One can hardly collect or deal in any way with antique Art, or any Art for that matter, without confronting damage. Often Art objects are by their nature fragile. Many having survived centuries, have been maintained, repaired and/or restored. The effect such work has upon the value of the piece has corollaries in other fields of antique collecting. However, there are distinct differences.

In an almost Buddhist way a natural degeneration of materials ages and patinates the surfaces of old objects giving authentication to their past. Often this authentication is the only acceptable objective standard. The relative age of a piece is always pertinent when determining its authorship. Age is reflected in oxidation levels, "craquelure" , and other signs of wear a that can validate or invalidate claims made about many objects. An 18th-century French trunk, for instance, is no less valuable with a split top as it is to be expected. Certain old and collectible objects should indeed not be refinished or necessarily even repaired in order to preserve as much of this historical aging evidence as possible, i.e. the worn seats of Colonial chairs should not be replaced, the slightly crackled finish on 200-year-old tables should be preserved and not replaced if at all possible, the old aged glass of a period mirror can be responsible for half its value.

Unfortunately, the Colonial chair will never be sat in again. However, the table can be eaten off of, the mirror still looked into. This raises a Zen and existential point, should not the Colonial chair be allowed to fulfill its will and purpose as a chair, assuming its wood to be still strong? As a chair, of course it should, but such chairs have been raised to the level of "Objet d'Art", eye candy, and as such have a new destiny to fulfill. In this role such wear is not disturbing to the eye, but expected. Restoration of such an object therefore devalues it within those parameters.

Certain collectibles such as ceramics, mostly manufactured ceramics, are extremely devalued by the slightest chip or crack. There are, after all, others around in a less damaged state. A rare handmade piece, on the other hand, if it is extremely old is expected to have some damage and, if it is unique, whatever restoration is necessary to maintain its integrity is acceptable if done minimally and well. This is true throughout collectibles. The value of industrially reproduced objects is directly affected by their condition. In sculpture for instance, a Frederick Remington undamaged from the same series as a damaged one is more valuable. However, the value of Michelangelo's David is certainly not less because one of his arms was broken off and reattached. Nor has the value of Venus D'Milo suffered for all her flaws. So, it seems the amount of damage and/or restoration acceptable on a piece is determined by a number of variables. I believe the most important of these is that one which defines the nature of the object at hand. How has this alteration from an object's original state affected its current role?

A friend recently bought a little painting at a flea market from just after the turn of the 20th century. A little fantasy scene painted in 19th-century romantic style. Signed by an artist unlisted, in a good Louis 14th repro frame from the same period as the painting. The painting was slightly burned, but the resulting craquelure actually enhanced the look of the piece, which might have been a little artificially sweet, saccharin, otherwise. What then of an original work by a listed artist that has been damaged? The answer is twofold. How much, and how well was it restored? How much is quantitative except that damage in a critical area of the painting, for instance in the face of a portrait. is of course more devaluing than the same amount of damage in a dark background. In general less than 5 percent of the total area of the painting affected in non crucial areas and restored well can be expected and accepted without devaluing the piece in an old painting. Usually, and hopefully, a paintngs value in the long run depends upon its quality. A truly powerful painting is a rare thing and rises above such criticisms as might affect a piece of Wedgwood. Does a tear where little paint is lost in an Delacroix expertly restored affect its value? I think not. A painting whose beauty and originality is not affected by a repair that cannot be seen except by concentrated or artificial means is devalued little. After all the true measure of such paintings in the end is supposed to be only their beauty and originality.

Steve B. Lance