Do you agree with prop restoration??

[SSgt Burton]

I agree with restoration-

However with the Nostromo rebuild (and forgive if I'm wrong) it's my understanding that artistic liberties were taken with the piece (IE parts deliberately put on that were not a part of the original... I believe these were AT-AT parts).

I vehemently disagree with that. :thumbsdown


Kevin

 

[vaderdarth]

I agree with Tom. First I'd like to say that his restoration work is nothing short of miraculous and his pieces never look "altered". They look like they were just taken back in time. That's not an easy goal to achieve. Second, I believe it's truly up to the owner of the item. As much as I'd like to say I'm a purist on this subject, if there were major tears or flaws caused by natural deterioration, I'd certainly have to make changes in order to retain my own sanity. It would definitely end up on display in some fashion or other and I couldn't stand seeing a huge rip or tear when it could easily be stitched together enough to retain it's character and integrity.

Dave

PS, and Rob, you know good and well that if you owned the original deathstar, you'd go insane if you didn't ultimately make it look at least half as nice as yours. LOL.

 

[bolsoncerrado]

Can i have links or pics to before/afyer Tom S. work please?

 

[SithLord]

http://www.tomspinadesigns.com/Restoration.html


I think the only time I would consider some kind of restoration necessary is as people mentioned to prevent further deterioration, or to repair gross structural damage (crack, chip, piece broken off), otherwise I'm of the view it should be left alone and in as much its original or age-related condition as possible. I like seeing an old prop, not an old prop that looks like new. I guess it is similar to restoring classic muscle cars. A Shelby Cobra will fetch much more if it is in original good condition than if it is a restoration, and I think that can be said for props as well. I don't see complete restorations as increasing value of a prop, at least personally, because you move away from the original condition.

 

[bolsoncerrado]

Cant agree more, well said.

 

[TymerDC]

I agree with restoration-

However with the Nostromo rebuild (and forgive if I'm wrong) it's my understanding that artistic liberties were taken with the piece (IE parts deliberately put on that were not a part of the original... I believe these were AT-AT parts).

I vehemently disagree with that. :thumbsdown


Kevin

I saw all videos of the Nostomo restoration and not once I recall was there any mention of AT-AT parts that were used. Did I miss something? Maybe I should go back and look at it again.

 

[TomSpinaDesigns]

I want to thank folks again for the kind words about the work done by my company.

For folks new to the work, please keep in mind when looking at our site that each project had an individual client, with their own views on restoration (and their own budget for the project), so each will vary a bit in degree and approach. That said, we do consistently strive for (and I feel achieve) a finished product that still looks and feels the right age, just hopefully in more stable and visually pleasing condition.

I don't see complete restorations as increasing value of a prop, at least personally, because you move away from the original condition.

I think you rightly note that this statement, as most of these issues tend to be, is something deeply affected by personal taste. It also depends a bit on what someone considers "complete restorations" to be, but looking at auction history, there have been any number of heavily restored pieces that have sold for many times their original purchase price.

Like some of the Batsuits and Alien costumes sold through Profiles and other auction houses. Some had extensive work done, added replica elements, etc... and yet they still sell for much more than a crumbling, incomplete suit in a box does.

It's wonderful that collectors range from purists on down through the spectrum. In my personal experience, I've found that respectful restoration that compliments a piece and improves stability can often increase value (and sometimes greatly).

Further, in extreme cases, there are times where work has literally saved movie history from crumbling to dust or falling to pieces. And surely a restored piece is worth more than no piece at all

best,
Tom

 

[Weequay]

I agree with restoration-

However with the Nostromo rebuild (and forgive if I'm wrong) it's my understanding that artistic liberties were taken with the piece (IE parts deliberately put on that were not a part of the original... I believe these were AT-AT parts).

I vehemently disagree with that. :thumbsdown


Kevin

Hi mate, do you know where this info came from? That would be quite shocking (to me at least) if that were true...

weequay

 

[Weequay]

http://www.tomspinadesigns.com/Restoration.html


I think the only time I would consider some kind of restoration necessary is as people mentioned to prevent further deterioration, or to repair gross structural damage (crack, chip, piece broken off), otherwise I'm of the view it should be left alone and in as much its original or age-related condition as possible. I like seeing an old prop, not an old prop that looks like new. I guess it is similar to restoring classic muscle cars. A Shelby Cobra will fetch much more if it is in original good condition than if it is a restoration, and I think that can be said for props as well. I don't see complete restorations as increasing value of a prop, at least personally, because you move away from the original condition.

