Well done Mike for acting on a nondial. I went to the Time Exhibition a Greenwich a few months ago and had mixed feelings. Please ignore the rest of this message if you don't want my personal reaction! It has apparently been done with no expense spared but I felt missed out on some of the most basic essentials of an exhibition - at least I go to an exhibition to see objects, which I know is a bit unfashionable in the museum design world these days. There were indeed many absolutely first rate, world class, important objects to see and it was wonderful to have a chance to look at them gathered together in London. However a lot of them in the sundial and horological categories are finely engraved brass etcetera and are best seen under a good light - without risk to them. Arranging them therefore in cases with (very interesting) manuscripts and the like which need near darkness for preservation means you can't see the metal things properly. The descriptive labels in the cases seem to be placed neither in numerical order nor in physical order corresponding to the objects. So having seen the small grey number next to something you can't find the dimly lit relevant label. If you happen to be carrying the erudite catalogue, containing some fine essays, things aren't improved because it doesn't appear to have numbers corresponding to those on the objects so you can't look them up in that either, and some very fine and little-known things - where you can't go away and read about them in a standard book - just get an almost footnote mention and little proper description. When you have found the description it sometimes tells you about the interesting things on the back of the object - for example a cubical sundial - but then have the designers condescended to mar their nice grey showcases with anything as useful as a mirror behind it so you can see for yourself?
It's still worth a visit - and you can make up your own mind whether I'm just having a prejudiced rant! There are lots of good exhibits on aspects other than time measurement as Mike listed. Perhaps I'll go again in the next six weeks ... Andrew James N 51 04 W 01 18
