Over the past few months, this blog has covered some recent acquisitions, a little collections care advice, and a bit about how and why museums do some of the things they do. The problem is that it’s all been stuff that I’ve wanted to say—and not necessarily stuff you want to know.
So, here’s me asking—what would you like to see covered in this blog?
I’m happy enough to keep going with a mix of artefact profiles and museum practices, but if there’s anything you’ve ever wanted to ask about museum work in general, or about Medicine Hat’s history in particular, I’d be happy to address that too!
Friday, March 18, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Collections Care 101 - Environment
A lot of people collect something. Coins and stamps have been popular for over a century, souvenir plates and spoons for decades, and I’ll bet there are still big collections of Beanie Babies to be found out there. Collections can be as diverse as collectors, but they all have one thing pretty much in common—most collections suffer damage from same environmental sources. Today I’m discussing three common factors that will damage most collections, whether they’re in the British Museum, or in your living room—and what you can do to minimize them.
Light
Thanks to sunscreen and sunglasses commercials, a lot of people know that Ultraviolet (U/V) light is bad. And it is—it’s the most damaging component of the light we normally encounter. U/V waves can cause fading and weakening of molecular bonds, leading to cracking—even total disintegration in some cases. Natural sunlight and fluorescent bulbs emit a lot of U/V—best not to let either of these shine directly on your collectables. If that can’t be avoided, you might want to look into U/V filters for your windows and light fixtures.
Remember U/V isn't the only harmful component of light. Visible light will also contribute to fading/yellowing and embrittlement, and all light damage is cumulative and irreversible. For maximum preservation, keep the room dark as possible whenever you're not there to enjoy your collection.
Relative Humidity
With Relative Humidity (RH), too dry can be just as bad as too humid. Below 35% RH, organic materials (such as fur, leather, pulp paper, etc.) become increasingly brittle. As RH increases, fibres in wood, fabric, paper, etc. swell as they absorb moisture from the air. As RH decreases, the fibres shrink as they dry out. If this swelling or shrinking happens too quickly, the fibres will break and weaken the object. So, the key to managing Relative Humidity is to keep it stable (ideally, less than 5% fluctuation per day), and in a range between 35% (below which things start to get brittle) and 65% (above which mould growth can occur).
Temperature
Temperature itself isn’t as crucial as RH. However, there is a direct inverse relationship between temperature and RH (that is, as temperature drops, RH increases), so temperature should be kept stable as well. Lower temperature is better than higher, since chemical reactions and biological activity (like mould, or insects—both of which can eat most organic materials) both slow down in cooler temperatures. Just as long as it's not so cool that you need to turn the thermostat up whenever you're in to view your collection! In the Museum, we keep our storage temperatures at 20ºC, because that’s most comfortable for the people who work with the collections.
Generally, basements (as long as they’re dry and not susceptible to flooding) are good places in the home for collectibles—the temperatures tend to be cooler and more stable, and they’re usually naturally darker. If you’re really concerned about environmental damage, you might consider collecting glassware, glazed ceramics, or rocks—all of which are pretty much resistant to the effects of household light, humidity and temperature.
Light
Thanks to sunscreen and sunglasses commercials, a lot of people know that Ultraviolet (U/V) light is bad. And it is—it’s the most damaging component of the light we normally encounter. U/V waves can cause fading and weakening of molecular bonds, leading to cracking—even total disintegration in some cases. Natural sunlight and fluorescent bulbs emit a lot of U/V—best not to let either of these shine directly on your collectables. If that can’t be avoided, you might want to look into U/V filters for your windows and light fixtures.
Remember U/V isn't the only harmful component of light. Visible light will also contribute to fading/yellowing and embrittlement, and all light damage is cumulative and irreversible. For maximum preservation, keep the room dark as possible whenever you're not there to enjoy your collection.
Relative Humidity
With Relative Humidity (RH), too dry can be just as bad as too humid. Below 35% RH, organic materials (such as fur, leather, pulp paper, etc.) become increasingly brittle. As RH increases, fibres in wood, fabric, paper, etc. swell as they absorb moisture from the air. As RH decreases, the fibres shrink as they dry out. If this swelling or shrinking happens too quickly, the fibres will break and weaken the object. So, the key to managing Relative Humidity is to keep it stable (ideally, less than 5% fluctuation per day), and in a range between 35% (below which things start to get brittle) and 65% (above which mould growth can occur).
Temperature
Temperature itself isn’t as crucial as RH. However, there is a direct inverse relationship between temperature and RH (that is, as temperature drops, RH increases), so temperature should be kept stable as well. Lower temperature is better than higher, since chemical reactions and biological activity (like mould, or insects—both of which can eat most organic materials) both slow down in cooler temperatures. Just as long as it's not so cool that you need to turn the thermostat up whenever you're in to view your collection! In the Museum, we keep our storage temperatures at 20ºC, because that’s most comfortable for the people who work with the collections.
