item eg further deterioration arrested is okay.
A restored item described as mint is wrong, I have seen "mint" and " restored" used to describe the same item - there is a considerable difference.
Maintenance of a piece of equipment is okay in my books eg the internal cleaning of a binocular by one who has the correct tools and knowledge, recovering or painting the exterior changes it completely. To me honest wear is fine, it does not need to be "touched up".
The degree of restoration and the reasons for it are important.
( Big difference between adding a knot to a dagger and repainting a helmet.)Last edited by behblc; 04-17-2020, 06:33 AM. -
+1
In modern archeology, a restoration should be always reversible. So you can add parts to an object, but these parts should be easily removed if necessary.
A repaint job, unless it's made with removable paint, it's not a restoration.Comment
Comment