On Tue, 14 Jun 1994, Peter Rauch wrote:
 
  [snip]
>
> I imagine that many objects that would be of great interest to collectors
> (i.e., they'd pay much to possess them) would have to be more highly valuated
> if these objects were in the hands of a scholarly organization _and_ had
> significant documentation of value to the scholar. On the other hand, objects
> that might not be very attractive at all to a collector may be of great
> scholarly value; does that cause the object, if held by a scholarly org,
> to be highly valuated or not (for insurance purposes)?
>
> Bottom Line:
> How is the "scholarly value" of objects factored into the insurance
> valuation?
> Peter Rauch
>
 
Precisely!
 
This is one of the major reasons I have great difficulty putting values on
prehistoric/archaeological items in our collections.  We view our
collections as *systematic* anthropological collections valued primarily
for their scholarly significance and accompanying documentation.  We
cannot ignore the fact, however, that individual objects borrowed for
exhibition, for example, by other institutions may be "collectible".  Some
of these institutions are borrowing objects for their esthetic value, not
for their scientific value.  We do try to factor in the scholarly value,
but that is hard to grapple with.  Sometimes we simply decline to loan
objects of high significance.
 
Mike Jacobs * Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721
tel: 602-621-6312 * e-mail: [log in to unmask]