The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

my opinion is that resoration should make something old the condition it was when it was new, that is ok to me, when people turn a machine into something that it never was, thats where it turns bad.
if a machine is restored back to its "new" condition and it is done well, i dont really have a problem, if someone does a restoration badly or does too much, then i consider it ruined!
thats just my opinion though!

Kirtley, you have an old head on young shoulders! You have certainly hit the nail squarely on the head here. That is also my view entirely. RESTORED items should look exactly like they were when new. However machines should not be restored unless it is absolutely necessary. I also agree with need4art in as much as I also don't want to live with a pile of rusty dirty scratched and dented machines with scabby looking horns where most of the paint is peeling off. There is a balance to be struck and most collectors I've met tend to be if anything slightly over cautious about undertaking restoration.

However there isn't much excuse for leaving machines unpolished, unloved and uncared for. There is no great honour in owning dirty machines that "no one has ever touched from new". There is usually a good reason for this: the machine became obsolete very quickly and was discarded to the attic or worse! That is why it is untouched. That and the fact that a lot of people just can't be bothered to clean anything. Why would a collector who presumably bought the item out of choice with their hard earned wish to continue with this bizarre curatorial stance? There is nothing wrong with getting out metal polish and shining up parts that were intended to shine or polishing up and waxing cabinets. Who really takes pride in the ownership of grot?

It amuses me when the words "fully restored" are mentioned by a few dealers we have over here. What THEY usually mean by this is that the motor has been cleaned and the soundbox gaskets replaced.That is NOT restoration, that is simply servicing and maintenance!

Why would a collector who presumably bought the item out of choice with their hard earned wish to continue with this bizarre curatorial stance?

I have a bizarre curatorial stance with my phonographs, but that doesn’t mean I keep their original dirt. I also don’t keep original grease, and I rebuild the reproducers when needed.(That dirt isn't original to the phonograph anyway). Otherwise my machines are clean, look great and are used often.

Obviously, we need to distinguish "restoring," that is, to make it as new, from "preserving," that is, to obtain a well-kept condition.

Hi All,
That is really two different things-and I do both in my business. Preservation is usually done with a good example-do everything you can to keep a good example in exactly that state. Restoration is done when an example's condition is less than good. But the question really falls at what level is an item in good condition?

For very rare items a lessor level of condition is exceptable because it may be hard to find an item in any condition. Its the fact that it is very rare that may make restoration a non choice for fear of doing something that may not be reversable-but it will be preserved.

Two different areas of choice for different items and needs.
Abe

Speak of the devil, here is a recent post to Portland, OR Craigslist:

http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/atq/3742963270.html

Enjoy!

CDBPDX wrote:Speak of the devil, here is a recent post to Portland, OR Craigslist:

http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/atq/3742963270.html

Enjoy!

Guess the wet look is coming back in? That is bloody awful

Eww.

I have an oak VV-XI, unrestored. It is in very good original condition; some collectors might even grade it "excellent"...

It soitenly ain't "wet lookin'" ...

It has a nice satin look to it.

The only things I have done to the cabinet were a good cleaning wiht Murphy's oil soap, and a going-over with some Lemon Oil, then paste wax.

The asking price on the CL machine isn't horrible, but the first thing I would do is wet-sand that puppy with 400-grit...

Hopefully they didn't touch the underside of the lid...

I just had a second look at it... that's a damned shame...


This machine has really nice figuring in the veneer... a travesty to try to make it look like a "poured" table-top down at the local theme-pub...

Norfolkguy wrote:Guess the wet look is coming back in? That is bloody awful

In my search for phonographs, I am coming upon many with the "wet look".

This post has all positive comments, but it also has the wet look.

Are these "wet look" phonographs acceptable, or were the positive comments just to console the poster/owner?

One of the problems I have with these "wet-look" finishes is that yes they are glossy, but yet can appear dull or "patchy" depending on how the light is reflecting off the surface.

In the case of the "hump-back" in the above post, if you look towards the back of the lid, you will see "dull" spots in the finish...

It is my opinion, that this is sort of finish looks every bit as out of place pre-1980's furniture as would "Candy-Apple Red" and gold "flames" on an otherwise stock and correct 1910 Model T Ford...