20 Apr
2006
20 Apr
'06
5:17 p.m.
Richard wrote:
In article <44480ECB.2020409 at yahoo.co.uk>,
Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> writes:
I wonder what the curators at the Henry Ford Museum do as a matter of
practice. Lots of curator "practice" comes from art and antique museums
where you definately don't want to "repair" anything. Witness how on
Antiques Road Show they point out that the value is less if its a
piece of furniture that has been refinished.
Yep, I suspect you're exactly right. I can definitely see the point for
'traditional' art and antiques - and similarly, would rather use new-old stock
to repair a computer than substitute reproduction bits when possible. But I
think that for computers (or more generally, complex mechanisms) where there's
a desire to maintain in running condition, restoration without any
reproduction just plain doesn't work.
Of course, keeping the reproduction parts to a minimum is still desirable, and
logging any non-original parts that have been used seems like a very good idea...
cheers
Jules
William Donzelli wrote:
Most
people do not know this, so I do not blame you. It is common museum
practice when restoring objects.
In some cases museum practice seems a little
odd, though. [...]