AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting – Research and Technical Studies Session, June 1, “The Macro, Micro, And Economics of Climate Control” by Dr. Fenella France, Library of Congress

Dr. Fenella France, Preservation Research Scientist at the Library of Congress, brought her expertise in preventive conservation to the topic of microclimates in cultural institutions, starting with the what, why, and where’s of microclimates, and ending with a presentation of an über-microclimate display and storage case: the “MOAC” (Mother of All Cases) for the iconic Waldseemüller map. Key points included:

  • A microclimate is a environment maintained in a small space that differs from its external environment. This might be at various levels of control within a building: the building itself, a room, a case, a box.
  • It is important to create specs for a microclimate based on an understanding of an object’s materials, history, and mechanisms of damage.
  • A specific object’s materials and cultural significance may dictate its need for a microclimate.
  • Issues which must be considered in planning a microclimate include the composition of the encasement, object access, environmental controls (active vs. passive), monitoring.

The Waldeseemüller map exemplified an object of highest cultural importance and value, which warranted an optimal microclimate for storage and display. Its fantastic encasement provided an anoxic environment, visibility of the object in storage and display, minimized handling, minimized oxidative and hydrolytic degradation, and access for monitoring of pressure, RH, T, and oxygen.  A few amazing stats about the case:

  • It was designed to maintain a 20-30-year seal.
  • It is a 2200 lb case within another case.
  • 92 bolts hold the tooled aluminum case together.
  • It has maintained 0-30ppb oxygen.
  • It has a flexible back to allow for changes in barometric pressure.

The encasement was an impressive, collaborative effort by conservators, engineers, architects, curators, and others. Although an estimated cost for the case was disappointingly not reported, I was impressed by the long-term planning that went into its design, as much as the elaborate, continuing monitoring and analysis conducted by the stewards of this object. Since the completion of the encasement in 2007, the durable case has proven to be effective and durable, as demonstrated by data generated by its monitoring systems. While I was duly wowed by the Waldeseemüller encasement, I would argue that France’s presentation of it as a “case study” was a little misleading. It was an exceptional feat of engineering and effort for an exceptional object. I was hoping for more discussion of more typical microclimate needs and solutions, probably covered in the Microclimate Workshop…

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting – General Session, June 1, “Restoring the Spirit and the Spirit of Restoration: Dresden’s Frauenkirche as Model for Bamiyan’s Buddhas” by James Janowski.

Big Buddha in the Bamiyan Valley. Photo courtesy of Volker Thewalt.

Sometimes conservation is more than the technical care of an object.  Sometimes, the working solutions to treatment of cultural heritage must rely on judgments, choices, and values unique to a people and a time.  James Janowski raises many ethical and philosophical questions in his presentation on the possible reconstruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas.  He asks his audience to balance the needs of the historical record with religious and cultural values.

The Bamiyan Buddha’s were located along the silk road in the Bamiyan Valley of Afghanistan.  These statues were the largest likenesses of Buddha’s in the world.  They had survived past damage from soldiers, weather, and time.  They were true survivors.  All that ended with the 2001 acts of cultural barbarism by the Taliban.  The cruel and wanton destruction of the Buddhas have left us with empty niches.  But much of the original material is still located in the valley as fragments of all shapes and sizes.  Could the Buddhas be reconstructed from original and replacement materials?  Should they be reconstructed?

Janowski turns to the destruction and reconstruction of the Dresden Frauenkirche as a model for the Bamiyan Buddhas.  The Frauenkirche was the most original protestant church constructed in Dresden.  During World War Two, the allied bombing damaged the church. The subsequent fires reached 1000 degree Farenheit and caused the church to buckle and crumble.  The church was much beloved by the people of Dresden.  The ruin served as a symbol of the culture and community.

Beginning in 1989 and 1990 the people of Dresden called for the church to be rebuilt as an “archeological reconstruction.”  The reconstruction resulted in much debate, but the project was approved in March 1991.  The reconstruction continued until October 2005 when the church was re-consecrated.  Architectural stone and elements were salvaged from the rubble and carefully cataloged.  Forty-five percent of the reconstructed church was made from original stone

The reconstruction of the Dresden Frauenkirche was considered a rousing success.  The process recharged the community.  The original and non-original materials were clearly distinguishable, so as not to erase the historical events that took place.  In the end, the project was adjudication between competing values.

