Cosmetic replicas

[Jules Richardson]

Richard wrote:
> 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...

cheers

Jules