FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Numismatic and History Discussion Forums => Ancient Coin Forum => Topic started by: renegade3220 on March 11, 2010, 06:10:20 pm
-
Ok, this might have been asked before, but I didn't find it. I have noticed that a lot of people talk about putting Ren Wax on their cleaned coins. The idea makes sense. Keep out the oxygen, keep the coin looking good after cleaning.
My problem with it is, that sooooo many people seem to be doing it, but there are also a lot of sources that say, although it doesn't hurt the coin, it actually will detract from its value if you put if up for sale. They say it declines the value of the coin and is not necessarily desirable by collectors.
Now I know everyone has their own opinion on the subject, but I would like to hear from actual collectors. I know putting Ren Wax on a coin helps the coin, and makes it look good, but does it actually detract from the value of the coin, etc?
If it does, then why do so many people use it, when so many things advise against it for collecting and selling purposes.
I would really love some insight. I am struggling with my decision to use this stuff or not, when my very first batch of coins comes out of the darkness of 2k years of dirt and into the light of the 21st century!
-
I cannot see how it would detract from value when it does no harm to the coin and it is readily removed with an organic solvent with no ill effect to the coin. Such being the case it comes down to a matter of personal taste. I have used it on bronze coins to seal them from humid atmospheric conditions and thus reduce the risk of bronze disease. I understand that many museums similarly use it on bronze artifacts for surface protection, so it cannot be all bad, as some might suggest. I haven't used it on silver as I prefer a toned appearance, but to each his own.
-
Thanks. Any other knowledgable opinions? The more the merrier...
-
If the coin has any traces of bronze disease, the wax can actually seal IN the problem. Renwax is great, just make sure that you aren't waxing coins with a BD problem.
Regards,
Danny
-
Agree. You might want to check out the board about storage and preservation too - there are quite a few threads about waxing or renwax. You can use the search function to find the threads.
-
and it's nearly useless on silver and gold! in fact, on gold it's 100% useless. i agree on bronzes in most cases (asides from trapping bd) no harm no foul.
ras
-
I would say, it depends on the coin and on what you want from it.
Some coins have a very matte appearance which would be changed considerably by waxing. The most obvious example is coins with a "sand patina." It is generally agreed that these are not suitable for waxing.
In fact, any coin is made shinier by waxing. This can make it very hard to get a decent photograph, so if you want to wax your coins, photograph them first.
I don't wax my coins, but if I lived in a hot and humid climate, I might.
Bill
-
I live in Houston and it is very hot a humid. I use renwax mostly on bronze coins, especially those that have had problems I had to deal with in the past like BD. I also wax my Iron notgeld. :)
-
Coins that i have had to clean myself quite ofter come out quite dull and lifeless, the renwax is used by me to boost the life back into the coin, quite often with amazing results, that with the other protective benifits makes it seem to me a good thing to do, but i know other people, if they receive a coin that has been waxed will actually get the wax off. I dont understand this, but each to his own. If its good enough for a museum, its good enough for me. I would never think a waxed coin would fetch less of a price though, probably the oposite because it looks better!
-
If its good enough for a museum, its good enough for me.
What do you mean by that?
-
i mean if its good enough for a museum to use renwax then its good enough for me. Nothing criptic.
-
Which museum? The BM does use ren-wax, but not on its coins, and nor would I. I dislike the stuff - it obscures fine detail, makes photography more difficult, attracts dust and can sometimes be difficult to remove because of the polyethylene wax.
At the end of the day, it is a foreign substance on the surface of the coin. Would you lacquer your coins, or varnish them even? Both have been 'acceptable' in the past. If you are worried about humidity then you should consider appropriate storage instead of smothering your coins in petroleum derivatives.
-
I set 'em up and you knock 'em down? >:(
-
:)
Some might call that teamwork!
-
well, you can hardly find a coin these days without some form of foriegn substance on them be it renwax, artificial toning or patina (which I hate), etc...I store my coins in flips, best I can do. I have waxed most of my iron notgeld and some bronze coins. With a light application is does not obscure any detail nor does it collect dust, nor does it put too much of a shine to hinder photgraphing the coin, nor do I believe it harms the coin...I would not lacquer or varnish a coin but that is not the same as renwax. personal opinion from experience using it.
