julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Apr 20 19:17:42 CDT 2006
> In article <44480ECB.2020409 at yahoo.co.uk>,
> Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>> 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. [...]
> 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...
More information about the cctalk