In 1979 a couple of my colleagues and I drove an 18 wheeler with a 40' trailer a thousand miles to pick up a collection and bring it to a new "world-class" institution. The media accepted the institution's new, self-appointed designation, and we looked forward to another run; "Kalamazoo in '82." The deal fell through, and we did not make the run to Kalamazoo. Two days ago I learned that the owner of the Kalamazoo collection had passed away recently, and the collection had been dispersed among the scholar's students, many of whom are now tenured faculty here and there. The 1979 collection has been parceled out. Some elements were "out of field" and were sold off; some were not considered important enough to the primary collections of the institution and hit the dumpster. The residue, while augmenting the institution's collections, is no longer an accurate reflection of the collector's vision/aim, and the state of preservation activity there does not bode well for the survivability of the residue. On balance, I approve the dispersion of the Kalamazoo collection because it enhances the survivability of the collection. Nearly 30 years of experience as a conservator and visitor to museums in the US, Canada, UK, Spain, Mexico, Italy, and Greece, inform my opinion that, on average, collections are better served in small institutions with an active volunteer cadre than they are in major institutions. Certainly, there are exceptions, but they are exceptional; not the norm. Another thing which I have come to believe is that there are only a few people in any generation who are willing to apply what they learn from the past to inform their age, and project into the future. I am not offended by a museum exhibit which serves the attention span of an MTV person, so long as the artifacts remain available to those who decide that it is their task to interpret them. Enough. Jack C. Thompson Thompson Conservation Lab. Portland, OR [log in to unmask]