Things to consider are;
1. why are you using repros and not the real thing? - is it an interactive
activity, enabling people to experience the object more fully? is the 'real"
thing to fragile or don't you have one. Know why you are making this
decision and there might be other ways of solving it.
2. Should reproductions always be labelled as such and the reason's for
using them given?
One of the  advantages museum's have over other purveyors and packagers of
history is that we have the "real thing". And the public percieve this as
one of our reason's for being. If we start diluting and confusing this what
will be the consequences? They trust us that the doorknob they see is
authentic. The labels we attach, the building we put in, the way we display
it all add extra meanings but the object stripped of these is still
physically what it was. It is not an advirtiser's, movie producer's, tv
exec's idea of what a doorknob once was. By holding "real" objects as they
were along with their layers of use we retain their integrity and leave them
available for a variety of interpretations.
Real things are our "competitive advantage", to use business jargon. This is
one view anyway.

Cheers
Leah Breninger
Collection Manager (Social History)
Museum of Victoria
[log in to unmask]
 ----------
From: owner-museum-l
To: Multiple recipients of list MUSEUM-L
Subject: museums and reproductions- query
Date: Tuesday, 28 May, 1996 12:09AM

I am searching for information regarding the view of the museum profession
regarding the use of reproductions in exhibits, historic homes etc.   Can
anyone recommend a work that covers this matter and presents the theory
which
either supports or condemns this practice?
I thank you in advance for your help!

Maria Lizzi
School of Information Science and Policy
University at Albany
Responses can be made off-list to [log in to unmask]