Janowski argues that the integral restoration of the Buddhas with remaining original fragments should be considered in the future despite the 30-50 million dollar price tag. He notes that there must be a balancing of the religious and cultural values with the historical documentation of the event.  He also offers consequential values.  The reconstruction will have economic and political value and can serve as a unifying thread to the country.  He feels that at least one of the Buddhas could be reconstructed leaving the other as a “witness” to the destruction.  Janowski believes that the meaning and values of a restored sculpture outweigh the shock of the empty niches.

Janowski pushes the audience to think outside the box.  He forces us to think through the steps ahead and the possibilities beyond the norm.  [Blogger’s note:  on March 11, 2011, UNESCO told the Afghan government it does not support a rebuild project, citing concerns over funding priorities and authenticity. ]

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting- Objects Session, June 3, “Balancing Ethics and Restoration in the Conservation Treatment of an 18th Century Sewing Box with Tortoiseshell Veneer,” by Lori Trusheim.

Trusheim’s presentation clearly guided listeners through the processes involved with the treatment of a sewing box in a private collection. This talk addressed the main conference theme of the AIC meeting and explored how the Code of Ethics can be applied to aid treatment decisions. I particularly enjoyed how thoroughly Trusheim outlined the steps involved with procuring replacement materials, as well as how the owner’s expectations have influenced the treatment.


39th Annual Meeting- Objects Morning Session, June 3, “Treatment of Donald Judd’s Untitled 1997: Retention of Original Acrylic Sheets,” by Eleonora Nagy, Bettinal Landgrebe, and Shelley M. Smith.

This talk outlined a treatment that overcame current assumptions and preconceptions regarding the conservation and restoration of Judd’s minimalist sculptures. The presenter, Eleonora Nagy, introduced a newly devised conservation treatment carried out on Untitled 1997, which enabled conservators to retain the original acrylic sheets that are integral to the work. I had no idea that these sheets were so often completely replaced in traditional restoration treatments of Judd’s work. This treatment was elegantly explained from start to finish, illustrated with excellent photographs of all stages of the work. A comprehensive outline is provided in the AIC program abstracts. I really enjoyed the thorough approach that was taken in order to research Judd’s fabrication methods and materials, available sources of replacement materials, and ultimate sensitivity to the authenticity of the original materials.


39th Annual Meeting – Workshop, May 31, “Best Practices for Conducting General Conservation Assessments” by Mary Jo Davis, Cinnamon Catlin-Legutko, Michael Emrick and Wendy Jessup

The workshop was organized by Heritage Preservation and provided a practical look at conducting conservation assessments for small-sized museums. The particular focus was on carrying out CAP assessments, but much of the information would be really useful for an overall look at any collection.

The morning portion of the workshop was a series of presentations, starting off with an introduction to CAP surveys by Sara Gonzales, who is the coordinator for the Conservation Assessment Program. The focus of the CAP program is to provide general assessments of small to mid-sized museums that will help those institutions with practical and realistic ways to implement preventive conservation. The Heritage Preservation website has all kinds of useful information regarding specifics about the CAP program, with lots of FAQs and so forth, so for more details, take a look at

The next presenter of the morning was Cinnamon Catlin-Legutko, who spoke about working with small museums. Presently the executive director of the Abbe Museum in Bar Harbor, ME, she also has previous experience at several small museums in the Midwest and has been through the CAP process several times. Cinnamon gave an overview of how to approach the staff of a small museum. After defining a small museum and the type of environment frequently found, she discussed four main strategies for successful interaction – (1) put staff at ease, (2) understand board politics, (3) understand the museum’s resource base and (4) create achievable recommendations.

Mary Jo Davis spoke next about communications and reporting, going from the initial phone interview to the completed report. M.J. gave lots of really useful details to think about in planning a site visit and provided examples of an agenda for the two days of an on-site assessment. Presenting prioritized and achievable recommendations was also stressed in this presentation, as was keeping the language simple, the tone positive and making sure to be sensitive to efforts the museum has already made.