-
in some cases it may be a necessary evil i guess, but i really don't like the look or feel of waxed coins.
i solve the problem of BD by buying very few bronze coins, and being very picky about the ones i do buy. i've only had two coins that needed treatment and they both looked like crap afterwards, so preserving that look is not something i'm interested in.
~ Peter
-
My coins don't get BD. The ones that suffer from it had it before. I've had one or two scares in the beginning when I was almost ready to give up (better than collecting denarii!) but that passed. I never see BD on my coins and I wouldn't keep a bought coin that had it, even if the coin may be interesting. It's better for my peace of mind.
-
actually the BM does use wax on some of their display coins so thats incorrect and so too i believe the rest of your observations, but i suppose its a matter of opinion not fact.
Which museum? The BM does use ren-wax, but not on its coins, and nor would I. I dislike the stuff - it obscures fine detail, makes photography more difficult, attracts dust and can sometimes be difficult to remove because of the polyethylene wax.
At the end of the day, it is a foreign substance on the surface of the coin. Would you lacquer your coins, or varnish them even? Both have been 'acceptable' in the past. If you are worried about humidity then you should consider appropriate storage instead of smothering your coins in petroleum derivatives.
well, you can hardly find a coin these days without some form of foriegn substance on them be it renwax, artificial toning or patina (which I hate), etc...I store my coins in flips, best I can do. I have waxed most of my iron notgeld and some bronze coins. With a light application is does not obscure any detail nor does it collect dust, nor does it put too much of a shine to hinder photgraphing the coin, nor do I believe it harms the coin...I would not lacquer or varnish a coin but that is not the same as renwax. personal opinion from experience using it.
I agree but it seems there is a conflict of opinion!
-
... I was almost ready to give up (better than collecting denarii!) but that passed.
why are people so prejudiced against denarii? is it the size?
i hear this a lot, but i think they are lovely coins as a whole, and even when worn they look so much better than delapidated bronzes.
to each their own i guess.
~ Peter
-
I find them boring.
Romeo, how do you know the BM uses Renwax? It says so on the tin but according to Curtis that's a myth.
-
because i asked them!
-
Who told you that?
-
The girl selling real busts of Cleopatra in the BM shop ::)
-
I've used Renwax on some bronze coins and found that a) it can actually enhance visible detail on more worn coins, b) on coins with a rougher surface I think it can greatly enhances the look of the coin and c) on some coins where the patina is very soft, e.g. lighter green patina, it can help to ensure that the patina does not rub/flake/chip off.
So in short, and drawing also from another thread where Rich has voiced HIS opinion on Renwax, "In any case, please, please, please don't go and coat your silver in ren-wax. It is unsightly and makes the coin inherently less desirable until it is removed." , I do agree with Rich with regards to silver coins but I disagree with him that Renwax should not be used at all.
regards
Mark
-
So it appears to still be a toss up, and really a personal preference. It seems that the monetary value of a coin is neither enhanced or decreased from using Renwax. Is this in agreement? If so, then it can't hurt either way.
With that said, is there a way to dry the coins after cleaning that will, of course remove ALL the water, but also not make them looks darker and dry? Maybe something like a low long heat vs. a fast high heat, etc.
Or maybe is the hairdryer method better than the oven method? Or use a toaster oven, etc.?
If there is a good water removal method that doesn't leave coins lacking luster or looking dry etc. I would like to know, because that could ovbviously stop the need or desire to use RenWax to bring a coing "back to life."
I would love to hear if there are such said methods...
-
I'd seriously like to know if they do in fact use Renwax. Not because I'd use it but because I'd then have to stop
telling everyone they don't.
-
I'd accept the testimony of the Museum's curator of Roman coins, who wrote me the Museum does not apply Ren Wax to its ancient coins, over that of a salesgirl in the Museum shop!
-
I thought that was supposed to be a joke.
-
I'd accept the testimony of the Museum's curator of Roman coins, who wrote me the Museum does not apply Ren Wax to its ancient coins, over that of a salesgirl in the Museum shop!
That's all well and good Curtis, but that doesn't answer the original posters question of whether to use or not to use. :)
With respect to everyone else on this board, you are pretty much one of the world's biggest experts on ancient coinage, so I for one would be very interested in your thoughts on the use of RenWax on ancient coins.
regards
Mark
-
Coins are but a small subset of artifacts.
