Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
It may well depend on how we look at our collection pieces: HISTORICAL weapons, or historical WEAPONS. The former emphasizes the life and adventures behind it, the latter - it's pristine state and military readiness.
I am with you. Patina is a kiss of time.
|
To draw from Ariel’s quote, but knowing everything in life is personal choice, my personal choice is to improve the visual appearance to that as close to what it would have been in the day and remove traces of neglect.
In the day, when in the hands of warriors, these were kept in pristine state for military readiness and this is what should be preserved in my opinion.
The former aspect as Ariel noted, does not in my opinion emphasize life and adventure. In most cases it is 100+ years of neglect and failure to preserve.
There are certain things that shouldn't be removed such as Japanning and the like and sometimes people get these aspects confused with patina.
Saying this though, there are many weapons which should never be touched and many more that should be left to experts in the field.
Where would our museums be without restoration and preservation?
http://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-m...rmor/slideshow
In another 100 years from now how much worse off would our collections be if there were not attended to?
Gavin