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]