| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Dear palaeonetters This is a very interesting thread and one which collection workers encounter in a range of scenarios around the world. In a previous life I worked with a large university based geological collection with a significant palaeontological component including hundreds of type specimens. Attempts were made to place a value on the collection that were generally along the lines suggested in previous postings. However, it was never possible to convince the university (Bursar's Office) that you could ascribe a dollar value to a collection of rocks. I found the university's recalcitrance on this matter over a number of years quite frustrating and could not understand their reluctance to accept the arguments put forward, particularly when it was possible to make minor claims for damage under the standard insurance scheme for the institution. I thought the most reasonable estimate was the unit value for a large collection as outlined by Gary and Andy earlier. The same method is used for valuing the bulk of library contents in many unis in Australia. Having harped on about this issue for a long time I was eventually told "off the record" that the institution would never accept that a dollar value could be attached to the collection. If it did then the collection would be deemed a financial asset and and therefore come under the influence of a whole new set of rules. The uni admin was apparently not willing to accept the supposed increased inflexibility this would impose. Apart from the methods of making a value estimate that others have described, there is one other way, but its a lot of work. It involves estimating replacement costs based on travel, recollection, shipping and transport, and preparation. This can still be done as an exercise despite the fact that some localities become inaccessible or even collected out over time. A colleague and I are attempting to do just this on a portion of another collection with a view to comparing this method with the others that have already been discussed. We are just doing this for fun but would like to publish it somewhere eventually. Its an interesting exercise and we'd welcome further discussion off list with others who are also interested. Cheers Andrew Andrew Simpson Science Museums Division of Environmental and Life Sciences Macquarie University NSW 2109 ph (61 2) 98508183 fax (61 2) 98509671 email: asimpson@els.mq.edu.au http://www.museums.mq.edu.au http://www.els.mq.edu.au/BSc-BA/ "The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment"
Partial index: