Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
One problem I see that museums have is staff turn over. I don’t know of too many museums where the curator has been there for very long and has more knowledge than what we in the collecting community have. I also don’t know of any curators that are prolific collectors, per say. Most knowledge I’ve gained is from fellow collectors or firearms authors (that are usually collectors or dealers) and my own experience. Not very much in the way from what a museum has on display.
And as far as what a museum will do after it receives a collection or display, is always entirely up to the museum. The worst example I’ve heard of is that the office of the President of WRACo was built with beautiful wood paneling and prior to demolition of the office building. A collector purchased for salvage the entire contents of the office suite including the walls. Which was later donated to a certain museum with the assurances it would be reconstructed into a nice display of the office. Upon finally visiting said museum years later by the collector no display was found to been made. Only a few boxes were made with the wood and a few tags / labels and the remaining wood was THROWN AWAY in the trash heap as not being useful for a display.
I think the only way I’d donate anything to a museum, was If I built said museum myself. I’m going to need more wealth to achieve that feat.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
November 7, 2015
Offline
As a comparatively new collector I think a firearms museum should do two things. First, it should provide displays that appeal to the neophyte or non-collectors to stimulate curiosity. Second, it should provide reference materials for the collector. The displays that appeal to the public at large do not generally appeal to collectors but now and then a new collector comes into the fold because of a museum display. Our hobby will not last unless we have new collectors.
Mike
Maverick said
One problem I see that museums have is staff turn over. I don’t know of too many museums where the curator has been there for very long and has more knowledge than what we in the collecting community have. I also don’t know of any curators that are prolific collectors, per say. Most knowledge I’ve gained is from fellow collectors or firearms authors (that are usually collectors or dealers) and my own experience. Not very much in the way from what a museum has on display.
That was exactly the point I tried to make when I said that none of the several with whom I became acquainted doing volunteer work had any personal interest in their collections–such knowledge as they acquired was “on the job” training, & it was correspondingly shallow.
clarence said
Maverick said
One problem I see that museums have is staff turn over. I don’t know of too many museums where the curator has been there for very long and has more knowledge than what we in the collecting community have. I also don’t know of any curators that are prolific collectors, per say. Most knowledge I’ve gained is from fellow collectors or firearms authors (that are usually collectors or dealers) and my own experience. Not very much in the way from what a museum has on display.
That was exactly the point I tried to make when I said that none of the several with whom I became acquainted doing volunteer work had any personal interest in their collections–such knowledge as they acquired was “on the job” training, & it was correspondingly shallow.
To Clarence:
I guess we’ve just had very different experiences. I’d say that 90% of the museum staff I’ve worked with over the years have had a personal interest in the collections that they were charged with caring for. That ranges from the small house museum I worked at with a staff of 7, to my time at the Smithsonian. No matter the size of the collection or its mission, the staff cared deeply for their holdings.
Personally, I found it hard to work in museums where the collection was of little interest to me. In fact, I left one job for that very reason. It’s the same way for a collector: if you’re a die-hard Winchester 1873 collector, it would probably be hard for you to get excited about a Smith & Wesson Model 10.
To Maverick:
Front-line museum staff has much higher turn-over rates than curation-level staff. I know of – and have worked with – many staff that have been in their positions at a given museum for decades. In fact, two that come to mind immediately have been there for 37 and 34 years respectively.
As for curators being collectors: that depends on the institution. Sometimes places have a strict “non-compete” policy because it could put the curator into a precarious position if something rare were offered to the museum and they turned it down only to then buy it from the person for their own collection. Of course, this would ultimately call the integrity of the curator into question, but that’s beside the point.
Online
If one was employed by a museum and did not have a side gig, how much of a collector could one be with such a paltry salary, especially if one has to reside in a metropolitan area?
mrcvs said
If one was employed by a museum and did not have a side gig, how much of a collector could one be with such a paltry salary, especially if one has to reside in a metropolitan area?
I think you’d be surprised by just how much some curators make – especially ones who have been in their field for awhile.
LMetesh said
Sometimes places have a strict “non-compete” policy because it could put the curator into a precarious position if something rare were offered to the museum and they turned it down only to then buy it from the person for their own collection.
I’ve heard of that before, but HOW incredibly petty & short-sighted! On the mere chance that a dishonest curator might risk his job by such a purchase, other potential-curators with vast personal experience, who’d never dream of doing anything underhanded, are also excluded! A lifetime of experience (mine began as a teenager) is what it takes to gain the expertise required to make a true expert–it’s got to be “in your blood.” How could it be acquired beyond a superficial level in a few yrs of either college or “on the job” training?
LMetesh said
I think you’d be surprised by just how much some curators make – especially ones who have been in their field for awhile.
Really? What sort of numbers are you talking?
