Legendary’s At It Again (Restored Ruth Box)

[Mr. Mitt]

It may not be as noticeably horrible as their Spalding restoration discussed several months ago, but they’re at it again. Legendary has restored another Ruth box, this time a Reach. There’s no question it’s the same box in the before and after photos shown below. Wouldn’t you think that if they’re going to go through all the trouble to do this, they’d spell “Reach” correctly on the top of the box?!?!?! I mean, seriously, “Peach”?!?!?! Get a friggin’ clue, guys.

Though it may not be as bad as the Spalding hack-job, it’s still not original. Based on our prior discussion, it seems that the vast majority of the hobby is against this sort of thing, so why do they continue to do it? We, as collectors of vintage equipment, are entrusted to protect and preserve artifacts from the past. When preservation turns into complete restoration (and again, with absolutely no hint of it in the item’s description) it’s not for preservation, it’s for profit. They did it once and we blamed Legendary. They’ve done it again and John now has to answer to it. Sorry, but it’s simply not right or ethical and he must share in the blame.

[murphusa]

Jerry

I agree that is a mess, but I have to ask, Are you against all restorations. Just recently I purchased a large PF Flyer Baseball advertisement that had been cut in two. It is a great piece but it needs to be put back together. Why not?

Going in I knew it wasn't going to be perfect but to me it was well worth the price paid. When I sell it the new owner will get a copy of the paperwork from the restorer showing what was done.

BEFORE




AFTER

[Mr. Mitt]

I’m not a complete hypocrite to say I don’t like all restorations, but I don’t like the vast majority of them. There is a time and a place for it, but it’s difficult to define. Sort of like the Supreme Court Justice who said, “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it.”

The issue here is not completely about the restoration. The “how” it was done was more appropriate for the Spalding box because it was butchered. Then there are the questions of “why” and “when”, which are more directly related to the bottom line. “Why” it was done is pretty obvious, to sell the box for the maximum price possible. If we simply take it in stride and don’t call out the auction houses on this stuff, they’ll continue to do it, perhaps next time on something YOU really wanted. We can not simply sit idly by and allow this to happen, especially when the restoration actually devalues the item. I say teach them this fact by not bidding on lots that are restored, and especially those that are restored and not clearly stated as such.

“When” is a more interesting question. I find it quite odd that these boxes, in their original conditions, were fit to be in an “advanced collection” for many, many years, but all of a sudden they needed to be refurbished. It’s been noted before, sell an item “as is” and let the owner decide to restore or not. If the consignor doesn’t understand this basic principle of dealing with antiques, of any kind, then he deserves to not reap the full value of the item. Additionally, I can not fathom the auction house doing this again given the uproar about it a few months back. If I were the consignor (and this work was done unbeknownst to me) and the last item that was restored sold for significantly less than it should have, I would demand that it not be done again.

[ebbets55]

Wow. I didn’t even notice the misspelling of Reach. That’s such a shame because that pair is such a prize in any advanced collection. I don’t mind rough boxes. That’s a fact of life. We all want nice crisp, clean boxes with sharp graphics and corners but the reality is they just don’t last. I’m OK with that. I’ll take what I can get and upgrade later if possible. However, I’m not OK with them totally refurbishing something and not disclosing it. If you are gonna do it, disclose it. Sure, we all want stuff that's not refurbished, but as Murph said, what if it's torn or something. Yeah, then I want it fixed. I have box lids with all four flaps blown out. I'm not against someone taping them nicely from the inside so I can put the lid back on the box. Wish I didn't have to but sometimes things need fixing. This particular box might not have been perfect (heck I would have been honored to own it) but it didn't need to get spray painted and having the artist change the manufacturer from Reach to Peach is a crime. I hope John does well on it regardless.

I'm not blacklisting restorations. In fact, I'm for them in structural or extreme cases. I'm not a big fan of what's been going on though. To each his own I guess. Reminded me of my 'To Clean or Not To Clean Thread" from a few years ago. Seems appropriate now.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2475&p=11824#p11824

JD

[softball66]

Well, here's my two cents. (By the Way Canada is doing away with pennies.)
If any restoration is performed on the items, from re-lacing a glove to restoring a box, it should be represented in the description of the sale. (2) It should be tastefully and accurately done.
Looks like it's failed in both these cases with the Reach box.
Art restoration and many, many other antiques have restorations done for centuries. I'm reading about this in an excellent book now "Monuments Men" about allied special units sent in behind
the troops in WWII Europe to locate and preserve Masterpiece Paintings, etc. that the Nazis had looted.
My only experience besides re-lacings and slight restorations of gloves (conditioning- some sewing) has been with movie posters when a giant Movie Poster of mine had been ripped in half. The restoration was expertly performed with my permission at the auction house and the restoration details of the poster were described in the poster auction description.
Oddly, after recently selling a glove on ebay, the glove is being returned because of two discrepancies: 1. The glove is slightly too stiff. 2. There was writing UNDERNEATH the wrist strap. Both valid reasons if the buyer wasn't expecting this (maybe he should have asked questions and maybe I should have detected the name under the wrist strap).
I think the previous posters are correct in the sense that the restoration should be noted and should be well executed. From there it depends on the potential buyers' acceptances and this always hinges on the degree of their acceptance of the restoration

[Mr. Mitt]

I inadvertantly omitted a very important point in my posts last night. Legendary's omission of details about the restoration in the lot's description isn't only unethical, but it's outright insulting. They must not think very highly of their customers because they're, again, trying to pull the wool over our collective eyes. I guess it works until they're called out on it and are ultimately forced to update the description, but by that time catalogs are printed. Furthermore, they must rely on unknowing bidders and those who are not in tune with message boards such as this to escalate prices.

Occasionally, I venture beyond gloves, but not often because of situations like this. Let me explain. In perusing Legendary's lots, I became interested in a 1927 World Series stub. Then it dawned on me that if they can restore glove boxes and not disclose it, they can very easily do the same to a ticket stub and not say a word. I know a little about ticket stubs, but far less than I know about gloves, so I have no idea if it was altered or not. With that, I'll stay away. They'll lose a bider and, ultimately, the consignor gets less for his item. Not good business in my opinion.

[vintagebrett]

They also fail to mention to incredible restoration job that William did on the Harvard crescent glove.

[Number9]

I received my catalog today and noticed the same thing. For anyone interested, there are some before and after shots of the Harvard glove in this thread viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3919 and on my website. Going through that old thread, I see a few gloves that were in the Legendary Auctions over the last year or so. I really need to upload some new photos. I've had some incredible stuff come through the shop lately.

[eleet]

I've also noticed they are fairly lenient when it comes to describing condition. Seems they rate most gloves in the excellent range. Even ones that are fair at best.