One of the questions I had was how does adding new material prevent deterioration?

If I have crumbling latex and I add new latex over the top, does the original stabilise?

If not, then all I have done is add new latex over the top.

Im hoping Tom can come in on this

Great interesting thread guys
weequay

 

[TomSpinaDesigns]

One of the questions I had was how does adding new material prevent deterioration?

If I have crumbling latex and I add new latex over the top, does the original stabilise?

If not, then all I have done is add new latex over the top.

Hi Weequay,

Again no, simply adding material over top doesn't automatically stabilize anything (and I don't think anyone's said that). I addressed this in more detail in my first post but essentially, I believe it's important that restorers take steps to help stabilize and properly support existing material before doing any adding.

And again, keep in mind, in my posts I'm mostly talking about props made from foam latex which, as you may already know, is VERY different from slip latex (or mask latex) and ages in a unique way. And obviously, it's even more different from fiberglass, resin or metal (or any other prop material).

This is such a broad topic, with many levels of personal opinion and experience... and variants of type of props, materials and styles and levels of restoration.

I really feel the "agree or disagree" topic title is a misnomer and represents a false choice. I think most of the responses have shown that this just isn't a "yes or no" question.

best,
Tom

 

[BronzeGiant]

I would have to chime in on the "depends on the item and the condition and the reasons why it's in said condition."

I recently saw some pictures of the replica GeeBee aircraft from the end scenes of the Rocketeer. It's been sitting outside in the weather ever since filming. It looks terrible. I'd be in favor of restoring that because the reason it's in the condition it is is due to neglect.

I'd not be in favor of, as someone mentioned above, repainting Boba Fett's helmet to remove the wear marks. That's what gives it character and is accurate for the piece. Leave the helmet outside for years and then, yes. I'd be in favor of a restoration.

Like I said, depends on the item and WHY it's in the shape it's in.

Steve

 

[Art Andrews]

WHat I like about this is how differently people see things.

Take a look at one of the gremilns that tom has restored. No doubt about the quality of the work, but did it need it? It was still very much a gremlin.

For dipsplay purposes, it needed nothing (IMO)

:lol We definitely see things differently! While I think there is something to be said about the damage a piece takes over time (see my comments about the Fett helmet), when you have a Gremlin whose head has fallen off... to me... that isn't magic... or a story... or an interesting display. That is more of the tragedy of time and poor storage. To me, it doesn't add character or interest to the piece... just makes it look like junk. Certainly everyone will take a different viewpoint, but for me, if I bought a Gremlin that was falling apart, the first place it would be sent to would be Tom's shop for restoration. Maybe that doesn't make me a purist, but when I think of what these pieces were intended to look like and when I see the abysmal state some have come to, I can't imagine NOT wanting to restore them to some semblance of their former glory... I guess each collector will have to determine that for himself.

Now... when it comes to that poor Hoggle... I am sure we all would agree... lol:lol

 

[mrbungle]

i am long time comic collector. restored comics bring much less of a price than unrestored books do.

if the intention is to save the item from falling apart, then i really support that. if the owner just wants the item to look better by restoration. i am somewhat ok with it as long as it documented that the item has been restored and no passed off as original conditon which some dealers would do and have done.

restoration is a slippery slope. any time money is involved it seems to bring out the worst in some folks , be it comics or props.

i have been a victim of this , luckily not on a expensive item.

 

[Pappy]

I agree a restoration in
1. leave as many as possible the original areas/pieces that didnt need any touch ups
2. done by a person/group of people/company who knew deeply about the props itself.....please

at least thats in general view of myself

 

[Treadwell]

Well, here is how NOT to do it:
http://www.solarguard.com/t5restore1.htm

Be sure to scroll to the bottom and click to the subsequent pages.

50-year old model had a little peeling paint, so the guy stripped the whole thing, slathered it with putty....I can't go on, it's making me ill.

 

[Weequay]

Well, here is how NOT to do it:
http://www.solarguard.com/t5restore1.htm

Be sure to scroll to the bottom and click to the subsequent pages.

