All of you are correct in some way in my view. I work for a museum but
when someone has something they would rather sell or that we already
have, I will find a buyer for them that will give them a decent price.
I also collect, but not antiques.
Not all collectors are obssessive, but I have seen it. The people I
would also watch out for are dealers who are obsessed with money. No
not all are, but I would rather have a dealer working in the
accessions dept, than a junk collector like me.
 I have access to some beautiful antiques for free but am not
interested in being a furniture mover. I like getting dirty.
Grant k

On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:14:38 +0000, Mick Cooper
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>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]