In a message dated 12/11/2004 4:00:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Devon informs us occasionally about the auctions in New Hope, Pennsylvania, of items consigned from well-known museums. While I know that it is a disappointment to donors to have a museum consign a piece that they have donated to an auction, it is not exactly the same as consigning it to flames. Museums buy things at auction too. Recently there was a show and sale at Cora Ginsburg, a high end gallery in New York, of antique embroideries largely dating to the 17th century. Several of them were from a museum in Germany. Among the buyers was the Cooper-Hewitt museum in New York. From time to time the Met looks at their general collection and decides that something that once filled an important gap in the collection has been superceded by a better example. They sell the lesser example and some other museum has the benefit of filling that gap. At the Whitaker Gallery, as I recall, there were some dresses from the New Bedford Whaling museum. Purely speculating, suppose the New Bedford Whaling Museum has decided it would prefer to specialize in whale hooks and whale processing tools and no longer wants to display typical dress of the great era of whale exploration. Perhaps as a result the Patterson Silk Museum will then have the opportunity to add one of these dresses to its collection. It may even be the case that the dresses were donated to the New Bedford Whaling Museum by people who were in love with that museum and they would rejoice to think that their donation was sold to help the museum buy a coveted whale boiling cauldron rather than to deteriorate in storage. An interesting category of donation that I have heard about is the person who "buys for the museum". Although I don't know really know how this works, I think that this is a situation where, for instance someone loves English 17th century needlework and wants the museum to have some. The museum knows this and when a piece the museum wants comes up for sale or auction, they contact the person who has agreed to buy for them. That way the donor knows that the piece is something the museum really wants. Perhaps some item of lace deaccessioned by a museum will go to a collector who will treasure it and take care of it as Jeri has done all these years. It is quite likely that these items will perform a greater educational function in a collector's hands than in a museum's hands depending on what happens to be popular in museum circles in any particular era. Jeri put on a wonderful display in Morristown, New Jersey some years ago which had a great impact on the development of my interest in lace. I actually recall standing in front of a piece of Milanese and marveling a the thread movements, since my own lace making had been confined to grid based laces at that time. Arguably, I would not be in the Met helping to make the collection there available, if I hadn't seen Jeri's exhibit twenty years ago. Perhaps someday the museums will come to their senses and want to display only lace. Then it will be a good thing that the lace has been cherished and taken care of by all of us collectors. Although a tax deduction is far from Jeri's thoughts, many people find themselves with items that have appreciated over the years for which they don't think that they can properly care. Sometimes they are items that they have inherited and don't really know what to do with. Giving the item to a museum is an easy way to realize 1/3 (if in the 1/3 bracket) of the retail value of the item, as opposed to perhaps 1/2 of the retail value of it if sold to a dealer. It takes a certain amount of effort to sell art, finding the right dealer or auction. Museums know how to do this. It would make a certain amount of sense for someone who does not want to spend a lot of effort getting the maximum amount for an item to give it to a museum for a tax donation, even knowing the museum would sell the item. I don't personally know if this happens, but I wouldn't be surprised. This would have been a nice solution for Tamara's lady, I think. At the Met, I have not seen any lace deaccessioned since I have been there. I have run across one or two pieces that were deaccessioned in the 1950's, small samples that were duplicates. I suspect that the procedure for deaccessioning at the Met is very time-consuming and costly so that makes it unlikely especially for something that is not in the value category of a Picasso, for instance. I have heard that there was a box of practically valueless lace at the Cooper-Hewitt that was taking up some room and they were considering deaccessioning it. However, they realized that the paper work generated by the deaccessioning would take up more room than the lace. Since I have been at the Museum I have not seen any lace acquired. I have been told that the museum would only be interested in receiving something that filled a gap in the collection or an outstanding piece. (Although *not up to me* to decide, I think gaps include English needlelace like Hollie Point, Lester Lace, Art Nouveau lace, and something I would love to see, Modern Lace. There are probably quite a few other gaps that I haven't noticed yet.) I don't actually know that any lace has been offered to us at all since I have been there. I certainly haven't heard about it if it was. The only lace related thing we have acquired since I have been there is a book of photos of handmade lace tablecloths and mats that were sold in New York by a business that ran from the 1860's to the 1930's. It is actually quite interesting as I think many of the things being sold on e-bay and at other auctions are like these items. Devon - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
