A recent Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/AR2009010702804.html?referrer=emailarticle) notes that the coat President Lincoln was wearing when shot by actor John Wilkes Booth has been deemed too delicate to be placed on public display at historic Ford’s theater. So the public will get to see a “replica”, aka a fake, instead. With or without ersatz presidential bloodstains. However for a few special occasions each year the embroidered coat will be brought out from storage and exposed to the, apparently highly damaging, gaze of the great unwashed.

On the surface this seems to make sense, given that textile experts have expressed concern over the deteriorating condition of the garment over time. I am not a textile expert but common sense suggests that it is in the nature of textiles to degrade. Hence, lint. But then comes this sentence: “But some textile conservators expressed concern, saying the coat was too old, too fragile and too famous for long-term display.” Really? In what way does being famous degrade an object? And even in storage the coat is still going to be old, and fragile, and valuable, these factors not being reversible.

There is just too much here in fact that does not make sense. First, current climate control technologies can protect all sort of objects from environmental insults, including light and atmospheric conditions. Museums do this all the time. In essence, the same conditions that will protect the item in storage can protect it while on public view. This has been done with rarities including, not far away, the U.S. Constitution which is on display at the National Archives in Washington DC. So the too delicate etc. argument is hooey.

Next comes the delicious part about bringing the bloodstained coat out of storage and putting it on display for special occasions such as the anniversary of Lincoln’s death. Again, really? Anyone in the fine art handling and shipping world, and all insurers of such commodities, can attest to the fact that objects are at increased risk each time they are moved and handled. Insurers correctly charge more to cover items in transit over items in stable storage. So in order to preserve the coat they are NOT going to house it in a permanent and stable display environment, they are going to pack and unpack it several times a year, schlep it to and fro from wherever and put it up on view for a day or a few days under conditions that are not going to be ideal.

The Theater is spending $50 million on a renovation which, when completed, will include a new gift shop but will not include a proper installation for climate controlled and secure display of arguably the single most historic artifact in their possession. And the one which, presumably, would draw the highest number of visitors to shop in the….you get the point.

For $50 million I suggest they take the whole theater apart and put it into storage for safekeeping. My company will be the first to offer space in our climate controlled warehouse to accommodate the pieces. Each piece will be numbered and the theater can be reassembled in the future when an enlightened public has reclaimed its history from the curators.

Betsy Dorfman