To restore or not to restore?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shakesbear

knows a hawk from a handsaw
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
3,628
Reaction score
463
Location
Elsinore
I read the article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19349921 felt a sense of despair and irritation. Irritation as to why no one had stepped in to stop the 'restorer' and despair at the mess the 'restorer' made of the fresco.
The once-dignified portrait now resembles a crayon sketch of a very hairy monkey in an ill-fitting tunic
I have often wondered about the value of restoring works of art. Not in terms of finance, but whether the restoration increases or decreases a works value aesthetically. I am often curious when seeing paintings if I am looking at the artists or a restorers work. Any thoughts?
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,874
Reaction score
5,189
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
The question of restoration is a really interesting one, and the source of much back-room angst in museums and galleries. I am not qualified to do it, but I have studied it and would love to discuss the ins and outs.

But first, this news story.

It does not sound like this woman was in any way an official restorer. Nobody seems to have known she was doing a restoration, and indeed the local art preservation center had been making separate arrangements to restore the painting.

Also, judging from the images, she seems to not have had the skills to restore. I suspect this is the reason so many news outlets have picked up the story -- as normally they pay little attention to art unless it explodes -- and the reason for so much of the merriment in so many of the stories.

I also wonder how and when she did this. It is difficult to paint in public without attracting attention.

Normally a restoration job is a slow, painstaking process. The modern philosophy of restoration is to do as little as possible to the original image, to only touch the damaged areas and that as lightly as possible.

This, alas, was not always the attitude, and the reason for it today is so many thousands and thousands of artworks seriously damaged or changed by heavy-handed restoration in the past. And when I say the past, I am not talking centuries past either.

This case is further complicated by the fact that this is obviously not a fresco. Please bear with me, as this is going to get technical for a moment.

True fresco is the ancient art of painting with pure pigments and water -- not paint -- onto the wet plaster of a wall and letting the plaster and color dry together. The pigment bonds molecularly with the crystalline structure of the plaster, producing a permanent image that could almost be scrubbed with wire brushes and will last as long as the wall does, potentially for thousands of years.

The only drawback to this is that the color must be applied to fresh, wet plaster. This makes things go very slowly and carefully, and means that errors must be chiseled out and replaced. Also the results, although beautiful, are a little matte and lighter in color than rich oil paintings can be.

Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling is true fresco. It's why it is so brilliantly colored and clear even today.

But in order to save time, and to be able to use pigments that normally cannot be used in plaster because of chemical reactions, and to get the deep, rich effect of a "real" painting, there is also something called "fresco secco," or "dry fresco." It is not real fresco at all, just painting onto a wall. It's a mural.

The drawbacks to this are that the paint never really bonds to the wall's surface. Over time it flakes off, and restoration is far, far more difficult than with true fresco.

Leonardo's Last Supper is fresco secco. It's why it is such a faded, sad wreck.

Elias Garcia Martinez's Ecce Homo is clearly fresco secco, as can be seen both from the painting technique and from the flaking of the paint. It is a layer of paint that was applied to a dry wall.

This makes its restoration extra delicate. And the damage this woman did is going to be extremely difficult to undo, since what we have here is two layers of paint bonded to each other, over a wall.
 
Last edited:

Shakesbear

knows a hawk from a handsaw
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
3,628
Reaction score
463
Location
Elsinore
The question of restoration is a really interesting one, and the source of much back-room angst in museums and galleries. I am not qualified to do it, but I have studied it and would love to discuss the ins and outs.

But first, this news story.

It does not sound like this woman was in any way an official restorer. Nobody seems to have known she was doing a restoration, and indeed the local art preservation center had been making separate arrangements to restore the painting.

Also, judging from the images, she seems to not have had the skills to restore. I suspect this is the reason so many news outlets have picked up the story -- as normally they pay little attention to art unless it explodes -- and the reason for so much of the merriment in so many of the stories.

I also wonder how and when she did this. It is difficult to paint in public without attracting attention.

I was also wondering when and how she did it. I did find some of the text amusing - but not the image the woman created. I wonder at the church authorities -what were they thinking of?

Normally a restoration job is a slow, painstaking process. The modern philosophy of restoration is to do as little as possible to the original image, to only touch the damaged areas and that as lightly as possible.

This, alas, was not always the attitude, and the reason for it today is so many thousands and thousands of artworks seriously damaged or changed by heavy-handed restoration in the past. And when I say the past, I am not talking centuries past either.