Generally, basements (as long as they’re dry and not susceptible to flooding) are good places in the home for collectibles—the temperatures tend to be cooler and more stable, and they’re usually naturally darker. If you’re really concerned about environmental damage, you might consider collecting glassware, glazed ceramics, or rocks—all of which are pretty much resistant to the effects of household light, humidity and temperature.
Friday, March 4, 2011
New Acquistion--Ross Rifle
Today we feature a true legend of Canadian military history—the Ross rifle.
The Ross is an excellent example of how legends are not always built on positive associations.
The rifle was invented by Sir Charles Ross in the 1890s. Ross, an army officer, sharpshooter and big game hunter, designed the rifle with automatically-rotating bolt locking lugs, similar to the mechanism found on many artillery pieces. This allowed the bolt to be operated with a simple pull/push action—two movements, instead of the four required to manually rotate the bolt of a Lee-Enfield or Mauser rifle (respectively, the standard rifle of the British and German armies of the time). In addition to the higher rate of fire this feature delivered, the Ross scored high points for accuracy, and was a full pound lighter than the Lee-Enfield.
The attributes of the Ross rifle looked good on paper, but field-testing the weapon revealed some serious drawbacks. One is that the rifle was susceptible to jamming under rapid-fire conditions, or when using dirty ammunition. Another problem was that the complicated bolt could easily be assembled incorrectly, and upon firing could blow back into the face of the shooter. Redesigns of the rifle in 1905 and 1910 intended to correct these deficiencies. The Ross, championed by Minister of Militia Sam Hughes, was officially adopted, and equipped the first waves of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in the First World War.
Upon arrival in Belgium and France, it was clear the Ross was still plagued with problems. In addition to jamming easily in the mud and dirt of the trenches, it was found the rifle’s bayonet had a tendency to fall off during firing. Many Canadian soldiers at the Second Battle of Ypres (April, 1915) threw aside their Ross’ at the first opportunity to acquire a Lee-Enfield from British casualties. In July 1916, Sir Douglas Haig ordered the replacement of all Ross rifles with Lee-Enfields.
That wasn’t quite the end for the Ross, though. It remained popular through World War One with snipers for its long range accuracy, providing it could be kept clean. In World War Two, the Ross was issued to home guard units, training depots, the Royal Canadian Navy, and to Veteran’s Guard units. Following the Second World War, large numbers of Ross rifles were sold as military surplus—which was the fate of the rifle pictured above. It was acquired by a farmer near Hilda, Alberta, and used to hunt deer which supplemented the farm’s income. Many such rifles had their wooden stocks cut down to lighten them as hunting rifles—this one is almost in complete military configuration. The one concession made to adapt it to hunting was to cut off the foresight hood, as it was found too confining when trying to target game. Like so many other Ross rifles, it remained in use on the farm…until it was replaced by a Lee-Enfield.
The Ross is an excellent example of how legends are not always built on positive associations.
The rifle was invented by Sir Charles Ross in the 1890s. Ross, an army officer, sharpshooter and big game hunter, designed the rifle with automatically-rotating bolt locking lugs, similar to the mechanism found on many artillery pieces. This allowed the bolt to be operated with a simple pull/push action—two movements, instead of the four required to manually rotate the bolt of a Lee-Enfield or Mauser rifle (respectively, the standard rifle of the British and German armies of the time). In addition to the higher rate of fire this feature delivered, the Ross scored high points for accuracy, and was a full pound lighter than the Lee-Enfield.
The attributes of the Ross rifle looked good on paper, but field-testing the weapon revealed some serious drawbacks. One is that the rifle was susceptible to jamming under rapid-fire conditions, or when using dirty ammunition. Another problem was that the complicated bolt could easily be assembled incorrectly, and upon firing could blow back into the face of the shooter. Redesigns of the rifle in 1905 and 1910 intended to correct these deficiencies. The Ross, championed by Minister of Militia Sam Hughes, was officially adopted, and equipped the first waves of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in the First World War.
Upon arrival in Belgium and France, it was clear the Ross was still plagued with problems. In addition to jamming easily in the mud and dirt of the trenches, it was found the rifle’s bayonet had a tendency to fall off during firing. Many Canadian soldiers at the Second Battle of Ypres (April, 1915) threw aside their Ross’ at the first opportunity to acquire a Lee-Enfield from British casualties. In July 1916, Sir Douglas Haig ordered the replacement of all Ross rifles with Lee-Enfields.
That wasn’t quite the end for the Ross, though. It remained popular through World War One with snipers for its long range accuracy, providing it could be kept clean. In World War Two, the Ross was issued to home guard units, training depots, the Royal Canadian Navy, and to Veteran’s Guard units. Following the Second World War, large numbers of Ross rifles were sold as military surplus—which was the fate of the rifle pictured above. It was acquired by a farmer near Hilda, Alberta, and used to hunt deer which supplemented the farm’s income. Many such rifles had their wooden stocks cut down to lighten them as hunting rifles—this one is almost in complete military configuration. The one concession made to adapt it to hunting was to cut off the foresight hood, as it was found too confining when trying to target game. Like so many other Ross rifles, it remained in use on the farm…until it was replaced by a Lee-Enfield.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