Wendy Jessup also addressed the process of doing a CAP survey, as well as reviewing the museum environment. She spoke about the survey process not only as an opportunity to put together a report outlining conservation priorities, but also as an occasion to educate the staff and other stakeholders of the museum. Additionally Wendy spoke about collaborating with the architectural assessor and how each of those assessment reports (or a combined report) can complement one another. She stressed thinking about potential capability of a building to perform as the primary protector of a collection and how to structure environmental control for the objects within that capability – taking into account the vulnerabilities of the collections. If possible, she suggested getting a sense of the environmental data before going – even if all that is available is the outside data (she recommended for ambient info). The presentation finished with the thought “Don’t let perfection get in the way of good,” which I think she got from someone else, but I didn’t write that part down fast enough. Apologies for not giving proper credit – I like the thought though, so I am still including it.

The last speaker for the morning part of the workshop was Michael Emrick, an architect with lots of experience in CAP building assessments. The building assessor is brought in to a CAP survey when the structure is historic and he discussed this process a bit. The two main areas he focuses on as a building assessor are the condition assessment and maintenance of the building, particularly since maintenance is often something museums aren’t necessarily thinking about.

The afternoon portion of the workshop was a hands-on session at a nearby small museum – The Fireman’s Hall Museum ( The museum houses a collection of objects encompassing the history of firefighting in Philadelphia and ranges from small scale objects to fire engines. Additionally there are a number of archival materials in the collections. It is housed in a 1902 firehouse with a 1977 addition at the back. Run by the Philadelphia Fire Department, has a small but devoted staff, most of whom are part-time or volunteer. Although a usual CAP assessment takes place over two days, we got to experience the super quick version over the afternoon.

The workshop attendees broke down into four groups and rotated between the four presenters, each of whom mainly focused on the aspect of the general assessment that they presented in the morning. During the morning all of the presenters highlighted the importance of emphasizing the good things the museum staff is doing and not just what they are doing wrong, and the advantage to that type of approach became very clear during the afternoon portion of the workshop. We had the opportunity to speak with many of the staff members and some of the volunteers at the Fireman’s Hall and their enthusiasm and passion for the museum and its collections were obvious. Although time was short, we had a good chance to see how a survey was conducted and the types of interactions and thought processes involved.

Many thanks to all for a very interesting day!

39th Annual Meeting- Archaeological Discussion Group Business Session, June 2

The Archaeological Discussion Group (ADG), a working group of the Objects Specialty Group, has maintained a presence at the AIC annual meetings since 1998. This year’s meeting had roughly 25 people in attendance and was co-chaired by Susanne Grieve and Claudia Chemello. It began with an official review and approval of the 2010 meeting minutes. Conversation quickly moved to the content of the new ADG page found on the AIC website. A small group volunteered and was selected to compile a concise ADG mission statement.

The atmosphere of the meeting was casual despite being fast-paced. A series of “outreach tools” were discussed including the ADG webpage. Vanessa Muros, who is organizing the webpage, announced that she is accepting submissions of photographs of archaeological conservation to use on the page. AIC (through the ADG) is participating in “booth swaps” with the Archaeological Institute of America for the organizations’ respective annual meetings. Future booth swaps with the SAA and SHA organizations are also being considered. The ADG group hopes to create brochures/handouts to use as part of the ADG’s booth content at AIA starting next January 2012. This year’s “Day of Archaeology” is July 29th, and participation is open to all who work, study, or volunteer in archaeology including specialists like conservators – so check it out and contribute if you can!

Social media was discussed briefly, and the general consensus was that sites such as Facebook or Twitter are preferred platforms for general information for the public, while the wikis should be reserved for professional content. The group encourages fellow archaeological conservators to create and/or edit Wikipedia and Preservapedia entries on “archaeological conservation”. There was talk of using the AIC wiki page to organize a list of currently practicing archaeological conservators that work in the field. This would provide a way for conservators to connect with each other, and the co-chairs agreed that they would move forward with organizing such a feature on the wiki. The group is also concerned with making it easier for archaeologists to connect with conservators. To this end, it was agreed that the “Find a Conservator”[6] tool on the AIC website could be improved to include a checkbox for archaeological conservation fieldwork. However, this tool is only available for AIC members with Professional Associate or Fellow status and will thus be restricted to a large percentage of archaeological conservators who work in the field who do not yet qualify for this status.

The ADG group is considering an additional format to future meetings at the AIC annual conferences that would facilitate more interaction among those in attendance. The general concept would be a forum for interested individuals to share a brief overview of current fieldwork or projects. It might be modeled on “lightening-round” discussions where each speaker has ~5 minutes to summarize their work. I think this would be a great idea if there were enough time. Another idea might be an activity similar to the “tips” sessions that other specialty groups conduct at their meetings.