I have seen the results of clumsy restoration, not just on paintings, but on statues. Holding broken pieces on with metal clamps. Modern restorers have to understand so much more than just the art of painting - climate and how it can effect works of art, the atmosphere in museums/galleries, chemical content of paints, varnishes and canvases. Restoration has become science.

This case is further complicated by the fact that this is obviously not a fresco. Please bear with me, as this is going to get technical for a moment.

True fresco is the ancient art of painting with pure pigments and water -- not paint -- onto the wet plaster of a wall and letting the plaster and color dry together. The pigment bonds molecularly with the crystalline structure of the plaster, producing a permanent image that could almost be scrubbed with wire brushes and will last as long as the wall does, potentially for thousands of years.

The only drawback to this is that the color must be applied to fresh, wet plaster. This makes things go very slowly and carefully, and means that errors must be chiseled out and replaced. Also the results, although beautiful, are a little matte and lighter in color than rich oil paintings can be.

Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling is true fresco. It's why it is so brilliantly colored and clear even today.

But in order to save time, and to be able to use pigments that normally cannot be used in plaster because of chemical reactions, and to get the deep, rich effect of a "real" painting, there is also something called "fresco secco," or "dry fresco." It is not real fresco at all, just painting onto a wall. It's a mural.

The drawbacks to this are that the paint never really bonds to the wall's surface. Over time it flakes off, and restoration is far, far more difficult than with true fresco.

Leonardo's Last Supper is fresco secco. It's why it is such a faded, sad wreck.

Elias Garcia Martinez's Ecce Homo is clearly fresco secco, as can be seen both from the painting technique and from the flaking of the paint. It is a layer of paint that was applied to a dry wall.

This makes its restoration extra delicate. And the damage this woman did is going to be extremely difficult to undo, since what we have here is two layers of paint bonded to each other, over a wall.

Thank you for the explanation. I saw Leonardo's Last Supper about 1990 - I wanted to cry. It was a moving experience to see a great work of art - but it was very frustrating that so many people who were there showed little respect for it. Notices said no flash photography - and yet people were taking pics using flash. I looked at the wall opposite the Last Supper and saw the Crucifixion fresco by da Monotorfano - the contrast in colour and condition between the two works was stunning. The da Monotorfano was vibrant.
 

Sheryl Nantus

Holding out for a Superhero...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,196
Reaction score
1,634
Age
59
Location
Brownsville, Pennsylvania. Or New Babbage, Second
Website
www.sherylnantus.com
Off the top of my head I'd say she had the complicit permission of the priest - it's in a *very* visible spot and I don't think she could have done anything without someone noticing.

My money's on her being one of the movers and shakers in the church who they let go ahead and do her own thing. Now they're paying the price, as it were.

Sad and sickening. Moreso because she never stopped and took a step back to see what she was doing.

So sad.
 

Ken

Banned
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
11,478
Reaction score
6,198
Location
AW. A very nice place!
Normally a restoration job is a slow, painstaking process. The modern philosophy of restoration is to do as little as possible to the original image, to only touch the damaged areas and that as lightly as possible.

... sounds like a good way to go. I suppose that a hurdle restorers face is exercising restraint. It's just as important to leave things out as to put things in. If a detail has been lost to time restorers are probably better off leaving things that way rather than trying to guess what should go in a particular spot in a painting or fresco. I've always been a purist and want works of art to be as close to the originals as possible. I'm not against restoration, by any means, just so long as the philosophy above is undertaken. These works of art are priceless and must be handled with extreme care. I won't even get into the situation that's been in the news. The one mentioned in the OP. Outrage, would be putting it mildly.
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
This is a very interesting discussion from where I'm standing.

Our house was mostly derelict when we bought it (it's not that much better now, 16 years later), and most of its original and beautiful features had either been removed or vandalised. However, there was one lovely thing: some coloured glass panels which we've been told are Victorian (which would fit in with the age of that part of the house). There's a piece to go in the top half of a door, side panels of the same length, and an arched piece to go above them all.

The problem is that they're damaged. The glass is painted with birds and trees and flowers, and some of the tiny pieces are missing; and much of the lead-work is damaged, too, so we'll probably have to have the whole thing re-leaded in order to put it back up (it is currently stored on boards, as we had to remove it as the frame it was in was collapsing with dry rot). The pieces of glass which are cracked we should be able to have put back in with an extra narrow strip of lead across the crack, which will at least allow us to retain those original pieces of glass. But do we have the pieces which are broken too much to retain like this replaced with new hand-painted pieces, or do we just replace them with pieces of plain glass, coloured appropriately?

