[NHCOLL-L:293] RE: Valuation, and security, of specimens

[Bob Glotzhober]

Peter et.al.

I have a question in a different direction, relating to the auction of
mounted animals mentioned.

We have a number of old mounts that are non-Ohio, and hence outside of our
interests (years ago we had no focus in our collections).  We managed to
trade/give a number away to other museum, but still have a number left.
Several of these are downright mangy, but a few are decent looking mounts.
We decided that although they were unprotected species we would not offer
them at public auction, because they have been (as most old specimens were)
treated with arsenic.  We reasoned that museum professionals can appropriate
deal with arsenic, but did not feel comfortable offering them to the public.
Even if we identified them as treated with arsenic we did not like a "buyer
beware" approach.  It makes me wonder about those specimens listed in the ad
you sited.  Any thoughts from other folks on this?

Bob Glotzhober

=====================================================
Robert C. Glotzhober
Curator, Natural History
Ohio Historical Society		Phone:  614/ 297-2633
1982 Velma Avenue			Fax:      614/ 297-2628
Columbus, Ohio  43211-2497		e-mail:
bglotzhober at ohiohistory.org

Visit the Web Site for the Ohio Historical Society.
	http://www.ohiohistory.org/
Visit the Web Site for the Ohio Odonata (Dragonfly) Survey (project
coordinator & newsletter editor).
	http://mcnet.marietta.edu/~odonata/index.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Peter Rauch [SMTP:anamaria at grinnell.berkeley.edu]
> Sent:	Thursday, October 21, 1999 3:46 PM
> To:	taxacom at usobi.org; nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu
> Subject:	[NHCOLL-L:292] Valuation, and security, of specimens
> 
> The question of how to valuate specimens, and an issue regarding
> stolen specimens, were recently raised on taxacom and nhcoll-l.
> 
> A perhaps interesting sidelight to these issues showed up as an
> 5in x 6in advertisement in the San Francisco Chronicle, Oct 20,
> 1999, pg A14.
> 
> A picture of a "mounted skeleton reproduction of Utahraptor", and
> headline "Natural History Auction", announces a preview and
> auction of various collection (collectible) artifacts. 
> 
> The ad is for an upcoming Butterfield & Butterfield auction (now
> owned by Ebay, the online auction company). It gives dates, phone
> numbers, contact and site addresses, catalog ordering info, etc.
> 
> To quote:
> 
> "Highlights include a 75 million-year-old dinosaur skull as well
> as a unique collection of gems, minerals, amber, fossils,
> dinosauria, a collection of exotic meteorites and a collection of
> taxidermy from the Fillmore Museum of Natural History" 
> 
> How does the fair market value of such material influence the
> valuation of scientific collections materials? Do the two realms
> cross paths at the tax and/or insurance office?
> 
> How has the increasing "collectibles" interest by the general
> (non-for-science) public, and seemingly more conspicuous (in
> particular, legal) marketing (e.g., this auction ad, and local
> "bone stores"  in many cities), of natural history specimens of
> all kinds affected risk management policy and practices of
> scientific museum collections?
> 
> Peter