Frank Marrone wrote: (in part)
>
>
> Do those who collect coins feel that a reproduction 1804 Silver Dollar (only
>
> Do those who collect baseball cards feel that a reproduction Ty Cobb tobacco
> card (valued in the tens of thousands) is as good as an original or would
> they feel an identical repo undistinguishable from the real item would be
> good for the hobby?
> Do those that collect rare art feel that a reproduction (insert favorite
> rare art item here) is as good as an original or would they feel an
> identical repo undistinguishable from the real item would be good for the
>hobby?
While I tend to agree with you regarding "collectibles", wouldn't you
agree that a good Monet or Lautrec print would be great to own and
admire, as we can't all own the one original, providing no one tried to
make us believe we were buying the original. On the other hand, where
would the Sistine chapel be if "restoration" didn't also require
"replacement" with like materials using talented artists other thatn the
original. Is this ceiling now a forgery. No! It is restored to its
former beauty, or as near as possible, and no one is labeling the
changes. Such a quandry. My final vote is that even though my Tiger is
original, I can't fault anyone from trying to restore theirs. If iot
weren't for this drive we would have no way to keep our jewels running
as original materials wear out and are consumed by mother nature.
--
Steve Laifman < Find out what is most >
B9472289 < important in your life >
< and don't let it get away!>
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/
_/_/_/
|