Refinsh wood or not?

[Jac@stafford.net]

I have been admiring some of the cameras in the 'Show your LF...' thread and a question came to mind influenced by some antique enthusiasts who said, "Do not refinish your antique!" and somewhere in that vacuum of my mind echoed, 'Why not?'

So, why not?

[Pere Casals]

"Do not refinish your antique!"

This is a personal choice, but I wouldn't refinish valuable gear, I'd use natural oils or waxes, but I would only polish a surface if it was required for the proper good operation, never for cosmetic reasons.

My view is that the camera skin shows its history, and I'd prefer to respect that.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Then I will leave my Century 1 as-is; free for the next owner and his decision. Thank you, Pere.

[Mark Crabtree]

Refinishing is a handy way to spend money to reduce the value of an item. Personally, I almost always prefer the original finish, but have to admit I'd probably make an exception for some of the grey painted cameras.

[Mark Sawyer]

For me, it's a case-by-case issue. I like the philosophy of "keep it original", but sometimes enough restoration is necessary to make a camera operational that one might as well go all the way.

A nice in-between step is using Howard's Restor-A-Finish. It partially dissolves lacquer and shellac, allowing it to be smoothly re-distributed across the face of the wood with a cloth dampened in it. I used it recently on an old Century Universal because the finish was flaking off and completely gone in some small areas. It dissolved enough to reattach to the wood (no more flaking), and put a bit of the original finish over the areas where it was gone. Not perfect, but a big improvement.