<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Issues In Dress Collection: Deaccessioning</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wornthrough.com/2010/03/10/issues-in-dress-collection-deaccessioning/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wornthrough.com/2010/03/10/issues-in-dress-collection-deaccessioning/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:52:32 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abigail</title>
		<link>http://www.wornthrough.com/2010/03/10/issues-in-dress-collection-deaccessioning/comment-page-1/#comment-30399</link>
		<dc:creator>Abigail</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 02:32:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wornthrough.com/?p=7220#comment-30399</guid>
		<description>Although I am not currently making these decisionswe had these kinds  of discussions in school as museum studies students. From a museums etics standpoint, the money made in a sale should g back into the collections. Meaning the money should be used purchase objects to fill a gap in the collections, better quality objects, or the money should be put towards preserving the rest of the collections. 

It is also unethical to allow museum employees to purchase deacessioned items unless they purchase them at an auction setting, and even then it an be iffy. This prevents the deaccessioning of items specifically so that an employee can own it.

The criteria you mention are very common. In college I worked at the campus art museum and we also deaccessioned objects  that were not up to museum standard.  We had recieved hundreds of items from a gentlemen who gave us some high quality pieces, but the majority of the items were tourist quality pieces  that had been independently appraised  for a lot more money than they were actually worth, We finally went through all the boxes and chose about 50 percent to deaccession. Believe me, we had neither the room nor the need for this stuff. The money made from the auction went  back into the collections budget, enabling us to fill gaps in our collection.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although I am not currently making these decisionswe had these kinds  of discussions in school as museum studies students. From a museums etics standpoint, the money made in a sale should g back into the collections. Meaning the money should be used purchase objects to fill a gap in the collections, better quality objects, or the money should be put towards preserving the rest of the collections. </p>
<p>It is also unethical to allow museum employees to purchase deacessioned items unless they purchase them at an auction setting, and even then it an be iffy. This prevents the deaccessioning of items specifically so that an employee can own it.</p>
<p>The criteria you mention are very common. In college I worked at the campus art museum and we also deaccessioned objects  that were not up to museum standard.  We had recieved hundreds of items from a gentlemen who gave us some high quality pieces, but the majority of the items were tourist quality pieces  that had been independently appraised  for a lot more money than they were actually worth, We finally went through all the boxes and chose about 50 percent to deaccession. Believe me, we had neither the room nor the need for this stuff. The money made from the auction went  back into the collections budget, enabling us to fill gaps in our collection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>


