Postcard collection bequeathal to libraries and museums

[Grovetown]

2 hours ago, healdav said:

Or maybe they did and needed the money to stay open.

Crimean coatees sold. Some of the best WW1 service jackets ever seen by advance collectors. It was creme de la creme stuff that was moved on.

But the motive is irrelevant: my main point, and this simply proves it, is that donating items to a museum for heritage's sake does not mean that they will be protected, respected or kept.

They will sell if they want to and, in the past, there have been losses through damage and significant examples of theft from major institutions.

There are museums who, in the Ts & Cs of accepting donations, make it plain they reserve the right to dispose of items as they see fit.

Contrary to popular perception, museums are not necessarily the best custodians of a collection when it comes time to settle it. That's all.

Cheers,

GT.

[Chasemuseum]

It's all a touchy issue.

Firstly museums, are more aware about the formality of how they accept a gift. That they must have the full rights of ownership, to keep, sell, display or dispose of as they see fit. Historically museums have accepted items with inadequate documentation of the accession. The consequence - years later, arguments as to whether items were gifted or just on long term loan, and disputes as to who is the current owner. In civil litigation, the test of a proof is only 'the balance of probability". So if grand dad told me in 1982 "he only lent his WW1 uniform and medals to the local historical museum back in 1968" and I demand that the museum give them to me now, my recollection of his statement is a proof at law. If the museum has no documentation that Sgt Smith gave rather than only loaned the materials, and none of the museum personnel have been with the museum for more than 10 years, then the museum has no legal proof of ownership and must return the material. The additional problem is that as Sgt Smith died many years ago, they must return the material to the executor of the will, or if the executor cannot be located, disperse the material in accordance with the instructions in the will.

Then there are the disputes about the condition of an item; where lighting and exposure to the environment during display or just age has caused deterioration.

Next is the plan of management. Many people, when giving something to a museum never discuss this. As a classic example, an important military museum in the UK, was a common place to send WW1 uniforms. This museum decided to do anew and major display. They took a large number of original uniforms out of storage and butchered them for the display, coating fabric in paints, epoxy resin, and styrene monomer. The way the uniforms were modified, they could never be removed from the display mannequins. Cleaning was limited to vacuuming in-situ and when the display was taken down several years later everything went out in a waste skip. Many of the owners who donated the material were horrified at the museum's action, but others were happy as they just wanted to be rid of the material. The problem was that the museum never explained at the time of donation that the 'gift' gave them absolute discretion on what they could do with the material. 

Finally, a museum is like an iceberg. Most of the collection will be in storage at any point in time. Museums vary in attitude as to how they give access to these reserve collections. I have had dealing with the NAM and they are great. They allowed me to make a detailed study of a rare item they held, allowing me to gather the information I needed to restore my example. Theirs was much more complete than mine: mine is in vastly superior condition. Some other museums see the public as the enemy.

Like the initial post in this thread, a museum needs to be decisive about what gifts they accept. If they are never going to consider display of the item, if it doesn't have a good fit to their themes and if management of the gift is going to demand resources that they cannot provide within their budget, then they should either decline the gift or make it clear to the donor that although they are accepting the gift, that they will not be keeping it and that they will be selling it and applying the funds received to the upkeep and management of the museum. 

Cheers 

Ross

 

 

 

[Terry_Reeves]

On 02/12/2022 at 17:07, Grovetown said:

Crimean coatees sold. Some of the best WW1 service jackets ever seen by advance collectors. It was creme de la creme stuff that was moved on.

But the motive is irrelevant: my main point, and this simply proves it, is that donating items to a museum for heritage's sake does not mean that they will be protected, respected or kept.

They will sell if they want to and, in the past, there have been losses through damage and significant examples of theft from major institutions.

There are museums who, in the Ts & Cs of accepting donations, make it plain they reserve the right to dispose of items as they see fit.

Contrary to popular perception, museums are not necessarily the best custodians of a collection when it comes time to settle it. That's all.

Cheers,

GT.

Quite agree. I have seen this happen in my home town. This included a superb octagonal oak seat which was a memorial to a local soldier by his family. It was on display for quite a number of years and then suddenly disappeared. I asked the curator what had happened to it but he declined to answer.

TR

[Kath]

In case of use (having made web pages of notes?)

https://archive.ph/