The Ethics of Restoration

[Drew Bedo]

I have been in the company of some serious collectors in the pre-pandemic past. And a few things rubbed off on me.

One is that a true collector wants an item to be pristine, as in "mint in the box". Another takeaway is that lacking mint-never-used condition, it has to be "original", that is not pieced together. Most of the true collectors among us didn't use their gear to make images.

On the other hand, the group also included some actual shooters. One member regularly acquired antique oddball cameras and restored them to working order, such as a falling plate camera or panoramic. He would then shoot a few pictures with them ether on glass plates or film cut to size and contact print on salted paper albumin. He brought both the cameras and images to meetings.

How do you view the restoration of wet plate era or other 19th Century lenses and cameras? Is posterity served by bringing them back to useful life by joining parts or components that were not sold together? What about renewing bellows or fabricating wood or metal parts . . .re-lethering? Should an orphaned brass lens barrel be joined to an orphaned brass rack and pinion mount?

[jp]

The car collectors have been beating this dead horse for generations. Better than new, like new, original, sympathetic restoratoin, patina, survivor, etc...

As a user not collector, I don't really care if a camera has non-original repairs as long as functionality is the same. It's not for Goodwood or Pebble Beach. Large format is about the experience and the results.

If someone else wants a like new 100+ year old camera, that's cool too.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I am a Collector, but I use my collection. I know fellow collectors who have everything in expensive glass cases. That is not my thing!

My wife has allowed me to continue collecting, as long as I USE the stuff LOL

[Drew Bedo]

My wife also is the curator of my "Man-Card.'

[Tin Can]

I change my camera collection

as I learn more

I have bought and sold way more than 200 used motorcycles over my lifetime

I love to Tinker

I always sold them in better and safer condition

BTW

Never test ride anything

even brand new cars

without a careful inspection

[Michael R]

I learnt a lot about the car stuff watching Barrett Jackson auctions on TV during the height of the muscle car nostalgia era around the early-mid 2000s. The 'best' restorations of numbers-matching/original cars that went for the most $ were the ones that restored to factory/showroom condition - meaning don't fix the terrible gaps etc. etc.

The car collectors have been beating this dead horse for generations. Better than new, like new, original, sympathetic restoratoin, patina, survivor, etc...

As a user not collector, I don't really care if a camera has non-original repairs as long as functionality is the same. It's not for Goodwood or Pebble Beach. Large format is about the experience and the results.

If someone else wants a like new 100+ year old camera, that's cool too.

[paulbarden]

The needs and desires of The Collector VS The User can never be reconciled: they have completely different agendas. I understand (to a degree) why both want what they want, but I will say this: cameras are tools that are meant to be used to make photographs. Some are more beautiful/interesting than others and worthy of admiration. But at the end of the day, they are just tools. I appreciate the fact that some people love the objects themselves and wish to preserve good examples of specific cameras, and document the history of their design and manufacture. But in the end, my only real desire is to use my cameras for what they were intended to do.

I can imagine all the superb cameras/lenses that are sitting in glass boxes, never to be used again, and that makes me sad.

[Drew Bedo]

back in the 1990s, I was at a camera show and saw a Leica Standard change hands. It looked an incomplete or striped body that looked as though it had spent the post-war years in a coal bin. I knew the buyer and asked why he wanted it at all at any price point. His reply was that it had a four-digit serial number. Well OK, . . .I still didn't get it.

Something like 18 months later at a collector's meeting, this same guy showed uws a four digit Leica Standard that looked as though it had just come out of a box!

[Havoc]

A fine line indeed. I have little need for a new-in-box 100 year old camera. Just like I do not see the appeal of a 50 year old single barrel whiskey unless it is to drink it.

But I can appreciate a restoration if it uses traditional materials and workmanship. A new bellows is ok if you are going to use it. But if it was a leather bellow, then replace it by a leather bellow. If it is just to put in a cabinet, keep it original, it will have more story to tell. Replacing the letherette is ok if you are going to use it. But changing it to purple lizard skin? Maybe if the original was like that and it has been changed to black goat leather it could be done. Although in that case I'd probably opt for black...

[Robert Bowring]

I agree with what paulbarden said. Cameras are tools and should be used. Restoring a camera just to put it on display just seems wrong in some way. I have restored several motorcycles over the years and have always rode them. It just does not make sense to just look at them sitting in the garage. A few little dents and dings give character. I remember being at a shop that specialized in restoring Corvettes. They were just finishing a nut and bolt frame up restoration of a 427 Stingray. It was gorgeous. I mentioned to the guy working on it that I thought that it would be a lot of fun to drive it. He looked at me like I was crazy and told that it was a show car and would never be driven. What a waste. There is no way I could have a 427 Corvette sitting in the garage and not drive it. Tools are meant to be used.