Quote:
Originally Posted by awdaniec666
Jim, I would love to hear more about a historians view on aging signs, how you deal with corrosion, patina etc. .
Would you mind opening a thread discussing this topic, starting with your point of view on it? Could be also here if it fits the original discussion but I think this is something a lot of people are thinking about and maybe have something to share. IŽd really appreciate some insight!
|
Thank you, that is a great suggestion, and a subject often brought up (rather constantly actually) on these pages over the many years writing here.
As I am indeed someone who studies history, my opinion is always to leave as much patination as possible, and even items that are in essentially relic or excavated condition should remain as is as much as possible excepting minor repair to complete the overall composition. . In most cases the physical aspects of the components, metal etc. reflect important information pertaining to age however without scientific analysis, most of that is from comparison to other items in kind, or the context or provenance of the item being examined.
The only cleaning should be lightly removing grime, stabilizing any corrosion or rust. The weapons I have collected over many years have remained as is.
Only light rubbing with fine steel wool and WD40 in pitted areas on hilts revealed key regimental markings etc.
I am by no means a professional, as in a museum, where conservation is more detailed stabilizing and limited restoration is accomplished. These processes are far more complex to preserve the item as close to its intact condition as possible.
Items which are heavily (overcleaned) are in my opinion compromised as the patination is in my opinion, virtually history itself in a sense, and should be left intact as much as possible.
As I say, this has been often discussed over many years, and my position on this is pretty well known, as well as apparently shared by many others who write here. Great topic, and very grateful for your interest!!! Thank you.