I did a liberal arts sequence originally, more science oriented, but still liberal arts, as opposed to something more marketable like engineering. In those college years, I did take a few art history courses and enjoyed them. However, it seemed to me that the entry level pay was meagre, at best, and I should think a Master’s Degree, at a minimum, would be required to really get ahead???
mrcvs said
However, it seemed to me that the entry level pay was meagre, at best, and I should think a Master’s Degree, at a minimum, would be required to really get ahead???
“Getting ahead” is not why most would enter such fields–interest in the work would be the main incentive. I’d work in some place like Cody or Springfield Armory for room & board.
A friend who works at the local museum says all items once donated are at the discretion of the museum & board. Said it’s in the fine print of the donation waiver. Too many missing or non display donations doesn’t take long for word to travel & no museum.
I think if I was donating items I would confirm the museum is a non profit organization.
clarence said
“Getting ahead” is not why most would enter such fields–interest in the work would be the main incentive. I’d work in some place like Cody or Springfield Armory for room & board.
Yes, I would too, to a point. For how long? A summer maybe? At some point one might want to own a house, and that comes with a mortgage. Then one finds a nice firearm or two one might want to own, and it takes more than room and board to do that.
Interesting topic for sure. Have enjoyed all the comments.
Back during grad school (archaeology) I worked at a university run museum in the late 90’s that housed collections from the Mississippi Valley, mostly Southeast Indian artifacts. That wasnt long after the Native American Graves Repatriation Act came to be in 1991 (I believe) and we had to do a full inventory of all the artifacts on display and in the repository, to report all skeletal remains held as well as artifacts that were recovered from excavated burials. During the inventory it was found there were multiple artifacts that had gone missing over the years (have also experienced this in other countries as well) and based on the new law, any funerary objects associated with burials had to be removed from public sight. Some of the more significant displays at the museum were no more–and not just there locally, but throughout the nation. A lot of those artifacts from those museums were being repatriated back to the cultural groups or tribes that claimed ancestry. There was a repatriation process lined out, albeit quite questionable in my mind still. Although I cant quite understand how artifacts can be repatriated back to an existing tribe or group of folks that has no depth of cultural history, rather than to lay an ancestral claim over a section of land upon a map. For a fine example just do some reading on the saga of the Kenewick Man, a 10K yr old set of skeletal remains claimed and repatriated back to the ground.
Anyway, slowly a many of those artifacts being repatriated back to some of these entities began showing up on the open and black market or were repatriated and reburied back in the ground. With advances in the sciences there is no telling how much more information could have been gleaned by having that old pot still lying around the repository for testing and study. Significant artifacts that are a part of our cultural and nations history that can no longer be viewed, held, or studied further. Those artifacts dont really have a value for me other than what they possesses in the potential knowledge that can be gained from them. So, in the end, I cant really say that the end justified the means, and was the wrong, or perceived wrong, truly righted.
Ive got a small collection of Indian artifacts that Ive collected from our ranch since when I was a kid, some of it significant stuff for specific cultural horizons and has been studied (and currently written on) by several archaeologist friends. Ive thought about donating them to the right entity but am leery, or I may just passing them down through the family. And if no one in the family wants them or they express an interest in selling them for profit, I may just repatriate them back to the ground from which they came myself
As was mentioned by someone above, if you do intend to donate a collection (of anything) be sure to carefully read the contract signing over possession of donated artifacts. As for gun collections in particular and donations to museums, that video showing the crushed guns or other destructive decommissioning mentioned would be enough to convince me they would be safer in private hands.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
1892takedown said
For a fine example just do some reading on the saga of the Kenewick Man, a 10K yr old set of skeletal remains claimed and repatriated back to the ground.
Good God, man, do you doubt that every contemporary Indian tribe has inhabited the land they occupied in the 19th C. since the beginning of time? Do you call into question the stories (sorry, I mean “oral history”) passed down from their sacred ancestors?
As a monument to PC, & mindless humbug, the Native American Graves Repatriation Act is equaled only by the Wild Horse Protection Act.
mrcvs said
Really? What sort of numbers are you talking?
I did a liberal arts sequence originally, more science oriented, but still liberal arts, as opposed to something more marketable like engineering. In those college years, I did take a few art history courses and enjoyed them. However, it seemed to me that the entry level pay was meagre, at best, and I should think a Master’s Degree, at a minimum, would be required to really get ahead???
Entry level pay is always meagre; that’s why it’s called entry level. Master’s Degrees were once seen as a necessity, but I think we’ll see that changing as more and more people catch on to the fact that college as an essential part of life is an outright lie. In my personal experience, I’ve been lucky: I only have a Bachelor’s degree (albeit in a museum-related field) and I have always made the exact same money as other colleagues with Master’s Degrees. I think it’s because my previous work experience is seen as “making up for” the lack of degree. One interesting thing I’ve found with museum people is that they tend to be fairly open about money.