Some useful references at the bottom of this article. The latter may or may not constitute marketing depending on your perspective and your predisposition, or otherwise, to what may or may not be urban myth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Wax
If its completely BS and as damaging as some indicate, then I am surprised someone hasn't sued the manufacturers ass for misrepresentation and false advertising at the least and damages to coins and artifacts at the worst.
Would the BM allow its name to be used for commercial advantage (on a damaging product) over several decades if the representations are not substantially correct? Unlikely in my view.
-
Strange isn't it that numismatists who think nothing of soaking coins in all sorts of chemical brews, immersing coins in mild acids (lemon juice), artificially patinating coins with toxic chemical mixes, chiseling at them with dental picks and other implements then get all hot and bothered over an applied protective thin coat of easily soluble/removable petroleum based product/wax?
To each his own when it comes to matters that cause angst and there is little that is logical or factual about it. :) It is a comment as to how emotions can run riot over the most innocuous of things when logic is replaced by a committed belief!
-
Ya mark I agree. I think it's gotten alittle off topic. It has still been informative but I would love to hear from Curtis and all with so many years of experience.
-
Loyd, I don't think the ones who dislike (and I don't claim it's actually harmful) wax of any kind on coins are the same people who de- and repatinate coins. Cleaning silver with lemon juice or cleaning bronze mechanically (I wish I could) is a completely different thing.
-
Loyd, I don't think the ones who dislike (and I don't claim it's actually harmful) wax of any kind on coins are the same people who de- and repatinate coins. Cleaning silver with lemon juice or cleaning bronze mechanically (I wish I could) is a completely different thing.
Perhaps I overstated it. My point is that a coating of wax is temporary and readily reversible, unlike some of the other things we do to coins. Therefore, I don't think we should not get hung-up on what is as much as anything a matter of personal taste that is easily reversed by any new owner with a different taste. Beyond the matter of taste, I can see some benefit in treating bronze artifacts, including coins, with a thin coating of Renaissance wax to protect against adverse atmospheric exposure. If you have lived by the sea, or in humid climes, the benefits of such a protective coating on bronze material are readily apparent.
-
I second Mark's question, and would love to hear from Curtis on the matter. I live in a very humid climate and fight BD all the time, so I'm up for using all the tools at my disposal to rid my collection of bronzes from that curse. On the other hand, I've always been afraid that after I treat a coin, the BD might not be fully gone, so I've never waxed a coin I suspect might still suffer from it, or that has ever suffered from it for that matter. I will have to admit, though, that none of my coins that have it applied have ever had BD.
Danny
-
Strange isn't it that numismatists who think nothing of soaking coins in all sorts of chemical brews, immersing coins in mild acids (lemon juice), artificially patinating coins with toxic chemical mixes, chiseling at them with dental picks and other implements then get all hot and bothered over an applied protective thin coat of easily soluble/removable petroleum based product/wax?
To each his own when it comes to matters that cause angst and there is little that is logical or factual about it. :) It is a comment as to how emotions can run riot over the most innocuous of things when logic is replaced by a committed belief!
Dont forget electrolysis...in fact I learned how to use electrolysis on coins from a PDF document I got from a museum.Just because a museum does something doesn't necessarily make it the best option. I tend to agree that if you don't need to put anything on a coin or clean it, that the best bet. I know most of the coins I have purchased have been cleaned and many have had that god awful darkener used on them. In many cases its just ones personal taste but why people think its a good idea to blacken a coin I do not know.
I will simply say than I have had to clean and derust my iron coins...some when I first got them and others developed rust after I got them. I keep them in flips and used to put a desiccant in with my coins but that would rather quickly turn to liquid and I found myself always changing it and getting more so I decided instead to simply put a very thin layer of wax on them. The only other coins I have waxed are a few LRB coins I had that developed BD, I cleaned it, neutralized it, then again, just a thin coating of wax. Wrong? I dont know but I can barely tell its on there. This was my personal choice and I cannot say its objectively right or wrong but I did it because it is VERY humid where I live and I just wanted to make sure my iron coin did not start rusting again. But again, as little cleaning or application of anything to a coin, IMO, is ideal.
