5 ms·

> A former librarian said many boxes of artifacts are stored — but uncatalogued — in the basement, meaning it is difficult to know if items have been removed. [

> A former librarian said many boxes of artifacts are stored — but uncatalogued — in the basement, meaning it is difficult to know if items have been removed. [0] Well, if the donor isn't going to inventory the goods, then expectations should be low. Did his nephew not have a clue? This is like never checking the data backup. Either it's not that valuable, or you're negligent. [0] https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/2011/06/report_ernie_harwell_collectio.html https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/2011/06/report_ernie_harw...

crazygringo 3y ago
I think you're supposed to assume that it's the library that will do the cataloguing. But at the same time, you're supposed to do your research to make sure the institution you want to donate your collection to has the capability and capacity to properly care for it and make it both secure and accessible. Just because it's a local library doesn't mean they can.
- ghaff 3y ago
  And it's expensive to catalog a collection much less display it. A lot of people probably assume that their collection of "stuff" that's of historical interest to some community of people will be welcomed by museums/libraries/archives with open arms. But that's often not the case.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    They already have too much stuff and never have enough labor as it is. The Smithsonian collection, for example, has 155 million specimens. The major DC museums between them have nearly a billion items, 99.9% of which are in permanent storage and 90% of which have never been studied beyond a quick catalog by an intern. That’s just DC. European collections are 10-100x larger per capita. Humans have created an absurd number of artifacts and what’s valuable isn’t the items but the time spent studying them. Just dumping a collection on someone isn’t doing them any favors, just handing them an obligation.
    - RoyalHenOil 3y ago
      I interned at a natural history museum that does not have any public face whatsoever. It has several million specimens and artifacts in its collection, which fill several large buildings (including a large mall that had closed), and the specimens are tightly packed from floor to ceiling. Even though the museum is accessible only by appointment, it still actively adds to its collection and happily accepts donations (though only so long as they can supplied with appropriate documentation and have been correctly preserved) because they have potential research value in the future. The museum's collection was fundamental in discovering that DDT was affecting birds, for example. Even though it's technically a museum, I think it can be helpful to think of it as an archive that can be used to pinpoint changes (to genetics, toxin exposures, early human technology, etc.) across time and across the landscape. I think most major natural history museums will probably have large collections of specimens/artifacts that are intended strictly for research, not for the public to ever see. The small portion of the collection that is on display is fantastic fundraising, but public displays are not the only purpose (or even the main purpose) that a museum like the Smithsonian serves. This is a very different use case from a baseball memorabilia collection, however, which has little value outside of being displayed to the public. I can see how such donations can end up being a white elephant gift.
- caminante 3y ago
  > I think you're supposed to assume that it's the library that will do the cataloguing. Bad premise. How many municipal LIBRARIES have you been to that displayed sports memorabilia? We're not talking about a museum, sports or otherwise.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    I mean the vast majority of book donations to my town library presumably end up at the annual book sale along with culls from the library itself. And, based on how many books are left near the end of the sale, I assume the majority probably ends up pulped.
    - caminante 3y ago
      Even better. I forgot about how libraries' core business includes letting their inventory depreciate, then replace.
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        Can you elaborate, with a source or two? That's a bold claim and I've never heard of such a thing.
        caminante 3y ago
        Bold claim to say libraries have to re-buy books after too much use? Sarcasm?
        ghaff 3y ago
        Demand also changes. Some author like Dan Brown is all the rage for a while. Ten years later, they may not need all those copies--maybe just keep the one or two copies of some title that are in the best shape. To greater or lesser degrees, libraries do review their circulation records. If a circulatable book hasn't been out for ten years it's probably a candidate for deletion unless it has some unique interest.

crazygringo 3y ago

I think you're supposed to assume that it's the library that will do the cataloguing. But at the same time, you're supposed to do your research to make sure the institution you want to donate your collection to has the capability and capacity to properly care for it and make it both secure and accessible. Just because it's a local library doesn't mean they can.

ghaff 3y ago
And it's expensive to catalog a collection much less display it. A lot of people probably assume that their collection of "stuff" that's of historical interest to some community of people will be welcomed by museums/libraries/archives with open arms. But that's often not the case.
- throwup238 3y ago
  They already have too much stuff and never have enough labor as it is. The Smithsonian collection, for example, has 155 million specimens. The major DC museums between them have nearly a billion items, 99.9% of which are in permanent storage and 90% of which have never been studied beyond a quick catalog by an intern. That’s just DC. European collections are 10-100x larger per capita. Humans have created an absurd number of artifacts and what’s valuable isn’t the items but the time spent studying them. Just dumping a collection on someone isn’t doing them any favors, just handing them an obligation.
  - RoyalHenOil 3y ago
    I interned at a natural history museum that does not have any public face whatsoever. It has several million specimens and artifacts in its collection, which fill several large buildings (including a large mall that had closed), and the specimens are tightly packed from floor to ceiling. Even though the museum is accessible only by appointment, it still actively adds to its collection and happily accepts donations (though only so long as they can supplied with appropriate documentation and have been correctly preserved) because they have potential research value in the future. The museum's collection was fundamental in discovering that DDT was affecting birds, for example. Even though it's technically a museum, I think it can be helpful to think of it as an archive that can be used to pinpoint changes (to genetics, toxin exposures, early human technology, etc.) across time and across the landscape. I think most major natural history museums will probably have large collections of specimens/artifacts that are intended strictly for research, not for the public to ever see. The small portion of the collection that is on display is fantastic fundraising, but public displays are not the only purpose (or even the main purpose) that a museum like the Smithsonian serves. This is a very different use case from a baseball memorabilia collection, however, which has little value outside of being displayed to the public. I can see how such donations can end up being a white elephant gift.
caminante 3y ago
> I think you're supposed to assume that it's the library that will do the cataloguing. Bad premise. How many municipal LIBRARIES have you been to that displayed sports memorabilia? We're not talking about a museum, sports or otherwise.
- ghaff 3y ago
  I mean the vast majority of book donations to my town library presumably end up at the annual book sale along with culls from the library itself. And, based on how many books are left near the end of the sale, I assume the majority probably ends up pulped.
  - caminante 3y ago
    Even better. I forgot about how libraries' core business includes letting their inventory depreciate, then replace.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      Can you elaborate, with a source or two? That's a bold claim and I've never heard of such a thing.
      - caminante 3y ago
        Bold claim to say libraries have to re-buy books after too much use? Sarcasm?
        ghaff 3y ago
        Demand also changes. Some author like Dan Brown is all the rage for a while. Ten years later, they may not need all those copies--maybe just keep the one or two copies of some title that are in the best shape. To greater or lesser degrees, libraries do review their circulation records. If a circulatable book hasn't been out for ten years it's probably a candidate for deletion unless it has some unique interest.