Todd,
Hmmm... well...OK, then... in that specific case, use of a *small*
amount of translucent paint to bring up a small faded area to match the
rest of the poster might be considered acceptable "restoration"... but
it would have to be a very small area, about 10% or less of the image
area for me to feel comfortable about it. It's just that usually when a
poster is faded it is faded all over -- from sun exposure or having been
displayed under bright incandescent light for too long. Bringing up the
color level across an entire poster... or even 50% or more of the image
area... is just going too far for a "restoration". At that point you're
doing a recreation and actually slipping into forgery. i.e., you're
engaging in deception, using technology not available at the date of the
poster's issue to artificially make the poster appear to be in better
condition than it actually is. You are taking it too far from "original
state". You are, in fact, *over-painting* the original poster with new
artwork. And even if this over-painting is revealed at the time of the
original sale, it is certain that it will not be divulged (or even
known) in future sales of the same poster.
I know it's a fine line between restoration and recreation/forgery --
but the line is there and this hobby-industry better get busy defining
some agreed-upon standards which define both sides of that line.
Otherwise it will continue to be anything goes, which means more fakes,
semi-fakes, and half-fakes entering the market for $10,000... $20,000...
$30,000 and more.
If the restoration industry does not police itself and lead the way in
establishing these hobby-wide standards, they will be the ones who
suffer when Bruce's prediction materializes about a widespread backlash
where buyers will only be interested in unrestored, untouched material.
It has happened in other fields of collecting and it can happen here.
The restorers and backers need get together, form a club or guild or
whatever and set some standards and start publicizing them..
-- JR
Todd Feiertag wrote:
JR,
You misunderstood my post about the FREAKS poster. I never said the
FREAKS Insert was completely painted over. I did say that the
translucent paints were used on the poster. Since I had some personal
interest in the poster at the time of the auction, from what I
understood there wasn't much paint used on the poster to begin with.
Actually, the poster was originally in great shape and unfolded, but
it did have a slight amount of fading which was expertly corrected,
but not by covering the entire poster in paint.
Not all colors on a poster will fade and/or will fade evenly and at
the same time, so even when translucent paints are used, it would be a
rare case where an entire poster would have to be completely painted
over. It's a rare case for any poster to have to be completely
painted over, not just by translucent paints, but any paints.
It is "good news" say for instance, if only the lettering is faded,
such as on Michael's poster (not sure if this is the case) and all it
would take is a small amount of paint to make the lettering look much
better. I don't see anything wrong with this. It's a lot more
pleasing to the eye, and you're not looking at a newly created painting.
Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:35:37 -0400
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MOPO] assessing fading
Todd,
Now, see, I consider that to be creating a fake poster. Reapplying
color to an entire poster -- rather than one small damaged piece of it
-- is completely *changing* the original poster and even if it is
"translucent color" I'm sure such a process is irreversible and it is
over-painting, pure and simple. The fact that it can be done
skillfully instead of in a clumsy way by some amateur with colored
markers makes no difference as far as "authenticity" goes. I hardly
consider the advent of this translucent over-painting "restoration"
technique to be "good news".
This is part of the new technology problem our hobby-industry is faced
with. How can a FREAKS insert that was badly faded be completely
*repainted* -- every inch of it -- and then still be worth $100,000?
If that's the case, then everything is fair game and we should all
stop worrying about "the amount of restoration which has been done" --
hey, if it's undetectable what does it matter, right? Of course, this
means that any fake, unless badly done, is no longer a fake and
getting a genuine 'original' is now impossible to count on anymore.
My advice to those of you who have posters you bought 15 years ago or
earlier -- don't sell 'em. Hold on to them. At least you know they are
real.
-- JR
Todd Feiertag wrote:
Ok, the good news...there are translucent paints which are now
used by some restorers, including Jaime...yes, I know, Jaime. By
using these translucent colors, you're not completely painting
over an image but enhancing it, so to speak as you can see through
this type of paint. I know that Jaime used these paints on
the $100,000.00 FREAKS 14x36, so if it was good enough for a
$100,000.00 FREAKS Insert, it should be good enough for your THIRD
MAN Insert and will really make it a lot more presentable and also
worth more if you decide to sell it sometime down the road.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try
it now.
<http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009>
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.