-
I find a little beeswax helps to bring out the details. Renwax would probably have a similar effect.
-
Rubbing a coin of the kind you're talking about between my fingers works well enough and I don't consider
myself a particularly greasy person. ;D
-
The less done to coins the better.
-
The less done to coins the better.
So just to understand your point better, what state are the coins in your collection?
I mean the scope between totally encrusted and muddy, and cleaned down to the metal is quite a wide spectrum, and obviously "the less done" would mean encrusted and muddy in many cases.
Do you have any coins that have been smoothed, slightly tooled, harshly brushed with a brass brush or similar? Also, as you know, re-toning or re-patination using sulphur products etc can be widely found in many coins, is that a no-no in your mind?
Even before you look at waxing/lacquering etc there is so much that could have been done to the coins that we have in our collections, exactly where do you draw the line for "the less done"?
regards
Mark
-
i think commodus was refering to after the cleaning process (which in itself can include a number of undesirable techniques).
so yes, smoothing, tooling, re-patination, etc would be a no-no, at least to my mind... the less done to the coin after cleaning, the better.
~ Peter
-
Thanks Peter, if that is what Commodus meant then I understand his point of view at least, even if I don't wholly agree with it. I did think his original statement was a little too general to be taken at face value.
regards
Mark
-
Each person has their own limits and it depends on the coin. Of course we usually don't know what the coin looked like before cleaning. Smoothing has it place and can be a good thing if carefully done, all the other things should be avoided, in my personal opinion. If a coin has been depatinated (which may in rare cases be the best thing to do) it should not be painted but left to tone by itself. The only thing I could never accept is tooling, no matter how rare and interesting a coin may have been before it was tooled.
-
Thanks Peter, if that is what Commodus meant then I understand his point of view at least, even if I don't wholly agree with it.
and that is the best we can expect from a forum such as this. :)
as i said above, i am against waxing in general, but in some cases it may be a necessary evil.
~ Peter
-
I have put a little of it on rescued coins that seem very 'thirsty' and feel very brittle. But so little that it helped, not hindered, legibility, and only after drying thoroughly. As for 'value', I think the coin in question is nearly unsalable and of no value except to me, because I like it. When someone tries to make a coin shiny with RenWax they make photography and close study nearly impossible.
Pat L.
This coin came to me with extremely advanced BD.
CLICK
-
i think commodus was refering to after the cleaning process (which in itself can include a number of undesirable techniques).
so yes, smoothing, tooling, re-patination, etc would be a no-no, at least to my mind... the less done to the coin after cleaning, the better.
~ Peter
Yes. I guess I was too succinct. Thanks, Peter, for clarifying my comment. I thought it would be obvious that this means after the cleaning process but I guess it is always better to spell things out.
For me, smoothing, tooling, and re-patination can put a coin perilously close to the fake category, especially tooling. I won't buy a coin that has been so treated. The coin may be original at its core, but modern alterations such as repatination, etc., are nothing more than tampering. Smoothing can have its place in certain cases but generally when it is done it is overdone. I generally don't want a coin that has been stripped, either, but I prefer that to repatinated (I am in full agreement with Andreas above on letting stripped coins retone naturally). Ren wax is another matter altogether as it is reversible and therefore generally okay. As Pat points out above, it can be useful as a restorative agent as well. It is my opinion, generally, that after a coin has been cleaned it should be left alone unless there is a pressing reason (e.g. bronze disease, extreme brittleness, etc.) to do otherwise. In those cases the problem should be treated directly in the most non-invasive manner possible.
Eric
-
Yes. I guess I was too succinct. Thanks, Peter, for clarifying my comment. I thought it would be obvious that this means after the cleaning process but I guess it is always better to spell things out.
To be honest Eric, I was being deliberately facetious to elicit clarification, and extrapolation, of the point. :)
regards
Mark
-
Understood.
However, I still should have stated that I meant post-cleaning. :)
-
I've come across several coins over the years that have been desecrated with a coat of greet paint, which seems that at one time to have been an acceptable "conservation" method. Has anyone else seen this, or know of who would have done such a thing and why? I seem to remember reading about it somewhere a long time ago, but I can't remember where.
They say that memory is the second thing to go. I can't remember the first. :)
Danny
-
I've come across several coins over the years that have been desecrated with a coat of greet paint, which seems that at one time to have been an acceptable "conservation" method. Has anyone else seen this, or know of who would have done such a thing and why? I seem to remember reading about it somewhere a long time ago, but I can't remember where.
I've seen plenty of recently cleaned ancient bronzes covered with what I would consider to be green paint and its termed artificial patina by some! Some of these artificial patinas are appalling and in no way resemble the real thing. You can even see the brush strokes on some. I don't think its a conservation approach, past or recent.
-
The CCI Conservation Notes condone LACQUERING! Oh my Gods.
With an appropriate caution... i.e. don't try this at home kids.... to quote from the guide kindly posted by Darrell:
Surface Coatings
Protective coatings such as lacquers and wax are often applied to the surface of coins, medals, and medallic art to protect them from handling and an inhospitable environment.
Lacquering is a job best left to a specialist. A poorly applied lacquer coating is not only unattractive, but can lead to corrosion at a later date.
A wax coating generally provides less protection than lacquer, but is easier to apply and remove. A suitable wax can be made by mixing equal parts of a good-quality floor paste wax (e.g. Aerowax) and odourless mineral spirits.
Procedure
* Apply the wax and solvent mixture with a soft cloth.
* Use a hair dryer to melt the wax into all recesses.
* Allow the solvent to evaporate.
* Buff the surface lightly with a soft cloth.
Wax coatings can easily be removed in the future using odourless mineral spirits.
I have no doubt that poorly applied low quality lacquer can do damage in the long run. But done and maintained correctly on bronze material that requires a protective coat the outcome is better than leaving fragile material exposed to atmospheric conditions over the long haul.
Darrell - thanks for the CCI notes. At least we now know what the professional conservators think of the approach to applying a bit of benign wax coating if it is needed. Easily done and easily removed with some protective benefits under specific conditions and circumstances...no more urban myths need be developed on this approach.
As for personal taste and waxing that's a other thing altogether, although I am told it is very popular in Brazil ;D
-
As for personal taste and waxing that's a other thing altogether, although I am told it is very popular in Brazil ;D
yeah, but keep that under the rug. :evil:
~ Peter
-
You are most welcome Lloyd.
I think you've noticed the key point: " easily removed " - One of the holiest principals in the museum/conservation world is that anything treatment done to an object be reversible and that all such treatments be meticulously recorded for the benefit of the poor sod who comes after you :P
-
Come to think of it, I have seen some modern medals for sale, ex museum pieces, that had a small patch of clear lacquer applied to their edges or reverses onto which a number (presumably the artifact's accession number) was then painted. I suppose this is reversable but the museums had not bothered to reverse it before deaccessioning and selling the items. One must be careful with the reversing, I suspect, lest the item be damaged by the removal of the "reversable" lacquering.
By the way, I am not keen on any type of waxing (except on cars and hardwood floors) ;).
-
The thing about these painted on numbers is that they add a certain flair and as long as you know they are removable
that's good enough. No reason to actually do it unless you know that it's very recent. That's my opinion anyway.
-
The poor man's [museum's] method of applying an accession number is clear nail polish, white out on top, number, nail polish on top of that. I expect there are expensive museum/archival grade versions of the same idea, but this works.
And how does one get nail polish off? Same way yer mum does. then rinse well with water (distilled if you are very, very particular and dry in the appropriate manner.
De-accessioning,... well that another ball of ... sorry I won't say it.
Its a sticky subject, because objects are given to museums in trust and de-accessioning should never be taken lightly. Most modern museums have clear policy which generally outlines a clear process - this usually involves trying to see if another museum would like the item and rarely even ends with selling an object!!!! That's a big no no! Violation of the donors trust etc.
Things that get de-accessioned tend to be old object's from the museum's infancy before they had a clear mandate and policy specifying what exactly they which to preserve/collect.
"If we are the Victorian lace museum just why the heck do we have this Remington Typewriter which is taking precious, expensive and ever shrinking storage space"?
Sorry to go on so long, I am a museum nerd and do get overly excited!
Cheers
Darrell
-
De-accessioning,... well that another ball of ... sorry I won't say it.
