I have been following this thread with some interest.  While there are
problematic issues associated with assigning value to objects in a
museum's collection (the cost of premiums being one not yet
mentioned!) IMHO it is irresponcible to not insure all collections we
hold in trust (archaeology, natural history, decorative and fine art,
etc.).  Collections are value-added assets of a museum, the longer we
hold them and the more we study them the more valuable they become.
One interesting model that I have been investigating is establishing
the insurance value for certain collections (archaeology in
particular) where there is only a limited "fair market value" as being
the sum of the associates staff and administrative cost incurred by
the institution in the acquisition, cataloguing, and subsequent
management of the collection.  This has come from discussion with our
underwriter who asked, "well, what would it cost to recreate the
collection by remounting the excavation?"
 
This particular appraoch could easily be applied to any of the natural
sciences, and begins to get at the "value" of a "scholarly"
collection.  Let me state for the record, I do not agree with the idea
of capitalizing a collection onto an institutions ballence sheet (a
fight I am now engaged in), but we should recognize the real value of
a collection in our insurance practices.  Keeping in mind that
insurance is only one facet in a comprehensice risk management plan
for a collection.
 
Richard Gerrard
Registrar, Toronto Historical Board
[log in to unmask]