39th Annual Meeting-ECPN Informational Meeting, May 31, 2011

The ECPN Informational Meeting had a wonderful turnout of more than 50 people.  Chair Rose Cull and AIC Staff Liaison Ryan Winfield indicated that there has been a good response across the AIC membership to what ECPN has accomplished so far, and recognition of its importance, vitality, and growth.



Chair Rose Cull announced that there would be three upcoming vacancies on the ECPN committee: the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Outreach Coordinator positions.  Position descriptions will be posted online and will appear in the AIC News.  The positions will be filled in September.  The minutes from the previous meeting on 5/19 were also approved.  Minutes are published on the ECPN blog following approval.



Communications Coordinator Amy Brost asked everyone to take a look at the informational sheet about ECPN in the conference bag.  The sheet provides the URL of the group’s blog ( and Flickr page (, as well as dial-in information for participating in the group’s monthly conference call (866-225-4944, conference ID 9992396916).  The call takes place on the 3rd Thursday of the month at 1 pm ET.  Everyone in the room was encouraged to take part in a future call.  The next call will be on June 16.


Amy advised that emerging conservators are being invited to help with the development of the Specialty Group Wikis.  There are also opportunities for emerging conservators to write book reviews for JAIC and other online publications as long as they have sufficient expertise on the topic.  This will be the topic of a future blog post on the ECPN blog.  Amy indicated that the group will work in the coming year to connect pre-program  and emerging conservators with regional conservation centers to enhance ECPN involvement in regional Angels Projects.  She encouraged everyone to see the ECPN poster in the Exhibit Hall and make a note of the contact information provided for the Chair and the committee Coordinators in order to follow up later with any questions, or to volunteer.



Outreach Coordinator Heather Brown encouraged attendees to visit the Facebook page, which has roughly 325 members, 100 of whom have joined since August.  She also encouraged everyone to post their photos to the group’s Flickr page.  They could be photos from the AIC meeting, but they could also be photos from other AIC or conservation-related events or workshops.  The group would like to have a lively dialogue on the Facebook page and expand the assets on Flickr, so everyone was invited to contribute.  Heather urged everyone to consider blogging about their conservation experiences.  Rose indicated that anyone interested in creating content for the blog could reach out to her or Ryan to be set up as an author.


Heather is actively soliciting input from everyone about possible topics for webinars and podcasts.  Some initial ideas could include how to create a conservation portfolio, or how to set up a private practice.  She encouraged everyone to consider what they are hoping to learn through ECPN.


Education & Training Co-Coordinators Amber Kerr-Allison and Caroline Roberts shared an overview of the proposal to develop an online student research repository.  This repository is on the agenda for discussion with the graduate program leadership during this week’s annual meeting.  Some of the issues that will be discussed include: types of documents to be included (although the goal is to provide abstracts as well as full text), the submission and vetting process, hosting, and copyright issues.


Another exciting program that was established a few years ago but is now hitting its stride is the Mentoring Program.  Ryan Winfield indicated that the mentor-mentee matches made so far have generally been successful, but that there is a shortage of mentors.  Roughly 20 more mentors are needed to match to the current mentee applicants.  The AIC meeting presents a good opportunity to ask someone you admire to consider serving as a mentor.  Mentors need to have Professional Associate or Fellow status in AIC.  Ryan encouraged anyone who had applied to be a mentee but had not heard back to please be patient until more mentors could be identified.  They can also get in touch with Ryan or Rose to discuss further.


In the coming year, the group is hoping to identify one or more Graduate Student Liaisons to each of the American training programs.  This will give AIC and ECPN a “point person” for reaching current students about opportunities.  As ECPN becomes more visible and productive, more of the AIC membership thinks of reaching out to the group, and having designated liaisons will help streamline communication.  This designated liaison model may be effective for connecting ECPN to the regional conservation centers as well.


Lastly, everyone was especially encouraged to participate in the Portfolio Session on Thursday, June 2 during the morning and afternoon breaks.  This is a rare chance to see portfolios from all stages – pre-program, graduate, and emerging professional.  This event is new for 2011.



