Mike Bull wrote:
mtskull wrote:Preservation can mean many things but sometimes it just means saving something for later.
So just when is this 'later' that things are 'saved' for, then..?
I feel as though I'm playing Devil's advocate, but here goes:
Who can say when that "later" is?
Maybe when (to paraphrase Bill's words from the the BBP diary from long ago) somebody invents an orgasmatron thingy that will look inside Bluebird's mended frame and determine what Leo had for breakfast, by studying at the broken welds.
Maybe, in Mallard's case, when Bittern and Union of South Africa and Sir Nigel Gresley cannot continue to run without replacing so many bits as to destroy their authenticity.
Maybe, as in the case of a certain WW2 German aircraft, when analysis of the pollen trapped in the tailcone can give an accurate idea of where it was based during the war. Oops, sorry; that has already been tried and every trace of pollen had been eradicated during a well-intentioned but excessively thorough "restoration" of the aircraft in question.
We have no way of knowing how much better future generations may be at gleaning information from old artifacts or what technology may one day exist to enable them to do so; neither can we be sure just what we may be destroying. No matter how much we enjoy seeing old machines in action (and I do), we should be prepared to accept that there may sometimes be people who know better than we do. Not every museological decision is taken out of cowardice!
PS, just to be perfectly clear, I am NOT a museologist.......
It is not the critic who counts.....