Ave!
Kevin my friend. I am afraid you were not being fully honest with us.
Your second image does not show signs of BD. And in the accompanying message you only stated it was "unacceptable".
Shawn,
It was just a simple post to show a few before/after pix. I never occurred to me that my every word would be so heavily scrutinized. Sheesh. And, yes, I did believe that the mis-mash of
patina was ugly and 'unacceptable'. And, yes, after the 2nd photo, I did use a few delicate DD's rubber
smoothing tools to attempt even it out without removing it. And that that's when the BD pockets began to show up. At the time, it never occurred to me that I should take more photos of the BD
Jupiter to please
Forum members. I wasn't making a 'cleaning chronicle', after all. For you, of all people, to suggest that I wasn't being truthful in any manner is shameful and I'm disappointed that you'd even bring it up.
However, it is being held to a higher standard than million dollar artworks in museums. There is a rudeness to some of the comments that I find surprising.
4to2CentBC,
Rudeness is quite common on this board, my friend, such as comments like:
How fortunate were Royal Athena, Christie's, Bonham et all ancient art objects for sale to have escaped your hands!
Granted, Andreas and I have locked horns upon many occasions; we are long time friends and 'agreed to dis-agree' years ago, but personally directed comments are not what anyone wants here.
As Andrew has noted below, to each their own. No one is going to change their mind.
Once again, as a reminder, we began with the subject of using MSR on ancient artifacts and it turned into more 'I'm right and you're wrong', 'my way or the highway' diatribes...with desert
patina thrown in. So, if possible, can we return to the original subject?
Andrew, early on you mentioned something like 'if this is what MSR does to coins (artifacts) it's no
good.' After everyone saw the final version the blitzkrieg began. True or false? You, Andreas, and many others commented positively on the mid-one, saying that it looked much better before the stripping, etc. Again, true or false? I think what you all forgot was that it was MSR that got us to the second version in the first place.
Had we only shown the first and second examples, would this have changed your opinion in anyway? Be honest with yourselves.
I also find it interesting that no one
had any comments whatsoever concerning the before/after pix of the small
Egyptian statuette. Trust me, folks, there was no
patina to be saved under the horrible crystalline encrustations other than BD.
From Shawn concerning
his Fortuna-
I am pretty certain that whatever patina it had left in its pitted state it was stripped and then poorly re-patinated. Not only does the bright green look unnatural but it is in some of the pits too. I think someone applied an artificial patina and then tried to wipe it partly off to give it a realistic look and failed miserably. I could be wrong and it could be some natural outcome of exposure to the sea but I doubt it. Not sure what to do with this. I think I will leave it as it. In any event it too was cheap as it is ugly.
Shawn, your
Fortuna has not been 'artificially' anything. Those encrustations cannot be faked and it has certainly been underwater, but not necessarily saltwater: more like freshwater mud/muck. (I've taken the
liberty to Photoshop yours with mine for comparison.) Ugly and
cheap is no never mind, but doesn't it bother you that the metal beneath the encrustations (it's not
patina) is rotting away while you dither about what to do with it? I only ask because bronze artifacts that have spent centuries underwater are intrinsically unsound. Muck/mud/clay tends to actually
help preserve them, but once removed into a dry climate, the rot/BD tends to exert itself. Just askin', my friend. Again, which would you prefer in the long run - your
Fortuna rotting away 'as is' or to have it preserved/restored? As seen in the photos below, your
Fortuna could look similar to our 'after' photos, or do you and others truly believe that it's better to just let it just rot away 'as is' rather than being saved/restored to give it life for another 2,000 years? Perhaps we could take vote and let other's decide for you?
Look, folks, I'll admit that I'm no Museum expert when it
comes to cleaning/restoring ancient artifacts and am always happy to receive advice from those who have more experience. Back in the day when I was an Executive Chef, the term for those who thought they knew the 'in's and out's' of the Kitchen but didn't, were referred to as a 'Schumacher'; IE a shoemaker. In this case, I'm a Schumacher and I am willing to admit it.
That being the case, perhaps in the future we can limit any comments/criticism to those that have actual experience in cleaning and restoring ancient artifacts?
Best regards from your Schumacher friend,
Kevin