We've had quotes of up to £2,000 for the second approach but have been told it'll cost us around £10,000 to have it restored properly. We can just about squeeze out the money for the cheaper cost, as our insurance will, for various reasons, pay for some of it; but if we pay the higher fee we'll have to sell the glass to cover the costs. We should make a decent profit if we take that route: but this was made for our house, and while it's good to preserve such a lovely piece it seems wrong to do so if it means it is no longer here.

A quandary, as you can see. What do you think we should do?
 

Rachel Udin

Banned
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
133
Location
USA... sometimes.
Website
www.racheludin.com
Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling is true fresco. It's why it is so brilliantly colored and clear even today.
Back when I was visiting the Sistine Chapel they were restoring it a bit--or as they called it cleaning. That was 1999? Dirt still gets onto true frescos and they still need to be cleaned and cleaned carefully.

Anyway, in terms of Monkey Jesus, apparently the "restorer" thinks she did a great job of it and it's worth more. She doesn't have an art degree, and she doesn't have a background in art... but she STILL did it. o_O; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28El%C3%ADas_Garc%C3%ADa_Mart%C3%ADnez%29 <-- that's the circus.

I would love to see a true restoration though. And probably her reaction will be that it's crap... --;;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvQtSGeMHj4 <-- good.
 
Last edited:

Shakesbear

knows a hawk from a handsaw
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
3,628
Reaction score
463
Location
Elsinore
This is a very interesting discussion from where I'm standing.

Our house was mostly derelict when we bought it (it's not that much better now, 16 years later), and most of its original and beautiful features had either been removed or vandalised. However, there was one lovely thing: some coloured glass panels which we've been told are Victorian (which would fit in with the age of that part of the house). There's a piece to go in the top half of a door, side panels of the same length, and an arched piece to go above them all.

The problem is that they're damaged. The glass is painted with birds and trees and flowers, and some of the tiny pieces are missing; and much of the lead-work is damaged, too, so we'll probably have to have the whole thing re-leaded in order to put it back up (it is currently stored on boards, as we had to remove it as the frame it was in was collapsing with dry rot). The pieces of glass which are cracked we should be able to have put back in with an extra narrow strip of lead across the crack, which will at least allow us to retain those original pieces of glass. But do we have the pieces which are broken too much to retain like this replaced with new hand-painted pieces, or do we just replace them with pieces of plain glass, coloured appropriately?

We've had quotes of up to £2,000 for the second approach but have been told it'll cost us around £10,000 to have it restored properly. We can just about squeeze out the money for the cheaper cost, as our insurance will, for various reasons, pay for some of it; but if we pay the higher fee we'll have to sell the glass to cover the costs. We should make a decent profit if we take that route: but this was made for our house, and while it's good to preserve such a lovely piece it seems wrong to do so if it means it is no longer here.

A quandary, as you can see. What do you think we should do?

It is indeed a quandary. I am not sure if what I am going to suggest will be feasible - but restorers have to learn their craft and I wonder if a stained glass 'studio' would be able to use the panels are apprentice pieces - that is the apprentices work on them to learn their craft. I realize that could be seen as a risk, but if hair dressers do it . . .You could allow before and after photos to go up on their website.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,874
Reaction score
5,189
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
Back when I was visiting the Sistine Chapel they were restoring it a bit--or as they called it cleaning. That was 1999? Dirt still gets onto true frescos and they still need to be cleaned and cleaned carefully.

This is true, and the brilliant colors of the Sistine chapel frescoes were shocking to people used to the grimy brown version buried under centuries of candle smoke and pollution.

The point about true fresco is that although it may accumulate surface grime, underneath it is still brilliantly colored and permanent. The same is not true for other forms of painting, where the medium itself may also deteriorate, discolor, and/or disintegrate.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,874
Reaction score
5,189
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
This is a very interesting discussion from where I'm standing.

Our house was mostly derelict when we bought it (it's not that much better now, 16 years later), and most of its original and beautiful features had either been removed or vandalised. However, there was one lovely thing: some coloured glass panels which we've been told are Victorian (which would fit in with the age of that part of the house). There's a piece to go in the top half of a door, side panels of the same length, and an arched piece to go above them all.

