retr0brite not so right?

On 7/30/2010 12:38 AM, Richard wrote: Restoration is very controversial. It is now coming to be accepted that some old works have been "preserved" to death, and are actually in a state they evolved to in the hundred to two hundred years after their origin. I have seen a lot about both oils which are overcoated with clearcoats, and the clearcoats have been removed and restored w/o any active work on the work underneath, as well as working on the coatings w/o removing them. With fresco's, such as the Sistine Chapel the Vatican finally decided that the lighting had put so much soot onto the ceiling that they had nothing to lose from stripping and fully restoring the works. The new and improved "bright" version is now on display, but disputed as to whether it went too far. The general feeling is that furniture if the finish is not destroyed is best left as near as possible to the work of the master, and that is w/o any major refinish. I have seen some valuable tables and other bits that were simply crap that were totally black, and in that case, you pretty much have nothing anyway, so a total refinish is about all you can do even if the finish is the original. You have to have the luck or fortune to have a furniture piece which survived in good shape as well before having the debate over what to do with the finish. Same goes for firearms, which have similar factors in their value. Ordinary treatment by competent means is good, but a major cleaning which removes metal, or tries to obscure or remove wear, and refinish generally reduces a weapon's value by 1/2 to as much as to 1/10th the value of one that is not touched. Again if you have a rusting hulk then make it shine, you probably don't have much to lose, unless you have provenance as to the artifact having documented value. E.G. if you dig up a dagger or rifle at the Jamestown digs, probably leave it as you found it. Also note in those circumstance as Al pointed out the need to to study it as an artifact is in play. If you don't have the above, I'd be tempted to try to clean it up, if for instance you found a firearm in an old barn on your grandfathers property, and it was badly damaged by being in a leak, etc. In that case no museum will ever care, and there is no point for you to store a rusting piece of crap for your family. I am involved in two donation processes, both to museums. In the one case, the machine is to be restored as a condition of its donation. In the other the donation is to be for display purposes, and the consideration is to donate an artifact that can be displayed with sufficient parts to restore it to functionality at a later "off exhibit" time. That way it can be put out and the case, panel, etc. can be touched (heaven forbid) and there will be a separate unit that is off display that will never be seen by the public. In this case there is the luxury of having many examples to choose from. I am a "hoarder" as accused by Al K, but I hope that my collections go to a place other than being recycled by my family, or estate, and plans are in place to ensure that. I am also interested in this donation and possible other de-aquisitions now to other than people who want to dump them on ebay for a quick buck. I have not done much of that, but it is something to consider. In that case, I try to make sure that I don't power on, or otherwise try to do anything with a collectible and leave it to the last possible person acquiring it, hopefully with the need or expertise to restore it. I can probably attack one or two "classic" machines with confidence and am not going to try to turn on and run everything I have.