There were many questions about the online student research repository, but because the idea is still in the proposal phase, many details of how it will work are not yet known.  The outcome of the discussion with the graduate program leadership may be discussed in ECPN’s June 16 call, in which everyone was invited to participate.  Others were curious about the group’s connections to emerging professionals in related fields, and indeed, strengthening those connections is a goal for the coming year.  Some inquired about the international reach of ECPN.  The group has a liaison to the ECC-CAC, Stephanie Porto, but aside from Canada, ECPN does not have a liaison to any other country.  Some asked about qualifications for involvement in ECPN.  The committee coordinators range from pre-program to graduate students to emerging professionals, so anyone is welcome.



Amber and Amy encouraged everyone in the room to find some way to be involved, whether by taking on a position on the committee, or by helping with one specific project.  The group welcomes new ideas and is made better by ongoing input from everyone in the room.  The more people who get involved, the better ECPN can be.   Rose collected everyone’s email address and will send a follow-up survey to see how everyone felt about the ECPN sessions and events at this year’s meeting.  Everyone was invited to ECPN’s Happy Hour on Friday from 6-10 at McGillin’s Olde Ale House.

39th Annual Meeting-Wooden Artifacts Group, June 2, 2011. Beautiful Brass: A Fresh Look at Historic Furniture Hardware, Joan Parcher

Backplates, ca. 1750-1780, image courtesy Joan Parcher

I was pretty excited when I saw this presentation listed in the program. Not only were we going to learn about an area of furniture that doesn’t have a whole lot of coverage in the literature, but the person presenting the material was a craftsperson and collector who potentially could offer a slightly different viewpoint on the subject. Joan Parcher is a jeweler and metalsmith whose work is in the collections of a number of museums including the Victoria and Albert and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Additionally, she’s made replacement hardware and repaired furniture brasses for 25 years.

Joan didn’t begin collecting furniture hardware until 2004 when, at a local junk store, she overheard two people, looking at a period Chippendale brass, considering turning it into a Christmas ornament. Since then she’s amassed a study collection of about 10,000 pieces of furniture hardware, ranging from iron nuts to gilt cast brass.

Drawing on Don Fennimore’s scholarship, information gleaned from patents, 18th and 19th century brass founders trade catalogs, and her own observations of tool and makers marks on  knobs, back plates, bails, casters, posts and nuts from her own collection, Joan treated us first to a conventional presentation focused on the connoisseurship of old and reproduction brass hardware. She shared her observations about ways to distinguish Federal-era plates from reproductions (reproductions probably won’t have wrinkles from rolling on the backs and thick square iron nuts are found with earlier brass hardware) and where one might find makers marks on various kinds of hardware. She highlighted some marked pieces in her collection, made  by late eighteenth-early nineteenth-century Birmingham, England makers Thomas Hands and William Jenkins. She also offered suggestions about the kind of tools to use to make new plates look old, bringing examples from her own collection.

Knobs, late Federal period, image courtesy Joan Parcher


Following her slide talk, Joan allowed us to look at her tools and examples of old and reproduction hardware from her own collection that she had brought with her and laid out on a table. After a day and a half of looking at slides, what a pleasure it was to actually look at stuff. She’s keen to continue this conversation and invited the audience to email (joanparcher[at]cox[dot]net) her images of interesting brasses. Ultimately she’d like to present this collection of hardware photos on a website. What an amazing resource that’ll be.


39th Annual Meeting- Objects Morning Session, June 2, “A Definite Responsibility to Shoulder: The Preservation of Historical Objects at the Bahá’í World Centre,” by Victor Sobhani and Sonjel Vreeland.

Victor Sobhani presented a talk about the conservation work undertaken at the Bahá’í World Centre, located in Haifa, Israel. The Centre is a special and important pilgrimage site for members of the Bahá’í Faith as it contains the shrines of its two founders, Bahá’u’lláh and the Báb, as well as other related buildings and monuments. It is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Mr. Sobhani went into further details about the founders of the Bahá’í Faith and the type of collections at the Centre. Collections are kept on view or stored in the various buildings and includes decorative or fine arts, home furnishings, sacred texts, ceremonial objects, and relics. Mr. Sobhani noted that preservation of the collections was considered vital early on as Bahá’u’lláh wrote about caring for the Bahá’í texts and cultural materials in the nineteenth century.   