Its a sticky subject, because objects are given to museums in trust and de-accessioning should never be taken lightly. Most modern museums have clear policy which generally outlines a clear process - this usually involves trying to see if another museum would like the item and rarely even ends with selling an object!!!! That's a big no no! Violation of the donors trust etc.
Pity. It does happen, but not nearly often enough. I am well aware of this situation as a former museum board member and as the husband of a former curator. Many, if not most, museums have substantial quantities of warehoused artifacts: materials that will never see the light of day, materials that would be far better off in the hands of collectors than in a semi (or possibly not so semi) permanent state of storage. What so many museum boards fail to grasp is that bylaws preventing the sale of artifacts can be changed. They bemoan a lack of funding yet at the same time are sitting atop untapped fortunes in the form of stored duplicate, non essential, and extra-mission statement artifacts. A few enlightened institutions do sell off materials but they, alas, are few and far between. I have encountered these issues first-hand and am not involved with museums any longer largely because of them.
As far as donors go, well, the way I see it is when on donates an item to an institution, one does just that: donates (i.e. gives) it. That means one gives up the right to control what the donee does with it. Public libraries regularly have book sales in which they sell off donated materials they have no need of in order to raise money. Why museums don't more often do likewise baffles me. But so long as they don't they really have no right to complain about budget shortfalls or funding issues.
In any case, it is for this very reason that I will never donate any of my collections (which are substantially broader than coins only) to any museum. In my own philosophy, I concur with the great French academician and critic Edmond de Goncourt (1822-1896) who stated in his will thus: "My wish is that my drawings, my prints, my curiosities, my books, in a word, these things of art which have been the joy of my life shall not be consigned to the cold tomb of a museum, and subjected to the stupid glance of the careless passer-by; but I require that they should all be dispersed under the hammer of the auctioneer, so that the pleasure which the acquiring of each one of them has given me shall be given again, in each case to some inheritor of my own tastes."
The "stupid glances" don't bother me as much as the carnival arcade-like "interactive edutainment" nonsense to which so many museums have stooped nor, particularly, so much as the reality that my artifacts will likely end up in a warehouse never to receive any glances at all, stupid or otherwise.
Nor lacquered and painted with horrible little numbers, either!
-
I respectfully disagree with almost everyone of your points (as does ICOM) but I expect this is not really the the forum or the topic to engage in a long debate over fundamental, and no doubt entrenched world views.
To use an old cliche 'lets just agree to disagree' and leave it at that shall we?
Cheers
Darrell
-
I'm not debating at all, merely stating my views. I once felt quite differently but practical experience made me wiser.
:)
-
"wiser"
The implication is clear. I am unwise. This is simply an insult, something I did not stoop to at any time in my posts.
This conversation is a waste of time and I am finished with this foolishness.
-
"wiser"
The implication is clear. I am unwise. This is simply an insult, something I did not stoop to at any time in my posts.
This conversation is a waste of time and I am finished with this foolishness.
wow, i think you have overreacted rather dramatically.
i see no insult here, obvious or pied. commodus has simply stated that his views have changed from what they once were, and any implication otherwise is a bit of a stretch, imo.
however, you are certainly free to be as insulted as you wish.
~ Peter
-
Thank you, Peter. You interpreted my meaning correctly. I thought it was clear, but I guess not.
Darrell, I feel very bad that you took offense to my comment because truly none was intended.
No insult was meant and I am genuinely shocked that such was perceived. For the record, my wife would probably agree with your position far more than mine. She is a former museum curator and registrar and one of the wisest people I know.
I was speaking of myself and the evolution of my own thinking about this subject, not about you in any way whatsoever; you entirely misinterpreted my meaning. I am not one to imply things. I say what I mean in plain language. You have one opinion and I have another, both appear to stem from experience in different areas of experience with museums -- it is as simple as that. So what if we don't agree? There is room for differing opinions.
Please allow me to say the same thing I said in my earlier post but in different words:
I used to think differently about many museum policies than I do now, but my personal experience in dealing directly with museum politics and curatorial methods changed my mind.
That is what I meant and that is all.
Please accept my apologies for any perceived insult. None was meant.
