by Number9 » February 27th, 2012, 7:17 pm
This is one of those rare pieces that transcends the category that it is housed in. Being a Ruth piece, it is highly desirable to many collectors in and out of the glove hobby, and if properly publicized, potentially even reaching to collectors who wouldn't consider themselves baseball collectors. So, knowing that, even a tattered example should be preserved in some way.
I don't think that the act of restoration in and of itself is a detriment to the piece. However, as evidenced by the opinion of the board, improper technique is definitely an issue. This box could have been restored by a paper specialist who would have properly cleaned, assembled and restored the box to its original glory. Sadly, this restoration didn't go far enough, in my opinion. Rather than treating it on the surface, it should have been repaired down to the fibers of the paper.
Here's my hypothetical wind-back-the-clock answer, if anyone were to ask. I'm assuming two things here. (1) this work was done for the auction, and (2) that the box was in really bad shape to start. Bearing these assumptions in mind, I would have recommended a minor structural restoration that would have restored the structural integrity of the box while keeping a high level of originality. That would have kept everything out in the open and allowed the next owner the opportunity to decide the proper course of action. If the box were mine, I would go this route. Also, if I were the winning bidder on a box handled in this way, I'd leave it without further restoration. For my money, I'd want it to be stable and functional, but still show evidence of its age. Fragile and falling apart would bring on instant buyer's remorse within me.
There's my 2 cents.
Last edited by
Number9 on February 28th, 2012, 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Huntington Base Ball Co.
www.HuntingtonBaseBallCo.com