My advise is either leave it...
My advise is either leave it as is (it is really quite good as is)Or retouch only. Get a scrap of sheet metal and try different black paints with a brush until you find one that is the same black (there are many blacks). you may have to fine steel wool your samples to get the sheen level right. Or you could pack up that miserable wreck and send it to me. Great find!
unfortunately the pictures ar...
unfortunately the pictures are missing but the thread below might be of some use, i remember it turned out really well
I had a chair stove enammeled in a satin black last month looks a very similar finish to the lamp
http://www.designaddict.com/design_addict/forums/index.cfm/fuseaction/th...
There is a difference
Robert,
I noticed in some replies that it was recommended that your try matching the paint. This is called a repair (and rather poor at that). Restoration is when an object is returned to its original state in a method that can be removed should a superior method become available in the future. Repair is inexpensive and reflects the cost and restoration is more costly with excellent results. The choice is yours.
Re; ark of decorative arts
You have misread my recommendation. I said first leave it. Also my suggestion was more on the lines of if you are going to do it, do it well/ here is a suggestion. You seem to be hewing closer to a narrow view of how to treat a mass produced object. My impression is that you take the job as if it were a prototype or one off museum piece. Your recommendation may not even be appropriate in that case. Current wisdom for those rarities is often to do nothing. But as for my reccomendation, there is no call for you to imply that a retouch (not repair) would be poorly done. There are many levels of repair/ restoration that can be appropriate for a mass produced object. In this less rarified world it is much a matter of personal taste. And on this board we have discussed this issue extensively, and a decent concensus is that you treat your good objects well, but you own them, not the other way around. Basically, it is a little insulting to me and potentially to the lamps owner to suggest that any work done to this lamp would be done poorly, and entirely unnecessary to be so strict for a mass produced object. We have many on this board who have a deep knowledge of design, and many who are also superlative and sensitive crafstpeople. I certainly am in the second catagory and am no slouch in the first. Many of us while being respectful of our objects, have moved beyond the narrow view, to focus on other more important life issues, giving the care of their objects a measured priority in their lives. And these are design nuts!
Correct is always correct
glassartist
I am sorry that you have taken my statement as an insult. I myself would leave this lamp just as it is, however I stand by what I stated in that repair is one thing and restoration is another. Trying to match the paint by trial and error is the basis of poor repair work. The cost and/or rarity of an object have nothing to do with a job done correctly. My only other suggestion would be to stop using the word "we" and speak for yourself not others.
As an artist, designer,...
As an artist, designer, craftsman and restorer of everything from buildings to objects, and as one who has kept the company of many like myself over several decades, I can say with reasonable authority that is entirely appropriate to test solutions on a scrap of the same base material. Especially in the area of finishes. In this particular case you might be able obtain the original paint, but would probably want to adjust (by slightly dulling) it to match the aging of the original object. I wouldn't want to experiment on the lamp itself. This process is routine with professionals who work with finishes in this type of work. As to your post title "correct is correct", It doesn't leave room for actual discussion. Especially considering that the "correct" treatment of objects Has been an evolving subject over time and it is probably unreasonable to assume it is a perfected subject here in 2008.
The evolution of restoration
glassartist
Not only do you seem to be a person of many talents but you are also very modest. In my original posting I stated then when an object was restored it was done in such a fashion that should a improved method become available in the future the work that had been done could be undone and the new method applied. I believe this covers your statement regarding what is correct in 2008.
The people I had restore my glass (Venturella Studio NYC) are the same people who worked for the Morse Gallery in Winter Park, Florida on the Tiffany Studio glass and they seem to have a different attitude than you (perfection is the key word) and are also not "jacks of all trades". They do one thing and they do it "correctly".
Once again if in some way I have offended your sense of dignity please accept my sincere apologies.
The reversible theory is a...
The reversible theory is a current thought that is subject to revision just like any other restoration approach. There well may come a time when it is replaced by a new theory. And even if I subscribed to this method for the massed produced object (I certainly do for museum worthy items) a finish repair like I suggested is easily reversible. But to the point, "correctly" is an evolving idea. not so long ago, refinishing every old piece of furniture used to be the "correct" thing to do and was recognized by the best professionals as such. That it is not the case now suggests that "correct" is a mutable term.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com