Excerpt from the Journal of Advanced Appraisal Studies - 2010

Over the past several years museum deaccessioning has been in the art world news.  It is still a hot button issue for many museum professionals, attorneys, appraisers and collectors.  With the Journal being published on an annual basis, current news and trends which effect the personal property profession can be provided to the appraisal community in a timely and meaningful manner.  Attorney Mark Gold writes a very good article on deaccessioning for the appraiser in the 2010 edition of the Journal of Advanced Appraisal Studies.

All proceeds from the sale of the Journal support the educational initiatives and scholarships of the Foundation for Appraisal Education. The cost of the journal is only $55.00, a bargain for the amount of content supplied, and for a short time shipping is free.  For more information visit www.appraisaljournal.org to order your copy.

Next weeks excerpt will be from Jill Kent, ISA AM on appraising Folk Art, including portraits, weathervanes, Redware and ceramics, Samplers, and decoys. The article is a must read for any generalist who may see folk art.

Gold writes about deaccessioning

How might appraisers operate in the present environment and how
might a change in the rule affect appraisers? Beyond the customary services performed for museums, the economic decline might see more and more museums (particularly trustees, if not directors) seeking to understand the value of objects in their collections so that difficult decisions will be informed decisions. These may well be quiet and confidential engagements, perhaps undertaken without the knowledge or assistance of curatorial staff.

A change in the rule to expand either the use of proceeds from
deaccessioning and/or to allow deaccessioning or the pledge of objects to obtain cash for operations would likely bring appraisers into contact with museums in a much broader and more open way. Museums may wish to know the value of objects – particularly the objects least essential to their mission – to get a sense of how their sale or pledge might contribute to the financial health of the institution. And, like other forms of appraial, in a financing setting, banks and other financing institutions would be relying on appraisals to understand their risk in the event that they need to resort to the collateral.

As the debate continues, there is a common appreciation of the role
of museums as stewards of our cultural and historical legacy. That much is undisputed and deserves the great respect it enjoys. But a balancing of
priorities is in order—placing the viability of the museum and its programs on at least an equal footing with the collection. Why not make it ethical for a museum to weigh priorities and make difficult choices without fear of condemnation and ostracism?

Those who challenge the rule are accused of seeking to lower a stan-
dard, causing harm to museums. Such is not the case. They are advocating for an examination of a standard to be sure it supports museums. Ethical rules should be an articulation of our collective values. There should be no fear or hesitancy to scrutinize them occasionally to be sure they continue to serve those collective values. The rule serves well the “value” of avoiding financial disclosure. It should also be looked at in terms of the value of preserving museums and their collections. Its rigidity and lack of exceptions causes it to fail that test.

Click HERE to order your copy of the Journal.