Repairing a dug bottle

[captcadillac]

I was wondering how fellow forum members feel about repairing a dug bottle.
The reason I bring this up because a crack, chip, etc is part of the bottle's history.
There has much discussion on this forum as to leaving a dug bottle "as is".
Tumbling a dug bottle is the ultimate altering of a dug bottle (or any bottle). However, personally I believe if you follow some of the strongest critics on this forum about altering a dug bottle that repairing one would fall into this line of thinking.
CaptCadillac

 

[AntiqueMeds]

museums restore glass items.

I checked the 10 commandments and it doesnt appear to be a sin.

 

[captcadillac]

Yes museums repair glass and many other things. However, museums have nothing to do with the subject of the what is considered altering a bottle on this forum.
Your right, the last time I checked the ten commandments this wasn't one of them.
My post simply asks if you repair a dug bottle does it alter its history?
CaptCadillac

 

[AntiqueMeds]

museums have nothing to do with the subject of the what is considered altering a bottle

I dont agree , museums are tasked with preserving the history of items.Their treatment of items is a good standard to look towards for collectors.

 

[diggerdirect]

I would say it only adds another chapter to the pieces history.

Al

 

[captcadillac]

I was just wondering what fellow members thought about this subject.
There isn't any yes its right or no its not, it simply about how you view the question..
Just wanted to know what people think about it.
We talk to death about the merits of altering or not altering a bottle condition, looks, etc.. This is just another discussion about doing it.
CaptCadillac

 

[div2roty]

To me tumbling and repairing a bottle are different enough to warrant different views. I personal don't like to tumble bottles, esp their outside. Repairing bottles is ok because otherwise the bottle is already altered (missing parts) whereas tumbling can remove a layer of glass (thus making something else missing). However, I've never repaired a bottle.

Repairing is quite acceptable in the pottery and art world, however, sellers are expected to disclose repairs.

 

[Wheelah23]

ORIGINAL: div2roty

To me tumbling and repairing a bottle are different enough to warrant different views.  I personal don't like to tumble bottles, esp their outside.  Repairing bottles is ok because otherwise the bottle is already altered (missing parts) whereas tumbling can remove a layer of glass (thus making something else missing).  However, I've never repaired a bottle. 

Repairing is quite acceptable in the pottery and art world, however, sellers are expected to disclose repairs.

I agree. They're two completely different, even opposite, processes.

I don't have a problem with it, as long as it's done right and it's fully disclosed when the bottle is sold. As long as it's detectable under a blacklight or something, I think it can and should be used to save otherwise junky bottles and turn them back into collectible items!

 

[bottlekid76]

I was actually thinking about that same thing Kekoa. I love an attic found bottle as much as we all do, no doubt it's the best of what you can get. I think an overcleaned bottle is probably the worst. Tumbling a bottle changes it from it's natural as found state, and repairing a broken or cracked bottle changes it from its as found state. It really comes down to the persons preference basically. A purist would not change it in any way from a historical or natural view. I myself, prefer an uncleaned bottle in great condition, again i'd say just like the rest of us. However, a very light tumble to remove stain does not bother me. I'm not talking about tumbled slick, worn embossing, etc. That does ruin a bottle IMO. I love the secret technique that has stirred up alot of debate. It would be a great thing for the bottle world. I respect the situation, and hope that maybe one day it may be shared.

~Tim

 

[beendiggin]

I would assume that repairs are necessary in some cases in order to preserve a fragile item like glass or pottery. For instance, I like the way archealogical finds look when they fill in the missing pieces. It allows the viewer to see it as it once was. As far as repairs done strictly for cosmetics, I think it's unnecessary. It can lead to undisclosed repairs, (unintentionally or not) and to me old stuff looks good when it's got some real wear and tear. If it's in attic mint shape, that's great, but fixing a small lip chip or crack, etc. to make it "perfect" seems overboard. That's just my opinion, I just don't like messing with old things too much. Sure, give 'em a little cleaning, dust 'em off, whatever, but if they're broken, they're broken. Lots of old stuff is damaged to some degree, to me that's what gives an antique it's own unique character.