In article <01be4636$aeeb7f40$9360a4d0@pahti>, Mark Bahti
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Distinguishing between amateur collectors and dealers is a useless exercise.
>The same pitfalls exist and they are numerous and accumulative. And I say
>this as a dealer.

Mark's point is a very valid one. Surely, conflicts of interest will
just as easily occur with collectors as with dealers? Perhaps more so:
collectors have an obsession to feed, with dealers it's only money...

Is this just more of the long standing problem museums have with
commerce? (I've spent years researching museum registers and often
remarked how donors may be lovingly recorded in depth yet items acquired
for money may be just listed as "purchased" without a vendor's name.
This has been particularly frustrating for me since I've been
researching dealers!) Alternatively, could it just be that a collector
grateful for the peer approval of professional collectors (curators)
may, just conceivably, bequeath their personal collection to their
favourite institution?

Museums owe it to their collections to establish good relations with
both collectors and dealers. Collectors often know more about their
specialist subject than curators. Dealers often have far better
connections in the field than museums since they're at it full time. The
list of other good reasons must be a long one, but I'm unconvinced it
means that one group or the other is more or less trustworthy or useful
than the other.

Mick



--
Michael P. Cooper * Mineralist * [log in to unmask]