As an example of minimal intervention, Mr. Sobhani discussed a treatment performed on a pocket knife owned and used by the Báb. The knife was used to trim quills for writing and exhibited minor corrosion on the metal blades. As an additional note of interest, Mr. Sobhani indicated the knife was made in England by Rogers and Sons and pointed out the indirect contact between Western and Muslim society. In the end, the blades received minor cleaning as the object, while appearing mundane, is considered a sacred relic and the goal was to cause as little change as possible. Another treatment he discussed was an eighth century ceramic vessel from Peru. The vessel had a polychrome, painted bird design and a section of the handle was missing. In this treatment, the missing element of the handle was reconstructed. I have to admit I did not hear quite clearly how this type of object entered the collection at the Centre; perhaps it was brought by a pilgrim visiting the shrines or a gift from a visitor? Mr. Sobhani then talked about a stone (travertine) obelisk that was brought to Haifa from Italy in the 1950’s. The obelisk is thirty feet tall and has a glass mosaic component. The mosaic had become damaged and resulted in some of the glass tesserae missing. For this treatment, Mr. Sobhani and his colleagues decided to paint the voids where the tesserae were missing. He noted that the painting was difficult as the work had to be performed on scaffolding and the light changed throughout the day. The three diverse treatments illustrated the range of materials and diverse problems the conservators encounter at the Centre.

Mr. Sobhani discussed his work at the Centre with great reverence and dignity, which was quite fitting for the sacred nature of the place he works, and concluded the presentation with a remark about the immense gravity surrounding any conservation work performed on objects used or associated with the founders and their families. He likened this to the sandals worn by Jesus or the walking stick used by Moses so that audience members could grasp the great weight, as the title of the talk affirms, placed on the conservators to maintain the collections according to the Bahá’í Faith (in original condition as much as possible).

39th Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, June 3rd “Cut and Tape: Marguerite Yourcenar’s Emendation to a Typescript of L’Oeuvre Au Noir”

Theresa Smith of Weissman Preservation Center, Harvard University presented her treatment of the heavily edited typescript manuscript of Marguerite Yourcenar’s L’Oeuvre Au Noir. The manuscript, begun in 1956, had been bound into 2 volumes after its completion in 1968. The author’s editing techniques presented unique challenges as she made changes to her manuscript by taping new strips of paper over old sentences. Nor did she stop at just one layer. Throughout the course of conserving the manuscript, Theresa found pages with no less than 17 layers of changes, all stuck together with pressure sensitive tape. To make matters even more complicated, Yourcenar would often edit over the typewritten emendations with handwritten notes, making the tape on which these notes were written a part of the manuscript. Long term stability concerns aside, the tape with these notes could not be removed from the manuscript.

When all was calculated and done, the manuscript was estimated to have 6,725 inches of pressure sensitive tape (most of it failing) and at least eight different paper stocks. Tape on the coated paper stocks remained strong and in place, and in the past, researchers with more curiosity than sense had pried up and damaged the strips in an attempt to see underneath them.  On the other hand, the tape adhesives had mostly failed on the uncoated papers, leaving the strips of edited text floating free.  The manuscript was in an extremely compromised condition and  access not been granted to researchers for years. Obviously something needed to be done, but the project was a complicated one that spanned two conservators.  Theresa, who collaborated closely with the collection’s curator when making treatment decisions, worked through the manuscript one page at a time to carefully reconstruct the complex and layered structure of the emendations.

Briefly, here are the primary points of the treatment as completed by Theresa.

  • Emendations that obscured text were removed mechanically and hinged in at the spine.   Theresa found wheat starch paste to be an effective adhesive when applied quickly and firmly, even on the erasable bond papers.
  • Loose emendations were hinged into place.  If these emendations were on tape carriers, the carriers themselves were hinged into place.
  • Staining was not treated, as it often helped reconstruct placement of the loose strips, and could be of use to future researchers.
  • Tape that still held strongly to the page was not removed even though there was concern that the adhesive of this tape might creep out in future years, causing more problems.  Time constraints meant that the tape would stay put, at least for now.
  • Adhesive residue left behind by any necessary tape removal (only on obscured text) was mechanically removed and coated with cellulose powder to reduce tackiness.
  • Handling notes were included in the volume, in the enclosure, and in the card file for library staff.

Theresa’s presentation was yet another reminder that there is no “one size fits all” solution in the conservation profession; flexibility and a good sense of humor are key!