Oct 18, 20204 min read

Conservation? Restoration? Real or Fake?

I was prompted to write this based on a few recent posts in several of my Facebook Barbie groups. As an up-front disclaimer, this is of course my own opinion, and opinions may well differ.

Most collectors cannot find or afford perfect examples of dolls or outfits, and so we learn to undertake “care and repair” of our collections. I am always happy to share tips and tricks about cleaning and washing, and hope to do some further posts on those topics. However I thought it might be timely to consider the spectrum of activities from “conservation” through to “restoration” and beyond to “fakes”. One of the things which sparked this was a post in a group where an original owner pictured a rare doll in her blister packaging which had long eyelashes and facepaint that no one had ever seen before on that type of doll (which was itself very rare and not well documented). After most commentators had admired her, one or two questioned the authenticity. Only after quite a long exchange did the truth come out, that is, the pictured doll was not at all NRFB and had been restored, indeed faked. My concern is that people rarely read all the comments in order to find out it was not original, and so, misinformation starts.

Conservation is about preserving things in as close to their original condition as possible and protecting them from future damage. The most obvious examples are washing a doll, its hair or clothes which are dirty, as the dirt may cause further damage. Or removing earrings and cleaning the green stains, as they will spread. Restoration is about making it look as near to its original appearance as possible, and therefore extends to activities such as re-rooting hair, and repainting faces. When a doll is a “basket-case”, it may need extensive work to make it look good again, and bringing a doll back to life can be rewarding, as long as it is not re-sold as original.

In the art world, where objects are unique (one of a kind), a great deal of effort is spent on conservation because the artwork is the only one, and is historically valuable. Barbie is of course a mass-produced item, and most are not at all rare, however there are aspects of her history which are still poorly-documented and where authenticity and original condition are very important. Perhaps because I began my collecting life with antiques and other collectables, I have always tried to conserve, more than restore, and to collect information on the items’ provenance as often as possible, ideally from original owners or reliable dealers.

The skills, techniques and materials available to restorers have improved dramatically over my years in collecting. Re-rooting using original dolls’ hair as donors, and repainting using well-matched colours and paints, have led to almost-undetectable transformations of dolls. I remember how shocked I was 40 years ago as an antique toy collector to read of the fakes where metal parts were buried to promote rust, paper was aged with chemicals, and the results were sold as original. In Barbie collecting, I remember similar horror at stories of #3 dolls painted up, to be sold as #2s, or with holes drilled in their feet, as #1s. As knowledge (and value) of the scarcity of prototypes, factory samples and other rarities grew, so did the attempts to re-create them: bleaching hair (eg: some Julias with yellow hair and some platinum Color Magics), dyeing and repainting, and even repackaging. As long as this is declared, then there is no attempt at deceiving, and the changes should be documented and accompany that item when sold.

I first noticed in the 1980s at US doll shows the increase in repainted faces – most often lips, but also eyebrows, eye shadow, blush etc. As long as the dealer has noted this, and priced the item accordingly, then there is no problem. Although in my view, one sad casualty of the repainting trends has been the over-use of red lipstick on dolls whose original lip colour covered a wide range of pinks, corals,

watermelon etc. The history of make-up in the 1960s tells of the decline of the red lipstick colours of the 50s, and the move towards the more “young-looking” colours. The prevalence of restored /repainted /re-rooted dolls has increased significantly in the decades since the 80s.

“Customising” dolls, or creating OOAK (One Of A Kind) dolls is another trend going beyond restoration. I understand what fun it can be to make a celebrity look-alike, or a fantasy creation unlike any other, and many artists produce the whole package including gorgeous outfits and packaging. When sold as such, and clearly marked, there is no deception. But once it passes into other hands, who may not know its history, there is a risk of error. This is where provenance has value, to trace the history of an item to be more sure of its authenticity. It is also where a collector’s knowledge and use of reference material helps avoid being deceived.

There are still areas of Barbie collecting which are not completely researched or documented, and it is in these areas that I have most concern about undeclared restoration work. One of my biggest research interests is in non-US Barbie issues – dolls, outfits and packaging. In particular I love finding out about Japanese, European and Australian exclusives. We have learned a lot, but there are still many unknowns. Like any collectable, where there is rarity, there is competition to acquire, and an increase in value. Higher value increases the likelihood of forgery, with the intention to deceive. But it also distorts the historical record, and makes it less likely that we will ever fully know or document these mysteries properly. Can we believe a doll is a genuine prototype? Have you really found a Sun Sun Francie? Was there ever a titian #3? A raven haired Stacey? Food for thought.