23 Oct
2010
23 Oct
'10
1:44 p.m.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Tony Duell wrote:
Not "exclusive", but a different attitude about what is/isn't important.
If you end up with a common/stock item that was once owned by a celebrity,
you could sell it on eBay to one of those provenance collectors, and buy
several that were not celebrity owned.
It is a subjective evaluation. One more reason that proper cataloging
requires expertise.
I'm not sure that I would want to live in a world where DELLs became the
most interesting/important computers for collecting.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
Sure, but that's then 4 levels. I ahve no problem
extending the
heirarchical system to as many levels as are necessary, my query is why
it's noramlly limitied to 3. Why not just have as many levels as are needed.
A properly designed system should be extensible to as many levels as are
needed.
And why recorsd the year of acquisition? What
importance is that? Why not
just a number for each artefact starting at 1?
It is unlikely that you nor I would care much about the year of
acquisition. But the bean-counters care.
Such as Hilton
and Burr's dueling pistols?
The Hasselblad that went to the moon?
Is there anything particularly special about
either of those?
In the case of the 'blad was it modified in any way? Say different
lubricants to operate in a vacuum? Or modified controls so it could be
operated by gloved hands? Or??? If so, then it becomes interesting
because of the modifications. But a stock item is, to me, just that, no
matter what it was once used for.
Your primary interest is the technology.
There are OTHER people where the primary interest might only be the
history.
I don;t see why those are mutually exclusive. The depth of
cataloging would depend on the subjective issue of just how
interesting/important that item is.
How can you possibly know how
interesting/importantsomethign will later
turn out to be?