I am probably the youngest of the collectors on this site (just turned 26) and
have collected for the past 10 years since I started going to shows at 16. As a
torch carrer in a way I pay close attention to everyone's opinion without
speaking much as I'm still learning daily. Now that I work around antique maps
and engravings, on both sides of the fence, selling and restoring, my view on
restoration is broader than just film paper. I have to agree with rich and
david that film art paper is the most unstable, volatile, fragile and
imperative paper that needs restoration in any paper collecting I've seen bar
none. The obvious nature of film paper deserves the best restoration possible
including touch ups and paper/linenbacking to preserve integrity. That being
said there is no immediate or growing need for slabbing other than investment
sake. Certainly collector's should approach slabbing as an insult. I find
that anyone supporting slabbing is either from another hobby (and
has made money slabbing) or is only collecting for investment.I haven't seen
slabbing in lobby cards.......yet.... I have seen slabbing in baseball cards
and talked to dealers who seemed to act above the hobby and didn't care about
the paper one bit. that was a big tip off as to WHO and What kind of person
would slab.My guess is that the first slabbing we'll see is going to be
universal horror lobbies for obvious reasons. I have nothing else to say
except that I don't want the prices for unslabbed mint posters to skyrocket
when slabbing takes in effect. We should boycott any seller who tries to do
this or at least throw their tea in the water...
Richard Halegua Comic Art <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am totally with David
on this..
as an art dealer of many years, restoration for "a work of art" is
imperative to it's survival
a movie poster of which there may be very few ( lik ethe Mummy) may
have restoration necessitated by the ravages of time
Personally I prefer to get unbacked posters, so if I want it, I
probably want a nice copy. But 3 sheets. 6 sheets.. absolutely need
backing to exhibit them even if they are mint copies.
There is a difference between restoration and recreation (as Andrea K
pointed out many moons ago when we debated the same issue)
But in the case of the Mummy 1 sheet that was majorly damaged, would
you advocate leaving it as it was when it was pulled from the
sandwich display board that it had been pasted to along with the
posters that were pasted over it? I find it hard to believe anyone
would say "yes"
as long as restoration is done with the same care that you would like
to have your antique car restored, it is a very worthwhile endeavor.
When it is done by some hack -of which there are too many- then it is a crime.
Rich===============
At 04:25 PM 4/15/2007, David Kusumoto wrote:
>** I grow tired of pupils from the "no linen-backing, no
>restoration" school applying their "rules" to larger "art" items
>like movie paper filled with acid. This is a zero-tolerance
>attitude that feels TOO absolute. If you collect antiquarian
>hardbacks, comic books or magazines, you can't restore without
>hurting value. But what good is owning larger movie paper that will
>crack or crumble to dust even if handled with latex gloves?
>
>** We're not talking about furniture or a Tiffany lamp whose value
>plunges after its "patina" is cleaned off or "restored." Parchment
>lasts longer, but it isn't paper. The life span of paper decorated
>with colored inks is near zero by comparison. As I've said before,
>for some people, presentation is everything. To me, there's nothing
>wrong about linen- or paper-backing items that will extend its life
>and make 'em look better with a few minor touch-ups. Slabbing would
>drive me out of the hobby because you can't display slabbed posters
>and it opens up a can of worms about UV and fading and other
>crap. Besides, Rich is correct. Poster collectors are a tiny bunch
>that wouldn't fill a nice-sized yacht. It'd take an ocean liner to
>accommodate the number of comic and coin collectors who live in the USA alone.
>
>** Look at how museum curators in NY or SFO treat their paintings
>and drawings and even movie paper. In some cases, they're looking
>at preservation AND restoration. Without restoration, Vermeer's
>"Girl with a Pearl Earring," Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" or Rembrandt's
>"Night Watch" would be non-existent today or display with many
>flakes of pigment missing. There's controversy about restoring
>frescoes like Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, but less debate about
>restoring framed art. So when I hear people declare that movie
>paper restoration is "illogical" -- I respond with this: IF
>restoring art on canvas, a material MORE more durable than an
>acid-filled poster -- is embraced by museum curators, than WHY NOT
>framed paper as well, so long as it's NOT over done? For ex., at
>the Museum of Modern Art in NYC, there are several three-sheets on
>display. They're linen-backed and not over painted. At the Academy
>Awards' corporate offices on Wilshire Blvd., there are a mix of
>linen-backed/restored and unrestored posters also on display. Some
>I've seen even look dry mounted on foam core.
>
>** I prefer unrestored paper, but I've got NO problems buying
>vintage posters backed and "touched up" so long I know what was
>done, as now practiced by Bruce and Heritage. Yet some declare
>sacrilegious -- the practice of de-acidifying, cleaning, backing and
>conservatively restoring old movie paper. They insist flaws ADD
>"character." ADD what? Flaws can underline how old a poster is,
>and in some cases, they may add "charm," whatever that subjective
>word means. But the type of flaws on a poster -- and how many --
>will determine whether anything can be ADDED and PUSHED into the
>"plus" side of the column while judging the sum total of a poster's
>sentimental or $$$ value.
>
>** Yet I know people who will "die on the hill" -- declaring tears,
>folds, stains, creases aren't "really" defects -- IF a poster is at
>least (fill in the blank) years old. Well, I won't display an
>unrestored insert on paper or linen that's crinkled and looks like
>it was sprayed with rust water.
>"Rust" and about 30 tape stains and crinkle "chunks" may ADD
>"character" -- but at what point do they transform a poster into a
>large and brittle newspaper with colored inks -- held together by
>linen with zero touch-ups?
>The reason I think collecting newspapers and pulp magazines is
>mostly inexpensive is because the acid has turned 'em into yellowed
>crap and few exist, defect-free, despite being printed by the
>thousands. I collect 'em for historical reasons, but I won't display 'em.
>
>** I agree bad restoration of an old poster is more horrific than
>leaving that same poster untouched. But in my view, there will
>ALWAYS be a need for great poster restorers. So any effort to start
>a tidal wave against restoration of movie posters -- will always be
>a non-starter for me.
>
>-koose.
>
> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
> ___________________________________________________________________
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
>
> Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
>
> The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
