In response to Dennis Fiori's "correction".

There were no inaccuracies about the MHS in my August message.  I was merely
entering into the discussion about selling deaccessioned collections in one's
shop.

As part of my discussion I mentioned a personal experience (a group visit to
the Maryland Historical Society during the Classical Maryland show in the
early 90's).  I stated that their shop was one selling historical materials of
the type on display and in a space adjacent to exhibition areas BUT NOT FROM
THEIR EX COLLECTIONS.  Though this was not readily apparent to us hence the
use of the example.

We had no way of knowing at the time of the visit the exact origin of the
material (the signs cited by Fiori were not posted at the time, at least not
as we could see and we ended up just asking the clerk about the "antiques" -
furniture, jewelry, housewares, costume, etc., -- for sale).  So our FIRST
IMPRESSIONS were ??????  Just because we found it odd doesn't mean every other
visitor would have the same perception.  I can (and did) speak only for myself
and those in my group (as we did discuss it on the journey home after our
visit and spoke to MHS staff at the time to understand the philosophy behind
such an unusual shop).

A visitor's perceptions, by definition, are most certainly "accurate".  They
are so by the very definition of the word.

I was unaware at the time that this was such a sensitive issue but have since
been apprised of the situation by former MHS staff and other museum
professionals.  I thought I had prehandled the matter in my August response
and after talking with others off Museum L and looking at my original message
feel that it was clear.  My point was about the importance of A VISITOR'S
PERCEPTIONS regardless of the honest intent of the museum (anyone who has
conducted even the most basic visitor evaluation will immediately grasp my
point).

I certainly did not mean to imply that the MHS was selling their collections
-- in fact went out of my way to state the opposite.  My perception of the MHS
was certainly damaged INITIALLY but given my long-standing regard for the MHS
and its collections I, UNLIKE THE AVERAGE VISITOR, pursued the point in order
to arrive at an informed conclusion.  Nine out of ten visitors, most would
agree, would not take the time and just vote with their $ and/or feet.  Our
experiences and the way we are treated (both positively and negatively)
influence our opinions of all public institutions be it a restaurant, shop or
yes even a museum (we are not exempt and why would we be).

I stand by my advice to the original query (a small, emerging, history museum)
that they should weigh the short-term benefits against any POTENTIALLY
damaging public perceptions.  Museums are service organizations and rare is
the institution who can afford to damage their credibility in the eyes of the
public.