Open Forum

Good morning all,

I am conducting a formal inventory on collection accessioned in the 1970's that includes a number of framed works on paper that require rehousing for preservation and future display. Unlike other objects in the collection the accession record includes no information about the frame, for example:

Object.ID Soldier's Return Currier and Ives print 
vs.
Object.ID Mirror - painted black and gold frame (wall type)

Few of the works are matted, those that are matted show signs of acid burn, glazing is often in direct contact with the surface of the object, and many are backed with cedar shingles or rough pine boards. The frames themselves are not ornate, nor does it appear that they were deliberately chosen for displaying the work in question (unlike the paintings in the collection with their original frames). It is unlikely that the objects will be returned to these frames because most are not large enough to accommodate the piece once properly matted and backed.

My question is this: would you subject the frames to the full deaccession procedure and committee vote, or treat them as museum property for documentation and disposal through proper channels, including a note in the object record to document the rehousing?

------------------------------
Meredith Moore
Curatorial Assistant
Fort Ticonderoga Museum

------------------------------

Original Message------

Good morning all,

I am conducting a formal inventory on collection accessioned in the 1970's that includes a number of framed works on paper that require rehousing for preservation and future display. Unlike other objects in the collection the accession record includes no information about the frame, for example:

Object.ID Soldier's Return Currier and Ives print 
vs.
Object.ID Mirror - painted black and gold frame (wall type)

Few of the works are matted, those that are matted show signs of acid burn, glazing is often in direct contact with the surface of the object, and many are backed with cedar shingles or rough pine boards. The frames themselves are not ornate, nor does it appear that they were deliberately chosen for displaying the work in question (unlike the paintings in the collection with their original frames). It is unlikely that the objects will be returned to these frames because most are not large enough to accommodate the piece once properly matted and backed.

My question is this: would you subject the frames to the full deaccession procedure and committee vote, or treat them as museum property for documentation and disposal through proper channels, including a note in the object record to document the rehousing?

------------------------------
Meredith Moore
Curatorial Assistant
Fort Ticonderoga Museum

------------------------------

Hi Meredith!

There is definitely an argument for retaining original framing assemblies, especially backing boards, for paintings and other works. I think in the case of prints, that argument loses some teeth. 

If it was my collection, I would deaccession them, since they were acquired as "whole" objects at the time of accession.  

1) Make sure that you have separate numbers for the print and frame assembly:  
Object.ID.01 Print: Soldier's Return Currier and Ives print (Add a .01 to the image, as necessary)
Object.ID.02 Framing assembly: Soldier's return Currier and Ives print (mat, glazing, frame, backing board, etc) and document these parts - but you won't need to physically number these, just somehow keep them together or tag/envelope/separate with paper if needed, to keep you own sanity.

2) I would deaccession the framing assembly, then leave all documentation about each in the object file or accession file for the print.

There is no reason that you could not present these to your board/committee as a group, rather than as individual items for consideration. 
Agenda item: Group of XX framing assemblies from [1970s accession of prints (detail, detail)] Full, itemized list, and link to detailed itemized documentation if the committee/board requires it.  

Then, you can deaccession them as a whole group, rather than discussing/voting individually.

Hope this is helpful!

Erin.



------------------------------
Erin Richardson PhD
Principal
Erin Richardson Consulting
Cooperstown NY
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 08-05-2019 09:27 AM
From: Meredith Moore
Subject: Deaccession-related question

Good morning all,

I am conducting a formal inventory on collection accessioned in the 1970's that includes a number of framed works on paper that require rehousing for preservation and future display. Unlike other objects in the collection the accession record includes no information about the frame, for example:

Object.ID Soldier's Return Currier and Ives print
vs.
Object.ID Mirror - painted black and gold frame (wall type)

Few of the works are matted, those that are matted show signs of acid burn, glazing is often in direct contact with the surface of the object, and many are backed with cedar shingles or rough pine boards. The frames themselves are not ornate, nor does it appear that they were deliberately chosen for displaying the work in question (unlike the paintings in the collection with their original frames). It is unlikely that the objects will be returned to these frames because most are not large enough to accommodate the piece once properly matted and backed.

My question is this: would you subject the frames to the full deaccession procedure and committee vote, or treat them as museum property for documentation and disposal through proper channels, including a note in the object record to document the rehousing?