The problem is that they're damaged. The glass is painted with birds and trees and flowers, and some of the tiny pieces are missing; and much of the lead-work is damaged, too, so we'll probably have to have the whole thing re-leaded in order to put it back up (it is currently stored on boards, as we had to remove it as the frame it was in was collapsing with dry rot). The pieces of glass which are cracked we should be able to have put back in with an extra narrow strip of lead across the crack, which will at least allow us to retain those original pieces of glass. But do we have the pieces which are broken too much to retain like this replaced with new hand-painted pieces, or do we just replace them with pieces of plain glass, coloured appropriately?

We've had quotes of up to £2,000 for the second approach but have been told it'll cost us around £10,000 to have it restored properly. We can just about squeeze out the money for the cheaper cost, as our insurance will, for various reasons, pay for some of it; but if we pay the higher fee we'll have to sell the glass to cover the costs. We should make a decent profit if we take that route: but this was made for our house, and while it's good to preserve such a lovely piece it seems wrong to do so if it means it is no longer here.

A quandary, as you can see. What do you think we should do?

That's a conundrum.

Forgive my ignorance of British institutions, but is there some sort of heritage preservation society that could help?
 

Shakesbear

knows a hawk from a handsaw
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
3,628
Reaction score
463
Location
Elsinore
That's a conundrum.

Forgive my ignorance of British institutions, but is there some sort of heritage preservation society that could help?

Forgiven. :) There are all sorts of institutions/charities but the red tape can be quite formidable. Getting help would depend on the value of the items - not the monetary value but the social and cultural value and also the interest the item might hold for historians. That is a very simplistic view though. There might also be some conditions that would make it difficult to accept help - for example allowing the public in to see what their money has been spent on if a charity.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
There's a piece to go in the top half of a door, side panels of the same length, and an arched piece to go above them all.

The problem is that they're damaged. The glass is painted with birds and trees and flowers, and some of the tiny pieces are missing; and much of the lead-work is damaged, too, so we'll probably have to have the whole thing re-leaded in order to put it back up (it is currently stored on boards, as we had to remove it as the frame it was in was collapsing with dry rot). The pieces of glass which are cracked we should be able to have put back in with an extra narrow strip of lead across the crack, which will at least allow us to retain those original pieces of glass. But do we have the pieces which are broken too much to retain like this replaced with new hand-painted pieces, or do we just replace them with pieces of plain glass, coloured appropriately?

We've had quotes of up to £2,000 for the second approach but have been told it'll cost us around £10,000 to have it restored properly. We can just about squeeze out the money for the cheaper cost, as our insurance will, for various reasons, pay for some of it; but if we pay the higher fee we'll have to sell the glass to cover the costs. We should make a decent profit if we take that route: but this was made for our house, and while it's good to preserve such a lovely piece it seems wrong to do so if it means it is no longer here.

A quandary, as you can see. What do you think we should do?
How much is actually missing vs. just broken out of the leading? And, how critical are those pieces? If the pieces are actually missing, they'd have to be replaced by something. If they are only leaves or sky, no problem, just fit in similarly coloured new pieces. If they're parts of birds, or a continuation of over-painted pieces, then, yes, they'll probably need hand-painted replacements.
If you have most of the pieces, and they're just knocked out of the leading, with perhaps a few corners broken off, they could probably be re-leaded, with slightly thicker lead to cover the damaged bits. If you've got the pieces, but they are so broken up that they'd be more lead than glass, it might be possible to have the 'bits' sandwiched between two panes of thin glass, which would then be treated as one piece of glass.

If you decide to go with the full restoration that would require you to sell the finished work to cover the costs, (which would be a pity, but sometimes needs must) I'd inquire as to how much you could get for the panels, as they are now. Handpainted Victorian glass must have some value, even unrestored. You'd get less, but you wouldn't have the initial outlay, and you'd possibly be less attached to the work.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
Off the top of my head I'd say she had the complicit permission of the priest - it's in a *very* visible spot and I don't think she could have done anything without someone noticing.

My money's on her being one of the movers and shakers in the church who they let go ahead and do her own thing. Now they're paying the price, as it were.

Sad and sickening. Moreso because she never stopped and took a step back to see what she was doing.

So sad.