As for numbers: I know of many who make well over $100k.
It’s worth reading this 554 page file if you can. It’s not bad reading, lots of open space in amongst the words, etc, so if it were a book without such spacing, it would be far less pages.
A few conclusions I’ve come to after reading this.
1) There is far more transparency now than then. If one vastly overpays for a firearm today, one failed to do one’s homework! There are many comparables on the internet, and many potential suppliers, so you, as the customer, are in the driver’s seat. Also, the internet makes exclusivity and rarity much less common. Back in the 1970’s, there were few, if any, firearms auction houses, and hammer prices would be much less transparent. One had to find a dealer, like Wilson, and he had his contacts, and one paid his price, and you had no way of knowing what fair market value might be. You either decided you wanted something, or not, and you paid the price, or not.
2) The State of Connecticut, while snookered, allowed this to happen. First, if they have a priceless collection of firearms, it stands to reason that one or more staff members might know at least something about firearms.
3) More on the State of Connecticut, and Hartford. Attached is an article from 02 to 03 Jan 2021, detailing what’s wrong with Hartford. It details a decline over the last 30 years. It’s been going on far longer than that, and, amazingly, the decline accelerated once Connecticut instituted a state income tax–about 30 years ago. The article points a finger at one political party over the other.
4) Without getting too political, that political party has all sorts of money for social welfare programs, but none for a world class collection. I don’t care if it’s firearms, Tiffany lamps, China dolls, etc. When you have a world class collection, by all means PAY to get the expert help you need. The State of Connecticut wanted everything for free and yet has all these tax dollars coming in. Maybe a certain amount should have been allotted for the maintenance of current collections and the acquisition of further fine antiquities to enhance an existing collection. Again, not a problem to come up with tax dollars to give away and encourage folks not to work, but to purchase investment quality firearms or other quality items that are aesthetically pleasing and also improves the balance sheet over time is a foreign concept.
5) Despite we, assuming we, collectively, applies to folks who work, or did work a career, and pay a massive proportion of our income in taxes, and multiply that times the working populace of an entire State, how can all these governments be broke? Suggests to me a squandering of funds on a far greater scale than Larry Wilson did.
6) I had always felt that R Larry Wilson’s books were nothing more than coffee table books. As Logan Metesh stated, they are even worse than that. Lots of pretty pictures, but questionable content. Either supporting a firearm that Wilson sold and supporting the overpriced price his client paid, and Wilson’s commissions, or supporting a firearm that Wilson hoped to broker a sale of, in the future, and much of his description could be falsified, to support an elevated price, and Wilson’s commission. So, Wilson’s books are worse than coffee table books as much information is likely fictitious to support Wilson’s agenda, and not the scholarly record.
Interesting comments mrcvs. I told another collector a while back about Madis info on 94’s had flaws & some other facts. He proceeded to tell me he knew Wilson & Madis & took offence to my view as one being a crook & fraud artist & the other imo without integrity, fully aware of factory records that would dispute his writings.
My reply was sorry to hear that you’re offended but I don’t really care. The facts are the facts.
I agree it’s a different world today. Too many educated or somewhat educated buyers and resources to apply when purchasing a gun these days. I think the days of paying like what RL or others would ask, are very rare & far between.
mrcvs said
6) I had always felt that R Larry Wilson’s books were nothing more than coffee table books.
Obviously true, but there’s a big market for superficiality, or he wouldn’t be (supposedly) the “most prolific gun-book writer.” Book buyer’s with a casual interest in firearms, who’d never take the time to read more technical books like Madis, must have been satisfied to look at beautiful photographs, or the books wouldn’t have sold.
Someone gave me his Win book (which I’d never have bought with my own money!), which I dutifully looked through, & later gave away to someone who “just liked guns,” but was no collector. The only part I paid more than passing interest to was his comments about the Model 52. There, I was amazed to read that he thought the fist model, with the cocking knob, had to be cocked manually like several of the boy’s rifles. Born into a well-to-do family, I’d have thought he’d probably been given one at a young age, or belonged to a rifle team shooting them in prep school.
His books on engraving belong in a different category, however, because he was an expert on that subject.
clarence said
His books on engraving belong in a different category, however, because he was an expert on that subject.
Even those have to be looked at with a careful eye. More than one 1of1000 in his book is a now known fake. Which makes me wonder how many of the rifles in his books he actually closely examined? Or merely took a fellow collector’s word for what they told him said gun was? Or wrote as he so pleased.
Madis may have his errors here and there, but I wouldn’t put him in the same box as Wilson. I’ve never heard of any horror stories about how Madis dealt with or treated anyone in the field. Of the two, one went to federal prison, and the other was in charge of the local 4H club. I’ll bet you can guess which was which.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
1 Guest(s)