50-year old model had a little peeling paint, so the guy stripped the whole thing, slathered it with putty....I can't go on, it's making me ill.

Oh! My eyes! My eyes!! eek:eek

weequay

 

[Art Andrews]

Well, here is how NOT to do it:
http://www.solarguard.com/t5restore1.htm

Be sure to scroll to the bottom and click to the subsequent pages.

50-year old model had a little peeling paint, so the guy stripped the whole thing, slathered it with putty....I can't go on, it's making me ill.

Oh man... I don't have the words (actually I do but the censor would just filter them). How could ANYONE do this?!? Weequay, if this is the kind of restoration you are talking about being against, I think this whole site would agree with you, including restoration experts like Tom. However, I don't think you would EVER see Tom do something like this, even if a client wanted it done.

In my opinion, what we are seeing in that link is NOT restoration. it isn't a touch up or fixing a broken piece. That is utter destruction of a historical piece...

 

[Weequay]

Oh man... I don't have the words (actually I do but the censor would just filter them). How could ANYONE do this?!? Weequay, if this is the kind of restoration you are talking about being against, I think this whole site would agree with you, including restoration experts like Tom. However, I don't think you would EVER see Tom do something like this, even if a client wanted it done.

In my opinion, what we are seeing in that link is NOT restoration. it isn't a touch up or fixing a broken piece. That is utter destruction of a historical piece...

Well, as you can probably tell, I pretty much against any restoration beyond structural stabilisation (ie a process that does not affect the piece aesthetically)....but this??!! this...!??

What was with the filler!! cry:cry

Weequay

 

[SithLord]

I think you rightly note that this statement, as most of these issues tend to be, is something deeply affected by personal taste. It also depends a bit on what someone considers "complete restorations" to be, but looking at auction history, there have been any number of heavily restored pieces that have sold for many times their original purchase price.

Like some of the Batsuits and Alien costumes sold through Profiles and other auction houses. Some had extensive work done, added replica elements, etc... and yet they still sell for much more than a crumbling, incomplete suit in a box does.

Further, in extreme cases, there are times where work has literally saved movie history from crumbling to dust or falling to pieces. And surely a restored piece is worth more than no piece at all

You have a point. And certainly some collectors overlook restoration and simply wish to own the piece and appreciate that it is in a more presentable condition for their home displays, rather than having something as close to what came off the set as possible. The type of work you do is highly specialized and probably does make a difference in the value of a piece.

Let's take an example of a set of alien latex hands. Perhaps they are cracking from age and almost ready to fall apart, but they are also painted with the original paint. In the process of restoring them, would you have to repaint? You lose then the original paint. Now, that is a trade-off because you get hands that won't fall apart. But you lose what you saw essentially onscreen in terms of the color, even as best as one may try to color match. I don't know enough about the technical steps in the process you use, but that's just an example. Now, having the hands and living with their poor state may be enough for some collectors, whereas having hands that will remain in a fixed state with slightly different qualities from the original may be more important.

I guess my point is that the value of the piece in that case may not diminish, but the trade-off of losing a bit of what made it original in the first place may balance things out, and may not necessarily increase the value. That was sort of the thinking behind my original statement about restoration and value. But you have infinitely more experience than I with those sorts of scenarios. Your work provides an exception to my own views about keeping things as they are. Actually the work you do is not unlike the work done for taxidermy (I mean for exhibits for the Smithsonian or something like that). Some things have to be recreated (eyes, soft parts of nose or mouth) and so you cannot expect to preserve or have exactly the same qualities of the original animal intact.

 

[TymerDC]

Well, here is how NOT to do it:
http://www.solarguard.com/t5restore1.htm

Be sure to scroll to the bottom and click to the subsequent pages.

50-year old model had a little peeling paint, so the guy stripped the whole thing, slathered it with putty....I can't go on, it's making me ill.

Judging from the pictures this is a case where I would have left it alone and just built a case to protect it from further deterioration. The guy might as well have made an exact replica because now nothing exists but the wood it was made from. All the original "character" of this historical piece is now lost forever. Crying shame is all I can say...but then again I've seen many pieces of history destroyed by inept people with no sense of preservation.