It's easy to armchair quarterback the restoration work, and I imagine no matter who did it, we'd probably be second guessing them. It's what we do best!
I absolutely trust HeroComms documentation, I don't have any issues there. Transparency? Well... I still recall the kerfuffle over the last phaser... I still think it's a shame that that section of the site is still gone.
From HeroComm:
"Presuming the main objectives of the restoration were: 1) to return the prop's appearance and functioning to as near as possible its iconic 1968 "Day of the Dove" (DOTD) action close-up, 2) maintain within the unit the highest percentage of creator Wah Chang's original parts, and 3) for any detail that is unknowable, replicate how Wah built it in his other hero communicator ("Alpha"), here's a quick review of how we see each of the refurbished elements measuring up:"
"Presuming" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I actually like that HeroComm states what they consider a good restoration, but they presume that an auction house has the same goal. I suspect it's more like "Do as little as possible, make it as pretty as possible, as cheaply as possible, as quickly as possible, without breaking anything." I can certainly understand the "Disappointment" take, as well. It's clear that HeroComm goes to great lengths to try to be as accurate as possible, so when something falls short, I get it.
Despite the seemingly high fees, most auctions run on fairly narrow profit margins. While they usually charge the customer for repairs, etc... I'm sure there would be a major payout if a rare prop was damaged in their possession. So I'm sure they are conservative in their approach to repair/restoration as well.
I'm pretty sure that there was a time crunch as well, as there always is in the auction world. In fact, they mention in the auction description the watch could likely be repaired, but there wasn't time. Could he have done more to make it closer to how it appeared? Possibly. Not knowing the scope of work, budget, timeframe, etc... there's no way to be sure. The mandate could have been "Make it pretty, here's $50 for your time." for all we know. Heck, he could have done the moire ring wrong on purpose as a tell, we just don't know. I know several people who would have attempted to restore it for free, just to say they did it... and done a much worse job. Trust me, it could have been far worse...
I agree, fixing the warping is absolutely possible, though I would say it's also pretty risky. Many well meaning folks have attempted repairs (Including myself) and have made things worse. New kydex has known properties, but I don't know of any long term studies on it's aging properties aside from company literature. It's an acrylic-polyvinyl chloride plastic. That means it contains PVC, which gets brittle with age. I honestly have no idea if kydex does as well, especially early kydex. I would hate to be the guy who botched a repair on a prop costing a couple of hundred thousand dollars.
I have no insider knowledge of how John Long ended up doing the restoration. I suppose, like most things, he was a friend of a friend. Most people tend to recommend someone they know, and in the prop world, those circles are pretty tight. For better or worse, they tend to guard their knowledge as if it's the only thing that makes them special. I don't like it, but I understand it. With the number of fakes and recasters out there, I don't really blame people. When years of research and work can be copied by someone in hours, I can see why people don't tend to share.
I'm not trying to defend or dismiss the restoration. My take is as long as any restorations are documented, and easily reversible, that's the best we can hope for. I can nitpick the details, much like HeroComm has, but at the end of the day, whoever drops a couple of hundred thousand can restore it however they want, but I hope future restorations don't try to make it into something it isn't.