------------------------------
Meredith Moore
Curatorial Assistant
Fort Ticonderoga Museum

------------------------------

Hi Meredith,

I know exactly the collection of print you're referring to (I was the one who made the PastPerfect records from the 1970's accession list while a fellow in 2017).  My guess is that most of those frames are old, but not original, likely purchased when the home was being decorated/renovated in the early twentieth century; they tell us more about the decorating choices of the Pell family than the print held within them.  

Knowing a bit about the breadth and size of the collection you are/will be working with and the condition of the frames you've mentioned, my suggestion is also the latter.  Document/photograph the object in the frame and note its removal, leaving lots of notes in PastPerfect for future staff.  

Best wishes,

Elizabeth Beaudoin
Curatorial Assistant
Maine Maritime Museum

------------------------------
Elizabeth Beaudoin
Maine Maritime Museum
Bath ME
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 08-05-2019 09:27 AM
From: Meredith Moore
Subject: Deaccession-related question

Good morning all,

I am conducting a formal inventory on collection accessioned in the 1970's that includes a number of framed works on paper that require rehousing for preservation and future display. Unlike other objects in the collection the accession record includes no information about the frame, for example:

Object.ID Soldier's Return Currier and Ives print
vs.
Object.ID Mirror - painted black and gold frame (wall type)

Few of the works are matted, those that are matted show signs of acid burn, glazing is often in direct contact with the surface of the object, and many are backed with cedar shingles or rough pine boards. The frames themselves are not ornate, nor does it appear that they were deliberately chosen for displaying the work in question (unlike the paintings in the collection with their original frames). It is unlikely that the objects will be returned to these frames because most are not large enough to accommodate the piece once properly matted and backed.

My question is this: would you subject the frames to the full deaccession procedure and committee vote, or treat them as museum property for documentation and disposal through proper channels, including a note in the object record to document the rehousing?

------------------------------
Meredith Moore
Curatorial Assistant
Fort Ticonderoga Museum

------------------------------

Hello Meredith:  This is an interesting question and the responses sound helpful.  I curated such collections for sixteen years at the Museum of the City of New York and would be happy to offer my thoughts offline: sh.miller2@verizon.net.

Regards,

Steven Miller
Doylestown, PA

------------------------------
Steven Miller
Doylestown, PA

Executive Director Retired
Boscobel Restoration, Inc.
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 08-06-2019 10:23 AM
From: Elizabeth Beaudoin
Subject: Deaccession-related question

Hi Meredith,

I know exactly the collection of print you're referring to (I was the one who made the PastPerfect records from the 1970's accession list while a fellow in 2017).  My guess is that most of those frames are old, but not original, likely purchased when the home was being decorated/renovated in the early twentieth century; they tell us more about the decorating choices of the Pell family than the print held within them.

Knowing a bit about the breadth and size of the collection you are/will be working with and the condition of the frames you've mentioned, my suggestion is also the latter.  Document/photograph the object in the frame and note its removal, leaving lots of notes in PastPerfect for future staff.

Best wishes,

Elizabeth Beaudoin
Curatorial Assistant
Maine Maritime Museum

------------------------------
Elizabeth Beaudoin
Maine Maritime Museum
Bath ME

Original Message:
Sent: 08-05-2019 09:27 AM
From: Meredith Moore
Subject: Deaccession-related question

Good morning all,

I am conducting a formal inventory on collection accessioned in the 1970's that includes a number of framed works on paper that require rehousing for preservation and future display. Unlike other objects in the collection the accession record includes no information about the frame, for example:

Object.ID Soldier's Return Currier and Ives print
vs.
Object.ID Mirror - painted black and gold frame (wall type)

Few of the works are matted, those that are matted show signs of acid burn, glazing is often in direct contact with the surface of the object, and many are backed with cedar shingles or rough pine boards. The frames themselves are not ornate, nor does it appear that they were deliberately chosen for displaying the work in question (unlike the paintings in the collection with their original frames). It is unlikely that the objects will be returned to these frames because most are not large enough to accommodate the piece once properly matted and backed.

My question is this: would you subject the frames to the full deaccession procedure and committee vote, or treat them as museum property for documentation and disposal through proper channels, including a note in the object record to document the rehousing?

------------------------------
Meredith Moore
Curatorial Assistant
Fort Ticonderoga Museum

------------------------------