It said in the BBC link that she had painted the robe before. So, apparently at some point she must have had approval, and this time she just exceeded her brief. Anyone who saw her probably thought she was just doing the robes again, and ignored her until it was too late.
And I expect that you're right about her being one of the local movers-and-shakers. The story said that the family had been in the process of donating money for a proper restoration, so they must have had money. Probably why the church put up with her 'hobby'.
 

Ken

Banned
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
11,478
Reaction score
6,198
Location
AW. A very nice place!
... I'd try to retain as much of the original as you can, Hack. A mixture of original and new. First you'd need an experts opinion to see if that'd be even possible. That's the first step I'd take, if you haven't done so already. An expert might have a suggestion you haven't considered. Might cost something though. G'luck.
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
It is indeed a quandary. I am not sure if what I am going to suggest will be feasible - but restorers have to learn their craft and I wonder if a stained glass 'studio' would be able to use the panels are apprentice pieces - that is the apprentices work on them to learn their craft. I realize that could be seen as a risk, but if hair dressers do it . . .You could allow before and after photos to go up on their website.

There are a few such studios, but the good ones we've found would all charge us a huge amount of money to restore the pieces. Allowing them to allow their apprentices to work on the panels wouldn't help, as they'd all do that anyway; and they'd all expect to use photos of the ongoing restoration if they wanted to. It wouldn't be a bonus.

That's a conundrum.

Forgive my ignorance of British institutions, but is there some sort of heritage preservation society that could help?

Only if the panels were in public ownership, and / or of great historical or artistic significance. Which these are not. They're beautiful, and apparently wonderful examples of their kind, but not special beyond that.

How much is actually missing vs. just broken out of the leading? And, how critical are those pieces? If the pieces are actually missing, they'd have to be replaced by something. If they are only leaves or sky, no problem, just fit in similarly coloured new pieces. If they're parts of birds, or a continuation of over-painted pieces, then, yes, they'll probably need hand-painted replacements.
If you have most of the pieces, and they're just knocked out of the leading, with perhaps a few corners broken off, they could probably be re-leaded, with slightly thicker lead to cover the damaged bits. If you've got the pieces, but they are so broken up that they'd be more lead than glass, it might be possible to have the 'bits' sandwiched between two panes of thin glass, which would then be treated as one piece of glass.

All four panels need full releading, as the lead has stretched and sagged over the years, and has been further distorted by repairs which were carried out some time ago.

Each panel is made of rectangles and squares of glass. The squares are about an inch and a half square; the rectangles are like three squares put together. There are lots of small pieces there. Apart from a narrow border round each piece, every single square is painted, and is part of a larger picture. The damaged sections are mostly around the edges, which means that the main parts of the pictures are mostly intact: but if the painted parts are replaced by plain glass it will leave significant blank portions across the panels. I'd guess that the glass in at least a tenth of each panel will have to be replaced.

If you decide to go with the full restoration that would require you to sell the finished work to cover the costs, (which would be a pity, but sometimes needs must) I'd inquire as to how much you could get for the panels, as they are now. Handpainted Victorian glass must have some value, even unrestored. You'd get less, but you wouldn't have the initial outlay, and you'd possibly be less attached to the work.

We wouldn't be able to transport the glass to a good sale in the condition it is in now: it would have to be restored to be moved any distance, otherwise the remaining pieces would almost certainly be broken too. I think this is likely, as the existing lead is in such poor condition.

We were told that if we spent £10k on them we would be able to sell them for £15-20k, but we don't want to sell them, and we can't afford to spend that much if we don't.

... I'd try to retain as much of the original as you can, Hack. A mixture of original and new. First you'd need an experts opinion to see if that'd be even possible. That's the first step I'd take, if you haven't done so already. An expert might have a suggestion you haven't considered. Might cost something though. G'luck.

We've had the panels looked at by experts who have restored significant pieces for English Heritage and the National Trust, and they've all told us to go the expensive route. Which would mean that we'd have to sell the pieces--which the experts have told us would be wrong, as they were made for this house and belong here.

It's very difficult, but we have to get this right.

I'll see if I can get some pictures of the pieces but at the moment they're on boards in the attic, and covered in dust, so I don't think they'll photograph very well! But thank you all for your comments: it's made me realise that I'm not being silly to feel so very conflicted by this: it is a difficult path for us to find.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
I have often wondered about the value of restoring works of art. Not in terms of finance, but whether the restoration increases or decreases a works value aesthetically.

