what is your opinion on this:
I often get pieces in that are damaged (during it's lifespan of use), discolored or worn out.
My feeling with sleek, midcentury modern furniture is that often this worn out character takes your eye away from the once clean and crisp lines. Many times the applied varnish has dulled and losts its transparency and 'hides' the original and authentic design of the piece.
What is your opinion on this? Do you refinish or always leave as is?
My opinion is
that the "original finish" fetish is just that. But it's based on something real: the need to see what the piece looked like when it "left the factory." Conservators need to see that condition and material, if only to know what to replicate if restoration is the goal.
Once the final owner (that's you) takes possession, it is his privilege to take that information and use it to sensitively and accurately reproduce the original finish -- if that is his wish. On the other hand, since there are (probably) dozens or hundreds of identical pieces out there, the "human race" loses nothing if your example gets modified to suit your tastes.
In other words, do as you wish. And love it ! Perhaps it would be enough to make a photographic record of the condition when you took possession -- then you can "have your cake and eat it too" !
I agree. If something is...
I agree. If something is extremely rare, I would not get it refinished. However, if not and you feel that the defects take away from the piece, then by all means get it refinished. I have a coffee table that I loved the lines on, but it was covered in water marks, light scratching, and a fading finish. All the defects really took away from the overall look of the coffee table. I had it refinished and was very pleased with the outcome. I was happy and that's what counts. Be happy with your furniture even if that means that it needs to be refinished. If you are unwilling to get pieces refinished, then you should only buy pieces that you are satisfied with the condition. Rarer pieces in really good condition are gonna cost a pretty penny though...even more readily available pieces will be quite a bit more expensive.
If the piece is in "Terrible"...
If the piece is in "Terrible" condition it's worth refurbishing even if it's truly rare, as long as it's done correctly, using the same materials as was used in the original manufacturing. My Uncle refurbishes pieces and if they are true antiques worth value he goes to great lengths to keep the originality. Many experienced furniture restorers keep what they call "Breakers" around. These are useless pieces that are only good for one thing and that's their wood. If you can fix one piece using materials from another piece from the same period you can get away with a perfect refurb.
Refurb is only for the truly ruined pieces though. If it's just got some bumps and bruises you're better off to keep it oiled up and enjoy it.
I've got many antiques in the house that are of the Victorian Era and I would never touch any of them other than to keep them oiled. None of them are what I would consider great pieces, but much of the character in such an old piece is in the original finish and bruises it's acquired along the way. My favorite is a beautiful end table I found in a dumpster. It was all gray and falling apart. I oiled the shit out of it week after week and after a while all the joints sured up and the color came back to the wood. The table top is cracked all the way across, but it was because it was used as a plant stand for god knows how many years(large water mark in the middle). I still use it as a plant stand, but I'm careful not to get water on it. It has beau coup character!
Original finish!
For me, minimal restoration is best, in the end do what you want but once you start sanding items they are dead to me ( that sounds more dramatic than i meant it to be but you get the jist) I always maintain furniture with beeswax nothing else!
This is my idea of vintage perfection.....
I'm with
Flyingpatricio. If the piece is trashed putting the money and effort into refinishing it is a good idea. Personally I like seeing a little wear on vintage furniture. The term 'character' is thrown around a lot and it seems that people just say that when they really mean 'jacked up'. Upholstery is a whole different issue though. I have seen some amazing modern pieces that are done in the worst fabric choices ever. Some people expect perfection and thats hard to find when something has been used for 50-60 years...unless they want to pay out the butt for it. 🙂
To each his own.
I'm a bit surprised to see that black paint (?) showing through -- could that have been the original color of the piece, with someone's orange paint on top of it, peeling off ? Would we carefully preserve a picturesque coat of inauthentic finish ? Would black undercoat/primer have been used ? Do we know what colors this chair was offered in ?
.
I would happily stand guard night and day over this chair from anyone who tried to " restore" it. It seems the thread is split between those who want to erase the history and the "story" of the piece because maybe they dont want to spend the money on a new copy? but want the new look.
For me there is no argument it is a well know fact erase the history ruin the piece. There is always some restoration or maintanence to be done but I think it should always be minimal.
From the info I have of the chair it is all original, as to if it has been altered we will never know and I prefer it that way.
Just as I dont want to know why my neighbour puts his trash out a 2am every week and always has his curtains closed, I just feel better not knowing why.
Arthur has a valid point
Although there are varying degrees of restoration.To restore a piece to look brand spanking new is sacrelige,takes away its soul.However,if you re-cover some shredded seat covers on a McCobb dining room set,that's no sin.Anyhow,oddly enough,looking at vintage anything,I like to see evidence of some use,not abuse.Looking at vintage leather motorcycle jackets on the other hand,it seems the most beat up ones bring the big bucks.Go figure.
The difference between character and wore out
There's sometimes a fine line between character and wore out. This table straddles it every day, but the wood is so beautiful. It's not quite to the stage of a "Breaker", but the issues it has are minor to me.
The thing being is, a huge crack across a Victorian end table that's seen 100+ years of use and a huge crack on a MCM piece are different to me. One adds character and shows history the other pretty much ruins the piece and calls for restoration...IMO.
I think Sixpense's chair definitely has character and probably looks great sitting in a corner even though I'd probably refurb it. It looks too "Shabby Chic" to me...I hate that term. But, I really do detest when beautiful wood gets painted.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com