A debate I like to chime in on every once in a while. I will also consider what genre is the clock. A properly restored English bracket clock, French polish and all, for display... if a restored 200+ year old English clock can be purchased at the same price as a rough one (and many times they are), I'd often like the restored clock.
If it's a clock that was used in a factory or mill, or other public place or industrial setting...or even an antique clock that likely was run in a country house that was well used (subject to smoke, and damp climate for example)...those types of clocks I clean and preserve, to show that they have been used and are old (but still cared for in their previous lives). People have said "condition is everything"...to me, pristine condition is not absolutely necessary.
To me the clock in question fits more or less the latter.
I am picky about dials. I would definitely prefer to keep a dial unrestored. Most dial repaints don't look good to me. The exception would be the Dial House (sorry for the "plug"), they do an excellent job.
Like I mentioned before, I will pass on clocks if I don't like the way they look, they need more than I'd be willing to put into them. Or at least I know beforehand what I would want to do in terms of restoring. This includes "potentially" special or "valuable" clocks. That's just a little experience. As much as I may like the way a rough clock looks, it will either be a rough clock...or a restored clock. So, I keep this information in mind. This is a lesson learned. I like a lot of clocks that are out there. There will be others I haven't seen yet that I like.
Think about this...most people want a clock that hasn't been touched. If a clock needs to be cared for, it many times will lose value if it actually is cared for. It doesn't make sense. But that's the way it is. I suppose you could say our aim would be to care for our clocks, but try to make it appear that our clocks haven't been touched.
