Passed on Hammer

[international3414]

maybe he meant refinish??,,,,you know pitena ,spell that for me!

[Branson]

maybe he meant refinish??,,,,you know pitena ,spell that for me!

Patina.

"Golden patina of age" was a marketing phrase for simply rusty.   As in neglected.   There's no virtue in preserving neglect, and museum procedures conserve artifacts by removing signs of neglect.  They certainly don't hesitate to remove the "patina" of Neanderthal skulls by leaving the dirt on them as they were found.  Surfaces of tools are protected with microcrystaline waxes to prevent further "patina" from forming.  Nor is the museum practice of putting a handle on, say, a Viking ax so that the viewer will be aware of what a Viking ax looked like as it existed in the 10th Century and was used.
Artifacts are not infrequently restored to some extent for just this purpose.  It doesn't detract from the object's value, but rather increases its value for educational use.

But restoration by whom?  Not long ago, Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel was extensively restored.  A very good thing, as the brilliant colors he used had become dim memories from years of the build up of "patina."  Wonderful work!  More recently, though, a painting on a church wall in Spain was "restored" by a well-meaning amateur, and the results were appalling to say the least.  The face of Jesus was horribly redone, leaving nothing of its original color or design, and making it rather ape-like in appearance.  Worse, the restoration has probably destroyed the possibility of ever reversing it.  That painting is apparently lost forever.

Old tools are mostly of a quite different category.  Deciding to restore or not to restore must be reasonable.  Any restoration ought to be competently done.    Another part of being reasonable concerns the historic value of the tool (or piece of furniture) and its rarity.   One doesn't replace the worn out  handle on George Washington's hatchet.  It's OK, though, to clean it and protect its surfaces with microcrystaline waxes.   

The hammer in question here has no historic provenance.  It's one of thousands that have been lying around for decades.  It has no maker's name, and so is simply an example of a once common pattern of hammer.  It has no value that could be destroyed by putting on a working handle (there's no guarantee that the old handle was original anyway).  It might be more valuable with a working handle since using it tells one more about the tool and its time than simply looking at it.  Well, a new handle and the rust removal does take it out of the market for rustic interior decoration. 

What I really hate to see are the tools one seller puts on eBay with bizarre handles and heads polished till they look almost chromed.  Yucky!   There was another seller who restored a blacksmith's hammer to the same level of polishing, and commented that it was a Heller, clearly marked, but the mark went away when he "restored" it by grinding and polishing.

Our own Scott G wrote an article on restoring an old hammer head (Scott, can you give us the URL for that article?).  He noted that it was a good hammer to rework, as it had no historic significance.  A good point to consider for reasonable restoration.  It is now a usable blacksmith's hammer, and its value is considerably more than it had been when Scott got it.

[scottg]

  Here is a 25cent yard sale kids toy hammer head I found, that happened to be real tool steel (for once)
    Yup I totally ruined it with a hand carved octagonal spalted hickory handle, and a reshaped polished head.
 It used to be a prized relic of the cheapening of American industry,
     and now its merely a museum piece, the only one in the world. 
 

 Here was another perfectly good 50 cent 12ounce claw hammer head I ruined.
  It really was worth the ---entire 50 cents-- when I started.
            but once again I totally ruined that.
 

Sledge hammers are supposed to break handles directly below the head. This is the way it has always been.
 But here we go again, totally ruined original scrap metal hammer heads, being made into something that will probably last forever if I don't leave them out in the rain.

 (hickory may be the best wood on planet earth for a handle, but it absolutely detests water. Even a few nights out in the rain and they are---------- gone.)   
 
 


  The thing is,
  A complete original finish on an 18th century Newport highboy adds about $200,000 to the value. A dazzling original finish, $400,000.
   But the same highboy, damaged as they usually are, with nothing more than a beat to crap, raggedy last trace of finish, sells for 10% of that, at most.   
 Whether you refinish it or not, its 10% value at best. 

 The Antiques Roadshow appraisers that can't wait to complain about refinishing cling to a fantasy of complete dazzling original finish, dancing in their minds,..... always.
  As if every old piece would have been valuable.
   But the truth is, if all old goods had a full original finish, then none of them would be valuable anyway.
   Not 1 in 100 antiques have a good enough original finish to worry about.
 
  But the appraisers are always hopeful and willing to make someone feel bad about it, at the drop of a hat.
    It wears on me,    as if you couldn't tell.

 Most of the stuff you see on Antiques Roadshow is actually more valuable refinished that it would have been in the trash condition it started out as.
      yours Scott
   
   

[burnsie]

The first thing I do with any of the vintage and antique tools I buy is wash them with trisodium phosphate and warm water to get the dirt off. Even wood plane totes, saw handles, and wooden levels.

Most of these tools have never been cleaned and some are over 100 years old and I get great satisfaction out of it. Often get to a makers mark appear. After washing, I typically use some Watco oil and finishing wax (I do like Briwax). This then, is the state I prefer to use them and it certainly helps with selling them (the few that I do) but I wouldn't call this a restoration.