This comment may be a bit of an aside, but it seems pertinent. The Tlingit people of my home state (Alaska) are famed for their totem poles. They believe these to have a life. They stand outdoors, of course, and where Tlingits live (the southeastern coast of Alaska), they are subject to all manner of foul weather, wind, rain, snow. They weather. Eventually they die, and are disposed of with the dignity of a funeral. New totem poles are carved, representing new stories, new history.

This art nearly died a century or so ago, but interested and well-intentioned Euro-American scholars and scientists made a valiant effort to set up parks and monuments and preserve what remained of these magnificent works. They tried all kinds of methods of restoration, all of which failed, and some of which were even counterproductive: fresh paint sealed moisture inside the wood and accelerated the deterioration.

But, they did accomplish one very good thing: They revived the tradition and pride in totem carving, and today, it is a newly thriving art. Great pride is taken in it, and artisans are being trained and skilled by more experienced carvers for future continuing work. The city of Sitka, Alaska, has a magnificent national preserve and visitor center featuring much such work, and the history behind it. Totem poles are again destined to live for a time, and die, and be honored in that existence.

Point being, art has a life, much as do humans. Perhaps restoration of some art is neither beneficial or desirable.

The Picture of Dorian Gray is a powerful story on a number of levels.

caw
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
There are a few such studios, but the good ones we've found would all charge us a huge amount of money to restore the pieces. Allowing them to allow their apprentices to work on the panels wouldn't help, as they'd all do that anyway; and they'd all expect to use photos of the ongoing restoration if they wanted to. It wouldn't be a bonus.



Only if the panels were in public ownership, and / or of great historical or artistic significance. Which these are not. They're beautiful, and apparently wonderful examples of their kind, but not special beyond that.



All four panels need full releading, as the lead has stretched and sagged over the years, and has been further distorted by repairs which were carried out some time ago.

Each panel is made of rectangles and squares of glass. The squares are about an inch and a half square; the rectangles are like three squares put together. There are lots of small pieces there. Apart from a narrow border round each piece, every single square is painted, and is part of a larger picture. The damaged sections are mostly around the edges, which means that the main parts of the pictures are mostly intact: but if the painted parts are replaced by plain glass it will leave significant blank portions across the panels. I'd guess that the glass in at least a tenth of each panel will have to be replaced.



We wouldn't be able to transport the glass to a good sale in the condition it is in now: it would have to be restored to be moved any distance, otherwise the remaining pieces would almost certainly be broken too. I think this is likely, as the existing lead is in such poor condition.

We were told that if we spent £10k on them we would be able to sell them for £15-20k, but we don't want to sell them, and we can't afford to spend that much if we don't.



We've had the panels looked at by experts who have restored significant pieces for English Heritage and the National Trust, and they've all told us to go the expensive route. Which would mean that we'd have to sell the pieces--which the experts have told us would be wrong, as they were made for this house and belong here.

It's very difficult, but we have to get this right.

I'll see if I can get some pictures of the pieces but at the moment they're on boards in the attic, and covered in dust, so I don't think they'll photograph very well! But thank you all for your comments: it's made me realise that I'm not being silly to feel so very conflicted by this: it is a difficult path for us to find.

Not at all silly to be conflicted, it's a hard decision to have to make. Fortunately, it doesn't have to be made immediately. If the panels are safely stored on boards in the attic, you can continue with the work on the house, and deal with the panels later.
(They are protected from dust, etc, and secured so that someone blundering around in the attic doesn't knock them over, yes?) I'd suggest though, that somewhere in the house papers and records, you note that they are in the attic, and what they are and their significance. Sometimes events get ahead of us, and if the panels are forgotten, well, that's how stuff ends up in 'Antiques Roadshow' with everyone shaking their heads that, no, they have no idea of the history of the piece.
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
They're carefully wrapped, complete with photos and what little background information we have on them. But you're right, they could so easily be forgotten or damaged: I'll wrap some warning tape around them (the yellow and black stuff) and put a bigger sign on them, just in case. Thank you.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
Good. It's probably not necessary, you'll eventually get those panels up, but it always seems so sad when you see nice things that were obviously loved and cared for, hauled out with no clue as to their origins or history. We've got family stuff like that, pictures of strangers who obviously meant something to my parents once, or bits and pieces that must have had some story behind them.
But my parents didn't talk about the past much, and probably thought that some day they'd get around to telling us about them. When the time was right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.