-
It was dramatic and I will [without any qualification] apologize for mis reading Eric’s meaning.
Peter, you are right about the drama. You are also right that YOU did not see an insult and I did. You could have put in a far less sarcastic way however.
As I said to Eric in our PM.
‘If you say that no offence was intended then so be it. Electronic communication and the lack of context plus all the other non-verbal communication that surrounds true conversation makes it ripe for mis-understanding. Like your wife, I am a career museum worker (9 museums as researcher, interpreter, programmer, curator and counting), and am perhaps overly passionate about museums and (as I see it) the good they do in society.’
I did some searching on museum related topics in this forum and saw there has been lots of ‘drama’ in the past, with some museum bashing and some museum defending. The conflict between collectors and museums is not new.
Display of objects is not the only goal of a museum. It couldn’t be even if we wanted it to be. Logistics won’t allow it.
Display is ‘a’ goal but not the overarching one.
The main function of a museum is a social one - to collect a particular aspect of society or natural history via collection and preservation of artifacts and specimens for future generations.
Museums intend to preserve the items not for a 100 years or a thousand, but act as if they will care and collect the artifacts forever (which of course they won’t but the principal is ... forever). In collecting over a significant period of time a museum can collect thousands to millions of artifacts. To display them all might require acres [literally] of building and display units [all of which cost money to get and subsequently maintain]. This not possible. But because education is also an important goal, museums also display parts of the collection, usually in thematic galleries which dictate the need to select some artifact and not others.
The perception that museums are keeping collections hidden away is simply not the case. Access to collections in storage is somewhat restricted for many reasons beyond the logistics of space [delicacy, staff time & security spring to mind without much effort]. But in a good museum, given reasonable notice and reason beyond whim, any researcher should be able to access the collection in storage.
Every time you see a historical documentary, or read a book or article on an aspect of history the odds are overwhelming you’ll see a museum or archives in the body or credits. We don’t hide collections, we do however protect them and have to strike a balance between access and protection. . At many of the museums I’ve worked we make what efforts we can too have artifacts be more accessible though periodic ‘behind the scenes’ tours, areas of visible storage where artifacts are regularly rotated from the collection in storage and, temporary exhibits which often feature artifacts from the collection in storage.
Museum workers are usually stretched way beyond a reasonable capacity and wear more hats than they should. I’m not complaining because we are not the only profession in this boat. The point I’m making is that there a reason you may not be able to access the whole collection in a time frame that is perfectly convenient. Museum staff like everyone else have time sensitive tasks and previous appointments etc. that means they fit you in as best they can without cheesing off 20 other people.
Finally, as for not selling artifacts. Yes a museum can do this and some do. I say its risky behavior that can and has bitten museums in the ass.
I have heard of cases of a descendent or relative of a donor coming to find out that a donated object has been sold and surprise, surprise they are NOT happy. They slag the museum and it takes a hit to its reputation. People are reluctant to donate - we’re just going to sell their stuff anyway.
I personally feel its far better (and many of my co-workers might disagree) after having first tried to find a better home in another museum; offer it back to the family (not without issues - who do you offer it to if there are multiple descendants who have a claim?) Letting them know that if they don’t want it (and letting them know we’ve been good custodians who’ve tried to find another museum first) that we will sell it. And then if they are deeply offended still ... keep it in storage despite the fact its no longer relevant. Reputation cannot be purchased at any price.
-
Its amazing what you can learn when you type the word "wax" into a search box :o
-
If it's not too late to say something on this thread:
When a surface has microscopic irregularities it tends to scatter light that falls on it. The result is a matte appearance and the apparent colour of the surface will be whiter, less saturated, more pastel because the scattered full spectrum (white) light is reaching your eye along with more limited spectrum (coloured) light reflecting off the surface . If that surface is coated with some transparent layer, the scattering effect is much lessened and the surface colour appears deeper or more saturated because it is not mixed with white light. This is why painters often varnish their work--it enhances the colours--and this is why a coin often looks much better when it is wet (or waxed).
Although waxing is adding a foreign substance to the coin and changing the feel of it, nothing is added to the appearance that wasn't there before. Actually, something is being taken away--the scattered white light. In that sense the practise is like cleaning(!). And, as many have said, it is easily reversed anyway.
Dan