Tips on spotting lobby card restorations...

[Harry Caul]

As many of you are aware, I recently bought an original Wolf Man lobby card.  I knew it had been "cleaned up" by a restorer and that was disclosed to me by the seller -- who himself didn't know exactly what that entailed.  I figured that meant it had some level of minor restoration, but being very new to lobby cards I wasn't quite sure what the extent was.  The borders look exceptionally clean, so I had a suspicion that they had been touched up/air brushed.  Take a look for yourself at photos...





Well, after posting photos of the card on the forum, I was contacted by Sean who informed me that the card had indeed been restored.  This is what he wrote, specifically in response to my surprise that the card had not been paper-backed...

It's very obvious [...the card has been restored...] from the photo you posted. I would say that most lobby cards being restored today are NOT linenbacked or paperbacked.  I would be wary of any restorer who wants to back a  lobby card, it is usually a sign that they don't do very good work.

I asked for additional detail as to why the restoration was obvious.  Being very new to LC collecting (and early 40s paper in general), I thought I would post his assessment as I found it very useful.  Hindsight being 20-20, some of it is painfully obvious now (tear on back that doesn't show on front), however, the differences in the corners was counter intuitive for me.  I was thinking that if two corners were nice and sharp, while two were rounded, that would mean that they hadn't been restored -- I mean why bother restoring two corners but not the others?  Little did I know...

As for the Wolf Man, it's just after years of holding hundreds and hundred of restored cards you know what to look for in person and that makes it easier to spot in a photo.  The first clue was the top borders (both left and right), they have that super-sharp, overbuilt edge that comes from restoration. The bottom has a rounded edge that only comes from flaking after restoration and the edges close to the art have a masked off look to them, but the clencher came when I scrolled down and saw the back, it doesn't match the front, including a tear on the top left that had an old tape stain where it was covered up long ago but there is no tear on the front.

Disclaimer: Sean consented for me to post his assessment (thanks!), but please keep in mind that it was only based on a quick glance at these fairly low-res photos.  He didn't ask for a disclaimer, but it did seem only fair.  Anyway, I found this all very useful and figured some of you might as well... 

For those curious, I'm still over the moon with new purchase!

[erik1925]

Matt, that is one BEAUTIFUL card! It's such a great image. (The Italians were wise to use this same imagery on their poster, too).

 

Do you know who did the restoration work?

[MoviePosterBid.com]

get a black light & shine it on the card and it will show the work

[Charlie]

Quote from: crowzilla on October 14, 2012, 05:02:59 PM
I would be wary of any restorer who wants to back a  lobby card, it is usually a sign that they don't do very good work.


I think this is quite a silly statement.  Great, the back looks original but the front is covered in permanent paint.  Is there some other reason for this Sean?

[CSM]

Quote from: crowzilla on October 14, 2012, 05:02:59 PM
I would be wary of any restorer who wants to back a  lobby card, it is usually a sign that they don't do very good work.


I think this is quite a silly statement.  Great, the back looks original but the front is covered in permanent paint.  Is there some other reason for this Sean?

I would think possibly because restoration of very high quality can be done on a lobby or window card without the need to back it (of course depending on the original condition etc)

[Charlie]

I would think possibly because restoration of very high quality can be done on a lobby or window card without the need to back it (of course depending on the original condition etc)

Ironically, gel backing is basically a material backing anyway.  The card is still backed just with a transparent film - like laminating one side.  Repairs wouldn't hold up without it.  There would never be enough edge to edge adhesion to prevent a card from be re-injured. It requires surface tension on either side of the repair...  But the gel backing fails on the corners here in this case... They probably would not have with a mulberry application.

My point is that unless you are doing very minimal restoration, what does it matter if the card was paperbacked.  It's like saying you will replace the engine (not matching numbers) and totally bondo the exterior of a car (front of card) but only repair the vinyl interior with vinyl goo patches and cover it with clear plastic so you can see how much damage the seats had (back)... 

To me starch backing is great if the card is already in decent shape and all you need to do is clean it up a bit.  Gel backing is essentially the same as paperbacking but less durable.  I do think linenbacking is probably overkill...

But to say proper conservation methods and supporting a paper artifact is a sign of poor work...  Nothing wrong with Sean having an opinion - I just think it's misleading.